*EPF311 09/10/2003
Transcript: Zoellick Urges WTO Negotiators to Focus on More Market Access
(USTR says U.S. favors "ambitious results" from trade talks) (6580)

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick says trade ministers at World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations now through September 14 in Cancun, Mexico, should focus on further opening markets in agriculture, industrial goods and services and on completing the negotiations on schedule.

The U.S. seeks "ambitious results" that will open markets, which will be key to both growth and development, Zoellick said during a press briefing September 9. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman also spoke at the briefing about the importance of progress in world agricultural trade negotiations.

Following is a transcript of the press conference:

(begin transcript)

Robert B. Zoellick United States Trade Representative
and Ann M. Veneman United States Secretary of Agriculture
Press Conference Remarks at the WTO's 5th Ministeria
September 9, 2003 Cancun, Mexico

Zoellick: Well, I appreciate all of you coming. And I appreciate being here with my colleague and co-head of our delegation, Ann Veneman, our Secretary of Agriculture.

Let me start with a little perspective on where we stand coming into these Cancun discussions. Doha created an opportunity, an opening. Now it's up to 146 economies -- soon to be 148 when Nepal and Cambodia join us -- determine if they wish to fulfill that opening and that possibility. Because as all of you know, we work by consensus. The challenge ahead of us is to try and fill out the Doha mandate. Now, the pace of progress so far, is roughly what I would expect, because this is a step-by-step process. In the WTO there are no big leaps, as you would expect if you have to bring 148 countries around to a consensus.

So, over the past 20 months or so, the process began by people putting out negotiating proposals -- their idea of how to fulfill this mandate. And the challenge now, roughly at the mid-point, is to see whether we can translate negotiating proposals into negotiating frameworks. And if we can, then the next stage is to move on to numbers; and if we then fill out numbers, we are well on our way towards a successful result.

We also had some important follow-up work from Doha that was particularly of concern to the countries that were poorest and most worried about the effects of disease on their economy. That was the issue of access to medicines and whether the flexibilities in the intellectual property rules could adapt to their needs. I'm very pleased -- and here I want to particularly single out the work of [Deputy USTR] Ambassador Linnet Deily, our ambassador in Geneva -- for leading an effort, but also the cooperation of 145 economies, to allow us to come into Cancun with a very important result. Particularly for our African partners. Because the result we reached was not only an agreement, or putting words on paper, but it was a demonstration that the intellectual property rules could be flexible enough to serve humanitarian needs. And that's a very important message for the WTO. Of course, it requires a balance, because the companies that produce the life-saving drugs of tomorrow are the ones being asked to help deal with the crises today.

I'm very pleased we were able to strike that balance. I said to my Ministerial colleagues, in various mini-ministerials that some of you attended, that we would do our best to resolve it; and with the help of many, we did. So it was a promise made and a promise kept.

Now the U.S position, both at Doha and at Cancun, is a relatively straightforward position. First, we favor ambitious results. We're not just in this for a paper agreement. We want to open markets because the process is key to both growth and development. The second, we're committed to an aggressive schedule. The Uruguay Round took some eight years. We believe this can be done in the three or so years we set.

The third, to accomplish ambition on an aggressive schedule, you have to have focus. And our focus has been very clear to our partners -- it's the market access: of agriculture, goods and services.

Now, we know that many of our partners have other issues they want to pay attention to. And because this has to be a collegial enterprise, we will pay attention to that. Foremost among those is what Chairman [of the Cancun meeting Luis Ernesto] Derbez has set out as "the Singapore issues". We know some of these issues can be beneficial, we want to work with countries, some we have questions about, some of the developing countries have questions about, but I hope we can play the role that we played at Doha to help breach the gaps.

Now, much of the attention here is going to be on agriculture. And I think that's totally appropriate. And the challenge that we have -- and we're right in the midst of it now -- is to try to complete this migration for proposals to a common framework.

This is not an easy process, to be frank with you, because countries have established expectations of what they want to achieve, but those expectations vary a great deal. But if we do, then we move to the next stage of numbers.

