Transcript: Worldnet on Biotechnology Products

Larson discussed biotechnology with counterparts in Bangkok, Seoul and Tokyo during an August 17 appearance on the U.S. Information Agency's Worldnet "Dialogue" program.

Biotechnology, he asserted, has "the potential to bring benefits to farmers and to consumers all around the world."

The United States, Larson said, believes it is important to "build capacity for countries around the world, developing countries included, to make effective use of this technology."

"We are exploring what can be done through different parts of the United Nations system to accomplish that," Larson added.

Larson said the United States wants to "cooperate with other countries on international approaches that provide sound information and protection for food safety and the environment.

The United States, he said, puts great emphasis on "a science-based and a rules-based approach." That way, Larson said, the United States and its trading partners can make sure that biotechnology "realizes its potential to help all the world's people," in a way that is safe and "commands the confidence of our people."

Scientific work in America and elsewhere, Larson noted, "suggests that biotechnological food products are just as safe as other products."

Larson made a distinction between safety issues and labeling of food produced through modern biotechnology.

If a food product was not safe, no matter how it was produced, it should be dealt with as an unsafe product, he said. In the United States, Larson noted, consumers have great confidence in the safety of food that is brought to market. One reason for that confidence, he said, is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency follow a "very strong science-based approach" in evaluating foods destined for markets.

The United States does not see a case for "mandatory government labeling" of biotechnological products, Larson said.

The United States, he said, has no objection "if a producer wishes to advertise a product and in labeling it or advertising it draws attention to characteristics that the producer thinks are important."

In America, Larson noted, some people prefer foods "that are not produced through modern biotechnology." For these people, who would prefer to buy organic food, a voluntary approach in labeling is one that works.

"We are not convinced that it makes sense to engage in labeling when a product has no nutritional difference from other products or when it doesn't contain any types of allergens that might cause people to have an allergic reaction," Larson said.

"Food security is something that is enhanced by cooperation, not by going it alone," he said. "We are more secure in our food supply because of our cooperation in our international trade than we would be if we each tried to go it alone."

Regarding the issue of what guidelines and rules, if any, there should be for products of biotechnology that are intended for human consumption, Larson said the United States thought it very important that all parties work towards "a harmonized international approach on these issues."

The world agricultural trading system, Larson said, "will function a lot better if the approach that ultimately is adopted in Europe is harmonious with the approaches that are adopted throughout the Asia-Pacific region and in North America."

It may take some time to get that level of cooperation, Larson said, but that would be better than "to have precipitous action in any country that would involve regulation in a way that really isn't grounded in the scientific fact."

It's time, he said, "to take it a little bit slow, to be calm, to assess the science and to see if we can't come together on an approach that we are comfortable with."

Larson recommended consumer education as a starting point.

Following is a transcript of the program:

(begin transcript)

WORLDNET "DIALOGUE"

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY

Television and Film Service of Washington, D.C.

GUEST: Ambassador Alan Larson, Undersecretary-designate of

State for Economic and Business Affairs

TOPIC: Biotechnology Products Issues

POSTS: Tokyo, Seoul, Bangkok

HOST: Rick Foucheux

DATE: August 17, 1999

MR. FOUCHEUX: Hello, and welcome to Worldnet's "Dialogue," I'm Rick Foucheux.

Here at the end of the 20th century we are all aware that modern science has helped to shape a better world. Medical breakthroughs, technological advances and enhanced agricultural systems have meant not only healthier living and longer lives, but a way to ease the basic food and survival needs that just a few years back were thought of as nearly insurmountable.

But like so much in our technological age, advances present questions. One important area receiving scrutiny is biotechnology, creating products to bring maximum benefit to consumers, and fraught with concerns of safety and regulation.

The topic gets its due at upcoming biosafety protocol negotiations and a variety of other international fora, and today we will examine some of the issues and get answers with experts and journalists in Korea, Japan and Thailand.

Our guest is Ambassador Larson, undersecretary-designate of State for economic and business affairs, coming to us live from the U.S. State Department. Ambassador, welcome to the program.

AMB. LARSON: Thank you very much, it's good to be with you.

MR. FOUCHEUX: Ambassador, before we begin with questions from our guests overseas I wonder if you'd share some of your thoughts about this new golden age of science we are living in and how it meshes with the world marketplace.

AMB. LARSON: I'd be glad to. First of all, I do welcome very much the opportunity to be able to have a conversation with friends in Seoul, Tokyo and Bangkok through modern telecommunications technology. Today we are going to be talking about a different type of technology advance, the important and potentially very beneficial advances in the field of biotechnology.

Modern biotechnology is a relatively new phenomenon. Nevertheless, farmers for centuries have been creating new plant species by hybridization and cross-breeding. I happen to come from the farm belt of my own country, and there are many farmers in my own family. And I can assure all of our audience that there is nothing more important to American farmers than assuring the quality and the safety of the products that they produce -- both for their customers abroad as well as their customers here in the United States.

I am also a consumer, and I can assure you as well that there is nothing more important to American consumers than demanding the highest standards of food safety. We feel very good in the United States that we have been able to establish a regulatory approach towards food safety that is strong, that is science-based, and has won the credibility and the respect of our people.

We have benefited a great deal, as I think other countries have, from multilateral work on biotechnology in organizations like the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization. Within the World Health Organization there is a very important group called Codex Alimantarius. It plays a key role in this area. We welcome the strong role that Japan, Korea and Thailand play in these organizations, because they provide an absolutely essential service in establishing an objective and technical basis for decisions regarding food safety and regulation. The work of these organizations, as well as our work in the United States, has shown that biotech products, biotech food products on the market are just as safe as their conventional counterparts.

I think it is important for all of us to understand the potential that biotechnology has to supply the food the world needs at reasonable prices using fewer natural resources, such as land and water, and adding lass pesticides and herbicides to the environment. Biotechnology can make crops resistant to drought and to pests, and it can even add new health and nutritional benefits to our food supply. It has the promise of tailoring agriculture to make it more productive in a wide variety of climate zones, thereby improving food supply in developing countries and enhancing food security worldwide.

We want to cooperate with other countries on international approaches that provide sound information and protection for food safety and the environment. We want to work with others to address food safety issues. We put great emphasis on a science-based and a rules-based approach. We think if we follow this path we can assure that biotechnology realizes its potential to help all the world's people, and does so in a way that not only is safe but commands the confidence of our people.

I look forward to the discussion that we are going to have today, and will try my best to answer any of the questions that you may have.

MR. FOUCHEUX: All right, Ambassador Alan Larson, again we appreciate you joining us for this discussion.

We begin questions now with our guests who are gathered together in Seoul. Hello, welcome to the program. Please go ahead in Seoul.

Q: (Inaudible.) I am working for -- (inaudible) -- newspaper. The Washington Post said yesterday some Americans were calling for labeling for the genetically-modified foods. Many Korean consumers are also highly interested in such a process of labeling. In terms of government regulation, what kinds of actions can we expect sooner or later?

AMB. LARSON: Our approach to the issue of labeling is, first of all, if a product is not considered safe, then it is not a question of labeling for us, it is a question of keeping it off the market. All the scientific work that we have done and others have done suggests that biotechnological food products are just as safe as other products. So the issue of labeling for us is largely a question of voluntary versus mandatory labeling. We have no objection if a producer wishes to advertise a product and in labeling it or advertising it draws attention to characteristics that the producer thinks are important. For example we -- the Department of Agriculture here in the United States is working on an approach towards organic foods which would be -- which would include foods that are not produced through modern biotechnology. This is something that doesn't appeal to a large fraction of the U.S. population, but there are some people in the United States who would prefer to buy organic food. So this is an approach -- this voluntary approach is an approach that we think works.

We are not convinced that it makes sense to engage in labeling when a product has no nutritional difference from other products or when it doesn't contain any types of allergens that might cause people to have an allergic reaction. That's why we don't particularly see a case for mandatory government labeling of biotechnological products.

MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you in Seoul. Now let's go to Tokyo. Welcome, Tokyo, and please go ahead with your first question or comment for Ambassador Larson.

Q: Thank you very much for having me. My name is -- (inaudible) -- News. You mentioned about the U.S. government basic approach on labeling. First I'd like to ask you about the Japanese government's recent decision to require mandatory labeling for food products containing genetically modified organisms. Was it your reaction to the Japanese government decision?

AMB. LARSON: My understanding is that what the Japanese government has done is indicated an intention or possible intention to take some action in the next two years, by 2001. So I believe that it will be very valuable for our experts and the Japanese experts to continue to work together, both bilaterally as well as in the international organizations, to which I referred a few moments ago.

Again, our approach would be that if a product is not nutritionally different, and if it doesn't have any characteristics that is likely to cause an allergic reaction, then there isn't really a case for mandatory labeling.

One of the things that I think we all have to recognize as consumers, as well as officials, is it is important that the information that is provided to consumers is not misleading. And if information that is provided does not really have a bearing on the quality of the product, how it interacts with the human body when it is ingested, then there is a question whether that is the type of information that the government should require on a mandatory basis. But these are issues for discussion, and we will be quite open to have discussions with our colleagues in Japan as well as in other countries. And I think that's a large part of the reason why this work in international organizations is so important.

MR. FOUCHEUX: All right, thank you Tokyo. Now let's welcome Bangkok to the program. Please go ahead in Bangkok.

Q: Good morning, Ambassador Larson. My name is -- (inaudible) -- from the National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology.

I have the first question dealing with capacity building. We have affirmed that people deal with GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) issues, using information not knowledge. We realize also that means -- (inaudible) -- gap in this knowledge between developed and developing countries. But there is a big gap between these two groups of countries on these issues. My first question is that how would the U.S. recommend to narrow this gap. Thank you.

AMB. LARSON: Well, first of all, I think you draw attention to a very important issue, and that is that biotechnology does have the potential to bring benefits to farmers and to consumers all around the world. And, secondly, that this is a technology that by and large has been developed as a result of privately funded research. It is a very new technology, and many of the applications that have been developed so far have been focused on the agricultural needs of temperate zone economies like the United States -- focused on products like corn and soybeans.

We think it is very important to build capacity for countries around the world, developing countries included, to make effective use of this technology. We are exploring what can be done through different parts of the United Nations system to accomplish that. We will be meeting later today in Washington with a group of business organizations to see what contribution the private sector thinks that it can make to capacity building.

The key in my opinion is that the potential of this new technology be available for people throughout the world, and that scientific organizations like your own be well equipped to address the types of biotechnological challenges that might be very important in a place like Thailand. How Thailand could learn to grow stronger, higher-yielding varieties of rice for example that would be more drought resistant would be a very important thing -- not only to the incomes and financial security of Thai farmers, but to the people of Thailand who rely on that rice crop, and also to your customers throughout the region.

MR. FOUCHEUX: And we thank you in Bangkok. Now we return to Tokyo for another round of questions for Ambassador Alan Larson. Please go ahead once again in Tokyo.

Q: (Inaudible) -- with Kyodo News. Ambassador Larson, you showed a willingness to have bilateral and multilateral talks -- bilateral talks with Japan and multilateral talks with many other countries. But bilateral talks, do you plan to say that the Japanese mandatory level means a trade barrier? And if you think so, do you have a plan to have any complaints with the World Trade Organization? Thank you.

AMB. LARSON: I think you are getting ahead of where we and you are at this stage. First of all, again as I understand it, Japan isn't planning on introducing these new labeling requirements until 2001, if they introduce them at all.

I think, while the trade issue is very important, and obviously agricultural trade is a very important subject for the United States -- we are the world's largest agricultural exporter -- but my focus is not on the trade dimension of this problem in the first instance. My focus is on building a better shared understanding of how we can all benefit from biotechnology.

The G-8 countries at their at their meeting in Cologne agreed to set up a process in the OECD, which already has a strong track record in dealing with biotechnology issues, and Japan has been a part of that -- Korea as an OECD member is now able to take part in that. This work is designed to be conducted on a scientific and non-political basis, and it is going to help, I believe, come forward with some recommendations for our political leaders about how best to assess and take advantage of the benefits of biotechnology and how to have the type of credible regulatory regime that will ensure safety and give us equal confidence. I hope that there will be findings out of that work that will be of assistance to the Japanese authorities as they consider these labeling proposals, and will be of assistance to the United States and other participants.

In the meantime, there is a very active program of work underway in Codex Alimantarius, and all of the participants in today's dialogue -- that is to say the government of Thailand, the government of Korea and the government of Japan -- are active participants in that work as well.

Moreover, we have suggested that there are opportunities within APEC to discuss -- again on a scientific and a very professional basis -- some of the important issues that are involved in regulating our technology. And so we look forward to cooperative work in that regional forum as well.

Q: You mentioned about kinds of international guidelines. Do you think that that kind of international guideline can be established now later as you have kind of a confrontation with the European Union? How do you think about that?

AMB. LARSON: Well, I hope the European Union -- I hope we can make some progress that would help resolve some of the differences we have with the European Union. I happen to think that one of the most serious problems in the European Union right now is the lack of a credible regulatory system with Europe-wide applicability. I think one reason why consumers in the United States have such great confidence is that our Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency have a proven track record. They have a very strong science-based approach. It is one that is understood. It is transparent, it is credible. And so the American people do have confidence when the FDA and others allow a food product to be marketed in the United States.

In Europe, regrettably, that's not the case, and there have been some very serious problems that have arisen, because their regulatory process is too susceptible to political influence. And sometimes that has meant that products that shouldn't have been on the market have been on the market. So what I think we're seeing now in Europe is an overreaction that has been caused in part by their own -- by the lack of a credible and effective food regulatory system there.

I hope that the work that we have launched internationally will help the European Union develop a better more effective and more credible regulatory system for food, and that in doing that we will be able to resolve some of the differences we have about biotechnology.

Q: Thank you. You mentioned about the European lack of this system. But in Japan I think many consumers are concerned that the GMOs might be harmful to their health. So how do you address -- how do address the Japanese consumers concerns over the GMOs?

AMB. LARSON: I think consumer education is the starting point. I think that there has been unfortunately a great deal of sensationalism about biotechnology. We have all seen and read about some of the things that have gone on in Europe where groups have tried to demonize this technology. And I think that a person who simply casually read newspapers could you know be -- it could be quite understandable that that person might have some questions about what this new technology is and what the implications are. So I think the starting point is to help those consumers who have questions about this technology gain a deeper understanding by making sure that they know where to go to get information.

We have for example here in the United States Web sites on the Internet that provide quite detailed information about the way that the Food and Drug Administration for example assesses risks and regulates food products, including food products that arise from biotechnology. And I -- one of the things I would encourage you as a journalist in Japan more generally is to find ways to make this information about biotechnology more widely available to consumers who are interested. And I think that the consumer who takes the time to look into it will come to the same conclusions that we have.

Q: Thank you. I want to go back to the bilateral talks with Japan. Do you have any plan to ask the Japanese government to modify their current plan for mandatory labeling?

AMB. LARSON: Well, you are putting a great deal of focus on this plan which again, as I understand it, is something that is still under review and would go into effect no sooner than 2001. So you know I think given the very close cooperation that we have on a whole range of issues, we can expect that our experts will have many opportunities for discussions about this, both bilaterally and on the margins of other international conferences that they each attend.

My focus today is not to tell the government of Japan what I think it should do with respect to the regulation of these products. My intention today is to try to help foster and intelligent and rational discussion about this technology so that we all can make informed decisions. I happen to think that if there is a rational, intelligent and professional discussion about biotechnology that we -- that it is unlikely that very rigid mandatory labeling schemes will in fact be introduced. But I have enough confidence in the value of rational scientific discussion that all I am asking for is a rational scientific discussion, and I'll let the results flow out of that.

Q: Thank you. Again, you may say that the introduction is far away, but on the current plan how much damage do you think the Japanese regulation will cause for U.S. exports with regard to your products to Japan?

AMB. LARSON: Well, I think there is a lot of question about how feasible it is to engage in a widespread segregation of both commodities like corn and soybeans. We know for example that for very small amounts of products -- I mentioned earlier our own program for organic foods, and I think there are other very precise consumer requirements for very specialized products that can be met through segregation of products. But to accomplish segregation of bulk commodities like corn and soybeans on a massive scale would be very, very difficult to accomplish. You would need to physically ship them in different barges through different rail cars on different ships. You'd have to have very effective systems for testing the product at each step, and you'd have to have a whole new legal regime for determining legal liability and responsibility. So it's a very, very major and probably a very, very costly undertaking.

Now, look, if five years from now it is clear that whether based on sound scientific principles or not, that there is a large group of people in Japan, or in Europe, or in the United States, or in Latin America, that want to have products that have not been produced with modern biotechnology, I happen to think the market will find a way to meet that demand. Markets are very good at responding to consumer demand.

But I think that this would be preferable if this really were led by consumer preference, educated with a very sound, scientific basis of information. And I think that it would -- I actually think it would be a mistake to rush into mandatory labeling, particularly on the basis of no sound scientific reasons for believing that labeling is necessary, and without really understanding the costs that it may have not only for the agricultural producers, but also for this technology that we all appreciate and has great benefits for consumers all around the world, and a technology that we really don't want to strangle in the crib.

MR. FOUCHEUX: All right, thank you very much in Tokyo for those questions. And now once more to Seoul for more questions. Please go ahead once again in Seoul.

Q: My name is -- (inaudible) -- editor with the -- (inaudible) -- newspaper.

More and more GMO products are being created, generating a heated debate on the ethics -- (inaudible) -- of these products. Considering on the impact of GMO products on the environment and the human body, how is the U.S. policy towards GMOs?

AMB. LARSON: Our basic policy, which is grounded in our appreciation of biotechnology and the very intensive scientific work that has been done in the United States as well as in these international organizations, is that we don't think that food products created through modern biotechnology pose a particular danger for humans, unless they have been changed in a way that changes materially their nutritional characteristics, or if they have been changed in a way that results in the introduction of an allergen -- that is to say something that could give people an allergic reaction. So if those two, either of those two are correct, then we require a very rigorous and additional regulatory review. But in the case of GMOs that don't involve different nutritional characteristics, they don't involve the introduction of allergens, then we regard them as just as safe as conventional food, and we produce them and we consume them.

Q: Good morning, Mr. Larson. My name is -- (inaudible) -- News Agency. The Korean government recently enacted the law for the quality management of agricultural produce effective July 1st, 1999, is considering the selection of product categories, and the public support lobbying for products using genetically engineered crops as ingredients. Japan also decided to introduce -- (inaudible) -- of genetically modified product from the 21st. What is the U.S. position with regard to this?

AMB. LARSON: Well, again our attitude is that -- our attitude first of all is that we want to foster an international discussion on a scientific and professional basis about the right approach to the regulation of this technology. And so we look forward to cooperation with Korean, Japanese and Thai officials in that work, whether it be in Codex Alimantarius, the various U.N. food bodies within APEC or in the OECD.

Second, we have an approach in the United States towards the regulation of these commodities that we think has stood the test of time. And we certainly are interested in sharing our experience and our approach with others that are so interested.

Third, we do think, as I said in response to some of the questions coming out of Tokyo, that there is a very strong need for greater consumer education on this subject so that the decision that consumers make, as well as the decisions that governments make, are made on the basis of a sound scientific understanding of this technology.

Q: Since the safety problem has been brought up recently, there is a growing voice that argues international trade of genetically modified crops must be suspended or at least limited to some extent. Which position might be taken from the U.S. government side?

AMB. LARSON: First of all, we have seen absolutely no scientific evidence that raises the types of concerns to which you alluded about safety. I mean, if we thought that there was a safety problem, we would be the first to be calling for some sort of very drastic action to look into this. We are, I believe, in the United States, among the most safety-conscious people in the world. But we also are the world's largest consumers of food that has been produced through biotechnology. We simply haven't seen a shred of scientific evidence that suggests that the products that have been approved for sale on the market pose any risk to human health that is in any way different or more severe than the foods -- other foods that you and I eat everyday.

So we simply haven't seen the risk. I don't think that anyone in the Korean government or the Japanese government can point to a scientifically-based reason for believing that the products on the market today pose a risk to human health.

Q: I am -- (inaudible). Environmental groups and other NGOs are raising their voice against the GMO products. I believe there are two main reasons for their position. First, the GMOs may disturb our environment. And, secondly, GMOs may create negative side effects on the human body. There have already been several research studies -- (inaudible) -- NGO concerns. How can you persuade the NGOs?

AMB. LARSON: Well, first of all I guess I disagree with your premise. I don't think that there have been any convincing studies that have raised health concerns about GMOs that have been approved for sale on the market.

The environmental issue is an important one, but there too I haven't seen any convincing scientific evidence that GMOs or the products of biotechnology pose any unique or more severe threat to the environment than their conventional counterparts. In fact, in many cases biotechnology is helpful to the environment. Many of the products of biotechnology require less herbicide and less pesticides, so you are putting less of that type of material into the environment. Secondly, by making agriculture more productive biotechnology allows us to take marginal, fragile land that is acceptable to erosion out of production so that it can provide a habitat for wildlife. So in many respects I think biotechnology is environmentally friendly. And I certainly haven't seen any evidence that it is dangerous to the environment.

Nevertheless, we do have biosafety talks underway under the biodiversity convention that are addressing the question of what rules should govern the deliberate introduction of the products of biotechnology into the environment, and we are looking forward to participating in the next round of those talks in September.

Q: Recently a study by Professor John Luette (ph) of (Cologne ?) University revealed that half of monarch butterfly caterpillars rate on the milkweed sprayed with Bt corn died. And less showed stunted growth. Professor Luette (ph) says deadlines corresponded to the insect mortality of a very strong insecticide. That signifies that the use of such product would cause tremendous ecological impact on the second- or third-generation organism. What is your position on that study?

AMB. LARSON: Well, I don't think that it does show that there is likely to be an impact for a second or third generation. I mean, first of all this was a lab experiment that was done under conditions that would never occur in the natural environment. Basically what was done, as I understand it, was that very large quantities of the pollen of this Bt corn was sprinkled on milkweed, and thereby achieved concentrations that would not be achieved in the natural environment. And, as you pointed out, the larva of the monarch butterflies that ate that milkweed then got sick, and a lot of them died.

One could ask what would have happened if instead of sprinkling the Bt pollen you had sprinkled on the milkweed the insecticides that otherwise would have been used, because you know insecticide is something that is really replaced by the Bt corn.

I think that it is really quite unfortunate that this very preliminary lab experiment that doesn't really speak at all to the types of circumstances that might occur in the natural environment got so much publicity, and frankly was sensationalized by journalists here in the United States, as well as in other countries in the world, and has led to some concern that probably aren't founded, or at least they are not founded based on the scientific evidence that has been produced to date. Obviously this study needs to be followed up on, and it is being followed up on. But I think the important thing to understand is that then is an experiment that was an extremely artificial experiment, and I don't think any reputable scientist would tell you that it in any way replicates what could or would be likely to happen in the natural environment.

Q: Even though the genetically modified food is not dangerous, as much as we are worried right now, we cannot rule out the possibility this danger would come out in the long term. How do you pay for those who require legal compensation when it turns out genetically modified foods would endanger public health?

AMB. LARSON: Well, again, I think we all understand that nothing in life is totally risk-free. You can risk getting hit by a car and killed if you cross the street in Tokyo, or in Seoul or in Bangkok. You can get struck by lightning if you are out in a storm. Life is full of risks. And the responsibility of regulators is not to totally eliminate all risks from life -- because that's not possible -- but it is to make sure that those risks are kept low and that wherever possible they are totally minimized.

Now, in the case of Bt products, by the products of biotechnology, we are firmly convinced, based on our understanding of the science, based on the work that has ben done in international organizations, and based on a track record of use here, that these simply don't pose any kind of unique or different health hazards than the normal food that you and I eat everyday. And I think that the question that you pose is a question that could be posed about virtually anything, because anything that you run across in your life -- I might tell you I am worried, even though there is no scientific evidence to suggest this, that the type of rubber that you have in your car somehow gives off fumes that might make me sick, and I won't know that for sure for another hundred years until there have been longitudinal studies. You know, this is the sort of debate we can have, but I don't anticipate that anyone is going to want to change their behavior based on my unscientifically-based fears.

I think the same type of approach has to be applied here to the case of biotechnology. If there is any scientific evidence of a danger, or if there is even any scientific theory that suggests why there should be a danger, then it should be looked into. But we haven't seen that evidence, and I haven't heard anyone come forward with a convincing case that this ought to be handled in a different way.

MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you in Seoul for those questions. And now on to Bangkok once again. Please go ahead once again in Bangkok.

Q: Good morning, sir. My name is -- (inaudible). My question is also -- (inaudible). Thailand is now on the process of fighting our standpoint on the issue of GMOs. If we launch a -- (inaudible) -- policy for all GMOs -- (inaudible) -- what will be the effect of trade between the United States and Thailand?

AMB. LARSON: Could I ask you to repeat that question? I didn't quite catch it completely.

Q: Thailand is now on the process of fighting our standpoint on the issue of GMOs. If we launch -- (inaudible) -- policy for our GMOs -- (inaudible) -- what will be affected to the trade between the United States and Thailand?

AMB. LARSON: Well, I think that depends a great deal on the details of what is done. One of the things that I think is important for Thailand as a large agricultural producer and exporter is ensuring that there is in place a science-based and a rules-based system for governing agricultural trade. I think the United States and Thailand share that interest, because we both are big agricultural producers, and we are also large agricultural exporters.

Our fundamental point is that we think that the rules that govern trade in agricultural products should be science-based and rules-based. They should be open and fair and transparent. And that's why we put so much emphasis on the development of a common approach, and why we have put emphasis on the scientific and technical bodies, like Codex Alimantarius, the various U.N. bodies and the OECD -- because we think those are the bodies that have the greatest potential for developing a harmonized approach that is based on sound science, and that if applied to trade in international agriculture can be applied in a way that is fair both for consumers as well as for producers.

Q: I would like to follow up that previous question a little bit. Since Thailand is both an importing and also an exporting country, what concerns us is that the raw material imported into the country, such as corn, soybeans or something else may have an effect on our exporting product, especially to the countries that do not accept such products at the moment, such as Europe? So how would Thailand go about that in terms of handling this situation, such as should we separate the GM and non-GM product just to make clear to the consumers, and also to our clients who are going to buy our products?

AMB. LARSON: I think it's a good question, and if I understood you correctly there's really at least two dimensions to it. One is the question of products that are introduced into the natural environment. I understand for example that Thailand is testing various types of biotechnology products, and as I mentioned earlier there is an interest in the international community to work together on some guidelines or rules for the deliberate introduction into the natural environment of the products of biotechnology. This is the work that is going on in the biosafety negotiations under the biodiversity convention. That's one issue.

A second issue is, you know, what guidelines and rules, if any, there are going to be about products of biotechnology that are intended for human consumption. I have outlined the approach that we take towards that, and certainly one significant, even major element of our thinking is that it is important to works towards a harmonized international approach on these issues. I don't know that it needs to take the form of international regulation, but I do think that the world agricultural trading system will function a lot better if the approach that ultimately is adopted in Europe is harmonious with the approaches that are adopted throughout the Asia-Pacific region and in North America. I think it is going to take a little bit of time for this to sort itself out. That's one reason why I think it would be wrong to have precipitous action in any country that would involve regulation in a way that really isn't grounded in the scientific fact. I think it's time to take it a little bit slow, to be calm, to assess the science and to see if we can't come together on an approach that we are comfortable with.

Q: I have been involving in this international negotiation on biosafety, and have a feeling that there are many issues that could not be solved. I would like to ask what is the U.S. perception on this biosafety protocol, especially on the part of the scope of protection. We at first thought that this protocol may cover only the animals or living modified organisms, which is stated quite clearly in the protocol, without the coverage of the products thereof. But many countries are trying to cover also the products from the raw materials or animals. So what is the U.S. position on this? And is it possible to have the agreement from these international negotiations on the narrow coverage, that means only animals?

AMB. LARSON: We share your concern that these negotiations have gotten off track and that one of the ways in which they have gotten off track is to expand their scope or mandate beyond what is reasonable or appropriate for a negotiation that is designed to protect the environment. We would agree with you, for example, that commodities produced from products of biotechnology are not -- commodities should not be part of this negotiation, should not be regulated by it. We think that this convention is about deliberate introduction of living organisms into the environment. That poses some important issues, and we are quite happy to participate in those negotiations and see if we can reach some common solutions.

But we do think that by drifting into areas that seem closer to food safety rather than environmental protection, and by drifting into areas that involve the products produced from crops grown with the benefit of biotechnology, that the negotiations have exceeded their mandate. And if the negotiations were to get back within their mandate, we think it would be much easier to find the common ground that would be necessary to reach a successful conclusion.

Q Mr. Ambassador, there's one question coming up from the floor, from one newspaper, representative from a newspaper -- (inaudible) -- asking about the GSP. The question is that the effort of developed countries in trying to export GM products to developing countries -- would that affect the special privilege or so-called GSP in those developing countries?

AMB. LARSON: No, that's not part of our policy stance right now. We believe that the GSP is a very important element of our trade policy. We know that countries like Thailand have used it to great benefit. We are working hard with the Congress right now to get a renewal of the GSP legislation, so that it will continue to be available for exporting countries. It is a one-way free trade benefit. It is something that we extend without demanding reciprocity. And there are some conditions that are associated with the program. We'd like to see progress for example towards core labor standards, and we have some issues that we talk to governments about from time to time in that regard. But there is no particular link between the GSP program and the discussion that we have been having today about biotechnology.

MR. FOUCHEUX: Thank you very much in Bangkok. We are nearly at the end of our time together today, but we do have time for one more question. We will return to Seoul for that. And, Seoul, I'll ask you to be brief with your question, if you don't mind -- and, Ambassador Larson, a brief response too if you don't mind. Let's go back to Seoul.

Q: (Inaudible) -- GMO product growth in the U.S. The U.S. has -- (inaudible) -- guarantees in developing and marketing GMOs, controlling industrial -- (inaudible) -- developing countries rising concerns that they may become dependent on the new knowledge and their food security may be jeopardized because of the new technology.

AMB. LARSON: Well, I don't really see that as a risk. First of all, farmers will plant the types of seeds they think do the best for them. There is no way this biotechnology is going to narrow their options; I think it is going to broaden their options, so they have more choices on what they plant, and they can make those choices based on what is commercially viable for them.

More generally I think that food security is something that is enhanced by cooperation, not by going it alone. Just as Korea and the United States benefit mutually from our security cooperation, and we are each more secure because we cooperate with each other, the same is true in the area of food. We are more secure in our food supply because of our cooperation in our international trade than we would be if we each tried to go it alone.

MR. FOUCHEUX: And with that I am afraid today's dialogue has come to a close. My thanks to Ambassador Alan Larson, undersecretary-designate of State for economic and business affairs, for joining us in this important discussion. Thanks again, ambassador.

AMB. LARSON: Thank you.

MR. FOUCHEUX: And our appreciation as well to our participants in Korea, Japan and Thailand for making today's program possible. In Washington, I'm Rick Foucheux for Worldnet's "Dialogue." Thanks for watching, and good day.

(end transcript)

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.