*EPF324 03/26/2003
Text: EU Biotech Ban Based on Fear, Not Science, House Leader Says
(Hastert Urging Bush to take WTO action against EU moratorium) (1940)

The European Union (EU) and other countries are using non-tariff barriers against agricultural biotechnology that are based on fear and conjecture, not science, says the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.

In March 26 testimony to the House Agriculture Committee, House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois said he and other members of Congress are urging the Bush administration to take a case to the World Trade Organization (WTO) protesting the EU's moratorium on the granting of import licenses for foods derived from biotechnology. The moratorium has been in effect for more than four years.

"Official WTO action is the only course that would send a clear and convincing message to the world that prohibitive policies on biotechnology which are not based on sound science are illegal," Hastert stated in prepared testimony.

"The EU should immediately lift its unfair moratorium and evaluate biotechnology products using a scientifically based process with definitive timeframes [and] ... keep U.S. exporters informed about developments in the approval process," he said.

He added that while the administration has been negotiating with the EU about agricultural policies, development of biotechnology is slowing, with potential "dire consequences" for developing countries that have rapidly growing populations and limited arable land.

Some African countries have turned away U.S. food aid that contains biotech maize, fearing the EU's later rejection of their food exports, Hastert said.

EU policies are putting pressure on African governments to reject the aid, testified Congressman Frank Wolf, a Republican. "This is a trade issue but more importantly, it's an issue of life and death," he said.

He added that last year India also rejected food aid when nongovernmental aid agencies could not meet the country's demand to guarantee the food contained no biotech grains.

The European moratorium was having "a chilling effect" on developing countries who most need the benefits" of biotechnology, testified Jo Ann Emerson, co-chair of the Congressional Hunger Center.

African governments' concerns about accepting food aid containing biotech traits also stem from their lack of national biosafety and regulatory capacity, she added.

"No other food crops in history have been tested and regulated as foods developed through biotechnology," she said.

Saying most African officials in ministries responsible for enacting biosafety laws lack the policymaking skills to draft effective legislation, John Kilama, a bioscientist, told the committee that development assistance should focus more on strategic capacity building.

(Note: In the following text, "billion" equals 1,000 million.)

Following is the Text of Hasterts' prepared testimony:

(begin text)

Comments and Testimony Regarding the Artificial Barriers to United States Agricultural Trade and Foreign Food Assistance

Committee on Agriculture
U.S. House of Representatives
Wednesday, March 26, 2003

Submitted by Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, (IL-14)

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to comment on the artificial barriers to U.S. agriculture trade. I appreciate your Committee's leadership on this important issue, and thank you for holding this hearing.

Mr. Chairman, protectionism has a new guise. As we speak, the WTO is discussing a framework for negotiations in the Doha round of trade talks with the objective of reducing worldwide tariffs on agriculture products. As you know, world agricultural tariffs today average about 62 percent, while U.S. agricultural tariffs average 12 percent.

While these negotiations represent an important step towards the free exchange of farm goods, there is a more imminent threat to the cause of free trade -- the use of non-tariff barriers.

Over the last few years, we have seen country after country implementing protectionist trade policies under the cloak of food safety -- each one brought on by emotion, culture, or their own poor history with food safety regulation.

We have seen policies such as those imposed by the European Union and other countries on agricultural biotechnology; the use of geographical indications to protect agricultural goods; and the taxation of goods that include agricultural products, such as the tax on soft drinks that contain high fructose corn syrup in Mexico.

Simply put, non-tariff protectionism is detrimental to the free movement of goods and services across borders. We all know that free trade benefits all countries. However, free trade will be rendered meaningless if it is short-circuited by non-tariff barriers that are based on fear and conjecture -- not science.

One particular issue I would like to focus on today is the use of non-tariff barriers to limit the trade and use of genetically-modified products.

As the Representative of the 14th District in Illinois, my district currently covers portions of eight counties, including four of the top 25 corn-producing counties, and three of the top 50 soybean-producing counties in the nation. The State of Illinois is the second largest producing state of both corn and soybeans in the country. Forty percent of this production currently goes to exports, valued at approximately $2.7 billion per year.

U.S. agriculture ranks among the top U.S industries in export sales. In fact, the industry generated a $12 billion trade surplus in 2001, helping mitigate the growing merchandise trade deficit. It is important to realize that 34 percent of all corn acres and 75 percent of all soybean acres are genetically modified.

And what exactly are we talking about when we say "genetically modified?" The EU and other countries would have you believe this is a new and special type of food, questionable for human consumption. In fact, since the dawn of time, farmers have been modifying plants to improve yields and create new varieties resistant to pests and diseases. Why would we want to snuff out human ingenuity that benefits farmers and consumers alike?

Such advancements have been achieved by taking plants with desirable traits and crossbreeding them. In fact, almost all of today's commercial crops are now distant cousins from the plants that first appeared in this country. Biotechnology is merely the next stage of development in this age-old process.

As this Committee is well aware, the European Union has had an indefensible moratorium on genetically-modified products in place for over four years with no end in sight. This is a non-tariff barrier based simply on prejudice and misinformation, not sound science. In fact, their own scientists agree that genetically modified foods are safe.

We should all be concerned that this irrational policy is spreading. China, for example, has developed new rules for the approval and labeling of biotech products. An overwhelming portion of the entire $1 billion U.S. soybean export crop is genetically modified. Although implementation has been delayed, such a labeling program would certainly result in higher food costs for consumers and higher production costs for farmers.

And what exactly are we labeling? There is general consensus among the scientific community that genetically modified food is no different from conventional food. What's different is not the content of the food, but the process by which it is made. Labeling genetically modified products would only mislead consumers and create an atmosphere of fear.

It's important for the public to know that the U.S. government has safely regulated biotechnology since its inception over 30 years ago. And with the rapid evolution of plant biotechnology in the early 1980s, additional regulation was added. Ask any American farmer about government regulation and not.one will tell you that they are under-regulated.

Biotechnology products are screened by at least one, and often by as many as three, federal agencies. From conception to commercial introduction, it can take up to 10 years to bring a biotech variety to market. Throughout the process, the public has ample opportunity for participation and comment, and data on which regulatory decisions are based are readily available.

Still, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, bans on genetically modified products continue to persist and multiply. The worldwide impact has been staggering.

The current EU moratorium on genetically-modified products has translated into an annual loss of over $300 million in corn exports for U.S. farmers. More disturbing is the recent trend in Africa, where several nations have rejected U.S. food aid because the shipments contained biotech corn. This based solely on the fear that EU countries will not accept their food exports if genetically modified seeds spread to domestic crops.

These actions by our trading partners have consequences. U.S. farmers are already beginning to plant more non-biotech seeds. This trend will increase farmers' cost of production as well as increase the damage from harmful insects. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently approved a corn technology that will allow the commercialization of the first corn designed to control rootworm -- a pest that costs U.S. farmers approximately $1 billion in lost revenue per year. It is absurd to think that farmers would not be able to take advantage of this technology.

Clearly, the long-term impact of these policies could be disastrous for U.S. farmers in terms of competitiveness and the ability to provide food for the world's population. Addressing world hunger is particularly critical when approximately 800 million people are malnourished in the developing world, and another 100 million go hungry each day. Biotechnology is the answer to this pressing problem. Farmers can produce better yields through drought-tolerant varieties, which are rich in nutrients and more resistant to insects and weeds, while those in need reap the benefits.

As Hassan Adamu, Minister of Agricultural and Rural Development for Nigeria, stated in a September 2000 Washington Post Op-ed:

"Agricultural biotechnology ...holds great promise for Africa and other areas of the world where circumstances such as poverty and poor growing conditions make farming difficult. Fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, machinery, fuel and other tools that richer nations take for granted as part of their farming regimen are luxuries in poorer countries. These circumstances demand unique agricultural solutions, and many have been made available through the advances in agricultural biotechnology."

As you can see, halting or even slowing down the development of this technology could have dire consequences for countries where populations are growing rapidly and all arable land is already under cultivation.

It is my opinion that official WTO action is the only course that would send a clear and convincing message to the world that prohibitive policies on biotechnology which are not based on sound science are illegal. In fact, I would like to thank the members of this Committee who recently joined me in sending a letter to the President in support of WTO action -- these are policies which simply must not be allowed to persist.

The EU should immediately lift its unfair moratorium and evaluate biotechnology products using a scientifically-based process with definitive timeframes for approval. It should also keep U.S. exporters informed about developments in the approval process. And if these procedures require additional time, information, or reviews by different committees, they should be justified, officially adopted and communicated to the affected industry. Only then will we have an international process which can benefit both consumers and producers worldwide.

I greatly appreciate the chance to offer my thoughts on this important issue. It is my opinion that the U.S. Government should immediately take a case to the WTO regarding the current EU moratorium. After all, the price of inaction is one we can no longer afford to pay. With that said, I look forward to continue working with my colleagues, the Administration and the Committee to eliminate all barriers to free trade.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents