*EPF310 11/29/00
Transcript: Glickman on Agricultural Biotechnology Issues
(USDA studying broader role in biotech crop regulation) (2040)
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is studying whether new regulations are necessary to improve the tracking and detecting of genetically engineered crops and to segregate those products from non-biotech products, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman says.
"What we do today regarding this young science will have tremendous impact in the future," Glickman said November 29 in Washington. "If we blindly reject this technology out of fear, then we will never know what could have been."
Glickman, who spoke before the USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology, said the recent situation with genetically engineered Starlink maize [corn] illustrates why continued research is important to regulation. Currently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a two-day hearing to evaluate the latest data on StarLink maize and its potential for allergies in humans, he said.
"USDA is working with industry and our trading partners to protect the integrity of our markets both domestic and international," he said. "We are also working with our sister agencies to ensure that foods containing StarLink corn are not distributed."
StarLink maize, developed by the giant Franco-German company Aventis SA, was approved in 1998 by the EPA for use only in livestock feed because of concern about potential human allergies generated by a special protein known as Cry9C. Some of the StarLink maize has been detected in taco shells and other foods, causing a recall of more than 300 kinds of chips, taco shells, cornmeal and other foods since September. The EPA is now attempting to determine through a scientific advisory panel if StarLink maize poses any risk to humans, Glickman said.
Glickman said some may argue that greater federal regulation may be necessary to avoid a similar episode, but "it's important to remember that this problem may not have occurred had industry complied with the terms of its license."
Glickman said USDA is seeking public comment on how it should facilitate the marketing of grains, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables and nuts in a market that includes genetically engineered crops and non-biotech crops.
Specifically, USDA is seeking comment on:
-- whether USDA should be involved in accrediting, reviewing or certifying the performance of companies' systems to segregate biotech crops from non-biotech crops.
-- whether USDA should create definitions for biotech and non-biotech crops as part of its quality grades and standards.
-- and whether USDA should expand its accreditation of laboratories to detect biotech grains and oilseeds to other kinds of biotech crops, such as fruits, vegetables and ornamental plants.
He also announced that USDA's Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration will open its biotechnology accreditation lab in Kansas City, Missouri, in January. It will examine the operations at laboratories testing grains for the presence of biotechnology-derived grains and will accredit those that meet performance standards.
USDA, EPA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are the three federal agencies primarily responsible for regulating biotechnology in the United States.
Following is a transcript of Glickman's remarks:
(begin transcript)
Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman Advisory
Committee on Biotechnology Third Meeting
Washington, D.C.
November 29, 2000
Thank you Dennis (Eckart). Good morning and once again thank you for coming and for serving on this committee.
Since I spoke to you at your first meeting in March, much has happened in the world of biotechnology, but, before I begin, I want to tell you about a trip I took this summer
Normally, whenever I talk about biotechnology I begin with a discussion of its enormous potential to cut costs, improve productivity, protect natural resources and take up the challenge of feeding a growing world population. But nothing crystallized this understanding as much as a trip I took to Africa this past summer where I saw first hand some of the world's most desperately hungry and malnourished people ... where I saw farmers struggling to grow crops in less-than-ideal conditions.
This trip reaffirmed my commitment to research and the potential for science to solve some of our most vexing problems. And it reinforced our effort over the past two years to take agricultural biotechnology out of the laboratories, company boardrooms and farm fields and put it front and center before the people. Because ultimately, how this particular technology is used will be determined by the consuming public.
Biotechnology's extraordinary potential -- for farmers, for consumers, for the developing world -- has too often been undermined by a very sharp-tongued debate that has been dominated by extremes on both sides. What we've done at USDA over the last few years is try to improve the tone of the debate, to be a moderate voice, to highlight the legitimate concerns and interests on each side, but without the divisive rhetoric.
The fact is no issue facing USDA has developed further and faster during my tenure. Consider that, since I became Secretary, biotech crops have mushroomed from under 4 million acres planted to over 70 million today and growing. This is a rapidly developing technology and we have done our best to navigate a steady course. But our ability to continue on this course will be directly tied to our commitment to facilitating an open, vigorous, transparent and honest debate.
What we do today regarding this young science will have tremendous impact in the future. If we blindly reject this technology out of fear, then we will never know what could have been. Similarly, we must recognize that the application of this technology does pose potential risks and real challenges to the food chain and to our environment. The fundamental responsibility of the government is to have an independent, arms length regulatory process that people have confidence in. And, proponents and critics of this technology need to participate in the public dialogue that shape policies and programs directing the evolution and use of agricultural biotechnology.
That is the purpose of this committee. In the short time this committee has been in existence you've clearly demonstrated your value. And, as use of this technology grows, I believe you will be even more valuable to my successor should he or she follow my recommendation and maintain this committee.
Last July, even though you were under a time-crunch you came up with a list of some very key research priorities for USDA to bring to the Standing Committee on Biotechnology we set up at the National Academy of Sciences. Today, as a direct result of your input, I'm announcing that USDA will support three research projects.
First is a project to evaluate several classes of the next generation of genetically transgenic plants -- ornamental grasses and plantation-grown trees -- with a focus on their potential impact on the environment and agriculture.
Second, a thorough evaluation of the use of sterility systems in controlling the spread of genetically altered organisms.
Third, a study, in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration, on food safety issues that might be raised by biotechnology including exploring how potential health risks may influence USDA's responsibilities and procedures for ensuring the safety of meat and poultry products.
In addition to its arms-length, independent regulatory role, USDA also has to be a market facilitator. And, agricultural biotechnology presents new opportunities and challenges to our marketing system. So, I'm announcing that beginning today USDA will officially ask for public comment on what, if any, additional steps USDA should take in facilitating the marketing of genetically modified crops. We want to hear comments on how to preserve the identity, and ensure the marketability, of biotech products versus non-biotech products, as well as how best to segregate these products, if and when that is desirable. Farmers, consumers and others in the food chain may, for a variety of reasons, have a keen interest in being able to identify and separate biotechnology-derived crops from other crops.
Also, USDA's Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration will open its biotechnology accreditation lab in Kansas City, Missouri in January. The facility will review, upon request, laboratories testing grains for the presence of biotechnology-derived grains and will accredit those laboratories that meet performance standards. The lab will also evaluate test kits against the manufacturer's performance specifications for determining the presence of biotechnology-derived grains in bulk grain to ensure that these tests are accurate and reliable.
I do want to note that many of the concerns I've discussed are illustrated by the Starlink situation, which I would like to briefly talk about. Across the Federal government we are diligently and expeditiously working to address all of the issues and concerns that have arisen with respect to Starlink corn. As you know, EPA has a transparent scientific process underway to evaluate the latest data on the potential for allergies. USDA is working with industry and our trading partners to protect the integrity of our markets both domestic and international. We are also working with our sister agencies to ensure that foods containing Starlink corn are not distributed.
There will undoubtedly be many lessons learned from this experience. And as we move through and beyond Starlink, we should not refrain from asking the hard questions and searching for better answers to the challenges raised by biotechnology.
Some might argue that the Starlink episode will lead to greater government involvement. That may or may not be so, but it's important to remember that this problem may not have occurred had industry complied with the terms of its license.
Lastly, I would like to briefly highlight the two important questions that you will be addressing in the next two days. The first is on government's role in plant breeding. In recent years, on a parallel track with the development of biotechnology, we've seen a consolidation of seed companies along with a decreased contribution to breeding by the public sector. Consolidation has always concerned us at USDA in that it could limit choices -- of farmers, consumers and others. Many varieties of crops that might not get support from large seed companies may need public investment in research and technology. We need to look at the effect market forces and these new technologies are having on public versus private plant breeding. And we need to ask ourselves, is the government doing enough to ensure that government plant breeding programs meet the needs and desires of the American people?
The second major issue for you to address is on gene flow. We need to better understand how the movement of genes from fields where farmers have used biotechnology is affecting other farmers, the environment and the rest of the agricultural food chain. And we need to determine what the public policy implications are.
With regard to all these issues, we need to continually examine the role of government. Is there too much involvement, is there not enough? Is it the right kind of involvement? For example should there be a greater or lesser emphasis on marketing? on research? on regulation?
The American people expect us to protect the environment and public health -- as does the food industry. They rise and fall based on public confidence. In so doing we must ensure that government oversight is thorough and that the regulatory process is rigid and relies on the latest scientific standards. That's why I established the Standing Committee on Biotechnology of the National Academy of Sciences. That's why last spring the White House issued new guidelines to deal with the ever-changing biotechnology landscape. That's also why I established this committee. And that's why in my speech at the National Press Club over a year ago, I laid out specific principles that I believe will help guide future policy makers as we deal with the new challenges biotechnology will bring.
So I want to thank you for your efforts in such a short period of time. But a change in leadership should in no way obviate the need for a continuing examination of the issues pertaining to biotechnology. I know that each of you will play a continuing role in that effort, whether on this committee or in other forums. Once again, thank you for your service."
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN