17 September 1999

Text: Aaron Speech on Biotechnology September 17 in Brussels

Brussels, September 17 - The challenge for European leaders in dealing with the issue of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) is to "promote and forthrightly develop a comprehensive policy on biotechnology," U.S. Ambassador David Aaron, under secretary of commerce for international trade, said September 17 at the European Policy Center in Brussels.

Aaron said such a policy needs to take into account the benefits of biotechnology, including "the protection and advancement of human health, safe-guarding and enhancing the environment...[and] warding off world hunger."

Ten years of U.S. experience with biotech products, he said, have shown that biotech foods "present no food safety risks beyond those of their 'natural' counterparts." Yet these products and their potential benefits are not reaching Europe due to a combination of "negative factors" such as the lack of a functioning approval process in the European Union, unworkable labeling regulations, and too little effort to educate the public on the subject.

Aaron concluded that the issue of GMOs is being "taken up responsibly" in a number of important international forums and that he hopes the new European Commission "will turn a fresh eye to this problem."

Following is a text of his remarks:

(begin text)

Remarks of Ambassador David L. Aaron
under secretary of commerce for international trade
the European Policy Center
Brussels, Belgium
September 17, 1999

"Biotechnology Trade ... Peril or Promise?"

Good morning. I suppose it's appropriate that this is a breakfast meeting, since the subject is food. Specifically, the subject is food produced -- we in the U.S. would say enhanced through biotechnology. It is highly probable that despite current efforts to keep most genetically altered food out of Europe, most items on today's menu have been deliberately "enhanced" by mankind.

At the outset, let me note one thing about biotechnology -- you started it. From the time of Aristotle's scientific investigations and the Rome of the Plinys and Lucretius's "De Rerum Natura," Europeans have provided the basis for the recent biotechnology discoveries. The Swede Carolus Linnaeus was responsible for generations of American schoolchildren having to memorize phrases such as "King Philip Coldly Ordered Five Gentlemen Shot," to remember his classification system of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species. The Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel, took time out from his religious duties not only to formulate an excellent pea soup recipe, but also the laws of genetics. And the Englishman, Charles Darwin, gave us new ideas about where we came from, and how we got here.

Genetics, botany, evolution -- the great scientific laboratory that was Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries -- was largely responsible for the systematic study of biology. And that has logically led to this century's biotechnology, as our knowledge and capabilities have taken us closer and closer to the core of the mysteries of life. These European giants, and others, influenced American botanists such as Luther Burbank and George Washington Carver. Doing it the old-fashioned way -- breeding generation after generation -- the Californian Burbank, and Carver, an African-American from the Southern U.S. -- greatly advanced the variety and uses of plants available around the world, including Europe. Burbank, in particular, patiently cross-bred plants such as potatoes to come up with entirely new kinds. Like Mendel, he would have understood the biological term "sport" -- meaning a sudden genetic mutation producing an entirely new trait in an animal or plant. A sport can save a traditional botanist years of work. But in nature they are random -- unpredictable, and as likely to be harmful as good.

From this perspective, the modern biotech industry is simply a method of organizing and systematizing the process that produces such a quantum leap in genetic change. But instead of cross-breeding for desirable characteristics, scientists insert the gene directly into the plant instead of waiting for time and repetition to accomplish the change. This is safer for the environment than conventional breeding which mixes thousands of unknown genes with unpredictable results.

Admittedly, it is significant that in biotechnology some desirable characteristics can come from dissimilar species. But the more important point is that modifications are accomplished with precision, and safety testing is rigorous. This should take some of the anxiety out of biotechnology -- if the public is properly educated about it.

What features warrant modification? Increased nutritional content and higher crop yield. These have been the goals for farmers in Europe and around the globe for the tens of thousands of years that food has been cultivated. A new rice is being developed against vitamin A deficiency -- the leading cause of blindness in the developing world's children. The aims of biotech also include resistance to drought and insect pests in ways that reduce stress on the environment. All are important, particularly when we think of the amount of food that will be needed to sustain a world population that will double in little more than 30 years.

Today, modern biotechnology is used to produce enhanced seeds, grains, fruits, vegetables, fish, sugars, cheeses, trees, paper products, cotton, microorganisms for environmental cleanup, plastics, detergents and pharmaceuticals. Many European countries have been leaders in developing these products. In the U.S., field tests are being conducted on more than 50 new food, fiber and feed crops. These field tests are part of a stringent U.S. system of controls on biotech products to ensure their safety. The proper U.S. agencies monitor the tests and ensure that the products are as safe as their conventional counterparts, both to consume and to plant. After they pass the review, all seeds sold both in the U.S. and overseas carry documentation as to proper planting and cross-breeding. In addition, all foods made from biotech ingredients must comply with U.S. Food and Drug Administration health, safety and labeling requirements. These include allergy tests. In one instance, a soybean variety modified with a Brazil nut protein was found to trigger nut allergies. The soybean variety was scrapped. This is a reason to have confidence in the system and not the reverse as some anti-biotech advocates charge.

Ten years of U.S. experience with biotech products have shown us that biotech foods developed and in use in the U.S. present no food safety risks beyond those of their "natural" counterparts. Let me repeat: not one sneeze, not one cough, not one rash. There is simply no credible evidence to the contrary. But that experience has made no difference in Europe. Biotech products and their potential benefits are held in limbo by a combination of negative factors.

First, there is no functioning approval process in the EU [European Union]. Second, the current labeling regulations -- covering biotech -- don't work. And third, too few leaders are making an effort to dispel the reservoir of public ignorance through education on the subject.

Let me address each of these points. Only a few U.S. biotech products have been approved by the EU, and none since early 1998. An indefinite moratorium has been created through the failure of the European Union to implement its new approval process. Both the EU and member-state governments are apparently fearful of going against public opposition, and yet are unable to find grounds for outright rejection of such products. Why? Because such disqualifying grounds do not exist. The result has been to resort to a variety of bureaucratic ploys and political maneuvers to delay and deny approvals. France, for example, has approved biotech products, sponsored applications for EU approval, and then prevented these same products from being released in the rest of the EU. In the UK, one U.S. corn product favorably reviewed by scientists is stalled in a newly-required inter-ministerial review process. And a revision of the EU's own biotech approval directive -- historically non-transparent and unpredictable -- is not due for implementation before 2002.

The labeling issue is also confused. The EU adopted legislation in early 1997 on labeling of "novel foods" and "novel food products." It decided that foods with biotech content were covered. However it has not yet decided how to implement the law. That has already caused costly uncertainty among U.S. exporters who do not have one unified continent-wide standard for labeling. One U.S. company that produces GMO-free soybeans has been lost in this maze for two years. The company can demonstrate that its crops are grown from non-GMO seeds. But that's not enough for the Commission. It insists on testing the results. But the tests produce numerous false positives. If you are a company whose business is GMO-free food you don't want to subject your products to tests that could falsely ruin your reputation. So perversely EU requirements are deterring the availability of GMO-free food.

In Europe, biotechnology has gotten mixed up in the public's mind with dioxin chicken, and Mad Cow Disease. And with some public figures willfully adding confusion instead of clarification, the Luddites are carrying the day. But can it be true that Europe will remove itself from participation in a technology that will have as profound an effect on the next century as electricity has had on this one?

Let's look at the promise of biotechnology. It could increase crop yields by more than 20 percent for small farmers in developing countries without environmental harm. That would be significant for a good portion of the Earth's 10 billion [10,000 million] population circa 2030. As former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has said, "Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is. Without adequate food supplies at affordable prices, we cannot expect world health or peace."

The environmental benefits are also undeniable. Biotech can be an alternative to chemicals used for insect and weed control, to combat disease, and for fertilizer. Less need for fertilizer will cut the amount of phosphates in rivers, lakes and coastal waters that are killing fish by the tens of millions. On the farm, biotech products require less handling, are easier to store, need no refrigeration and have longer shelf life. All that adds up to greater income and less work -- and with fewer chemicals and more leisure, better health for farmers. Health improvements are not limited to farmers. Fat content of plants can be reduced, vitamins increased, vaccines added, and harmful bacteria naturally eliminated from biotech crops. Foods can be made more flavorful and easier to prepare. Biotech can mean more food, better food, cheaper food for a hungry world. These prospects have convinced some EU lawmakers of the need to act courageously and support biotechnology, instead of bowing to the winds of uninformed opinion. Indeed, one European official has warned that, "Europe has no future if the U.S. is where the GMOs are invented, and Europe is where all the reasons not to use them are invented."

What is the challenge for European leaders? To promote and forthrightly develop a comprehensive policy on biotechnology. This policy needs to take into account:

• the protection and advancement of human health,
• safe-guarding and enhancing the environment,
• exploiting the economic opportunities,
• warding off world hunger,
• and creating processes and institutions that will assure the public.

My hope is that the new European Commission will turn a fresh eye to this problem. The issue is being taken up responsibly in a number of important international forums, including the OECD [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] and the Transatlantic Economic Partnership Biotechnology Working Group. It has also been raised in the G8 Summit process and in the recent U.S.-EU Summit. This needs to be augmented by an active program of public education. The shades of Linnaeus, Mendel, Darwin and so many other European scientific giants are watching. Europe should be taking the lead in carrying on their work, and carrying its benefits to the less fortunate of the Earth shedding light where there is darkness, fear and confusion. Let us, as we begin a new century, banish ignorance and anxiety from this vital area of human endeavor. The world will be the better for it.

(end text)