Now, we had a key step a few months ago, without which we wouldn't have the chances we have today. And that was the reform of the Common Agricultural Program. Now, for the United States and many other countries that were promoting agricultural liberalization, obviously, would have liked to see more in European agricultural reforms, or slightly different types of reforms. But credit belongs where it's due, and Commissioner Lamy [Pascal Lamy, EU Commissioner for Trade] and Commissioner Fischler [Franz Fischler, EU Commissioner for Agriculture] fought an effort with the member states to give us that basis of moving forward.

That took well into the summer of this year. And the next stage was then to translate those internal reforms into trade proposals. So after an informal ministerial with some 25 countries in Montreal in late July, the United States and the EU [European Union] were asked to develop a framework to see if we could make that translation. Because frankly, while we're only two countries or two players, we're big players, and as people saw in the past, if the United States and EU were at loggerheads, this is going to stall.

So, Ann [Ann Veneman, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture] and I and our colleagues spent a lot of effort -- but we had to do it very quickly -- because we understood that the U.S. and EU are only two players; we wanted to report back whatever we could come up with, to the process in Geneva while it was going on. Which is what we did. We had about 10 days to try to put pen to paper and make it work. Now, there are many others that presented views, as are appropriate. Some of them are views that, frankly, we have some sympathy with. There's a group of developing countries, the G20 [Group of 20 Countries], that is a combination of sometimes more market opening, sometimes less market opening views -- Japan has views, Switzerland has views, Korea has views, the CAIRNS group [group of agricultural exporting countries] has views. For our part, as I've been telling people over the past day and a half, we welcome ambition. At the same time, we're trying to bring along all our partners together to accomplish as much if we can.

Now, all those different proposals, including the ones that we put together with the EU, are now part of a Chairman's Text. No one's agreed to this text. Everybody has a right to try to change it and adjust it. But if we're going to go forward, we need to try to see how we can take that framework and make it something that we all agree on together. I'm just sharing my own sense -- if we can, I think we're moving towards the possibility, and I emphasize possibility, because there's a lot of work done -- to have results that far exceed the results in the Uruguay Round. Because, recall: in the Uruguay Round there was an agreement to cut export subsidies by volume terms of 21 percent and in budget terms by 36 percent. The battle here is how far we can get to elimination.

In the case of domestic subsidies, the Uruguay Round said for developed countries, cut them 20 percent. Well, the European Union now is talking about 60 percent. And many of us believe maybe the European Unions can move more. And we emphasize that we're willing to talk about very sizeable cuts if we can get market access.

Market access, the cutting of tariffs in the Uruguay Round, had a 36 percent average cut and a 15 percent minimum cut for each item, for developed countries. For developing countries a 24 percent average and a 10 percent cut. Frankly, this is the item where it's least clear, because what is in the framework we propose is something that goes beyond the Uruguay Rounds -- in other words, a combination of percentage cuts, plus increase in tariff -- but also a harmonizing formula, which means you cut higher tariffs more than you cut lower tariffs. But the numbers have yet to be filled in.

Now, the other area that I think is going to be very important here is the goods area. That still represents some 81, 82, 83 percent of world trade. And as many of you know, our position on this, as in agriculture, is ambitious. We want to eliminate all those tariffs. And what we hope will come out of the framework here is an effective formula to try to cut tariffs as much as we can, with the focus particularly on the higher tariffs, with due attention for developing countries; a sectoral approach, as our predecessors did with the Information Technology Agreement, which can move trade throughout sectors and help global sourcing; and also non-tariff barriers.

Now, the third and last item in market access is services. That will be less of a topic here, not because it's not important -- because it is -- but we've basically agreed on the framework and now we have to get more countries to come forward with offers. And that will not happen until we move forward with agriculture and goods.

So let me close by just stepping back and putting this in a slightly larger economic perspective. In my view, the U.S. economic recovery is taking hold. That's a very good thing for the world since we represent some 25-30 percent of the world economy. But we start this recovery with a five hundred billion dollar current account deficit. That means for all the debate about whose market is open, we're buying 500 billion dollars more than we're selling. So it must be a relatively open market one way or the other.

For growth to be successful over the long term, we're going to need more balanced growth. We're going to need more growth in the other developed countries -- we hope more of the developing countries. And we hope that this trade round, if successful, will help create the basis for additional growth in more countries so we have a broader-based growth. But equally important, just as the Uruguay Round took the United States' recovery in the 90s and helped expand it globally, so this round can do this in the first decades of this century. But also important is the possibility this would provide for developing countries. Because if countries are willing to open up, trade can become an engine of growth and poverty reduction.

Now, many of you -- I've seen various stories -- have said, "Well, the Uruguay Round was for developed countries, not for developing countries." I disagree with that premise. And frankly, I think we can do much more for developing countries. But let me give you a few data points.

Between 1994 and 2001 -- so after the Uruguay Rounds were completed to our most recent numbers -- developing country exports to developed countries rose 76 percent; developed country exports to developing countries rose 33 percent. Or if you want to put those in numbers, developing countries sold 615 billion dollars more to developed countries and developed countries sold 271 billion dollars more to developing countries.

Now, my point is not that this is enough, because it isn't. And we believe our proposals in agriculture and goods and services can expand growth and opportunity for everybody. As the World Bank shows, some of the greatest gains for openness for all countries -- us as well as developing countries -- are if you open your own markets, because then you can create benefits for your own consumers, and lower prices.

Now as you cover this over the next few days, I'll just share with you at least how I view this. All the economies that come to this meeting have political challenges and they're each different. The question is: Can we work through those political difficulties in a way that allows us to maintain the goal of ambition with appropriate flexibilities for particular needs? Can we as countries pursue our national interests while also seeing that, in economics at least, there's a mutual interest -- there's a win-win possibility here? And that's what we'll be trying to do with these frameworks.

Now, Ann and I have been trying to spend the time since we've come here to try to get a better sense of people's perspectives. So in addition to meeting our hosts the Mexicans -- both Chairman Derbez and the Agriculture Minister -- we've spent a good time discussing with our EU colleagues. And I think the good news is that while the United States and EU have differences on various issues, we're trying to work together cooperatively. We realize, I think, each in our different ways, we have a responsibility to try to move this forward. But we also both realize we're two big players in the game, but there are many others. So, I've had good meetings with my Indian colleagues, South African, Australia, Hong Kong -- the four countries of West Africa with the cotton initiative Ann and I met for an hour last night. We had a good meeting with the CAIRNS group of agricultural exporters today. We just came from a meeting with the Latin American and the Caribbean. We had some sessions with some of our environmental advisors, and to talk about some of our trade capacity building. And a little later, right after this, I'll have a session with especially our Caribbean colleagues; my Brazilian colleague, Celso Amorim; Africa; Asia; and our FTA [Free Trade Agreement] partners tomorrow. So we're trying to cover the world here as we go into this, to get a better sense of where people believe we can go. Because the bottom line here is there are no votes, it's got to move by consensus, and that's what we hope to put together over the next few days.

Veneman: Well, thank you very much, Bob, and thanks to all of you for being here. We appreciate the job that you all have to tell the story of what is going on here in Cancun this week. This is a historic occasion and a historic meeting.

Ambassador Zoellick has done an excellent job in describing why we are here and the importance of what this Ministerial is about -- the importance to each of the 146 member nations and to the world economy in general. I'm very pleased to be here representing America's farmers and ranchers as well as our active consuming public -- one of the largest food markets in the world.

We are here to advance one of the more difficult issues in these negotiations, and that is the agriculture negotiations. I want to thank Bob Zoellick for his outstanding leadership in this international endeavor. He is a fierce advocate for free trade, he's a creative problem solver, and we appreciate the very close cooperative working relationship that we have between our two agencies.

As you know, we are near the beginning of this critical Ministerial meeting. There has been a lot of attention focused on what we have to do here. But let me suggest that we must keep perspective as we go through this week.

There are groups of countries here in Cancun with varying agendas. There are the protestors advocating one cause or another. But let's not lose sight of what we hope to achieve here. Our purpose is to achieve more trade, fairer trade, more opportunities for income growth, and better lives for billions of people around the world.

The Cancun Ministerial is a mid-term stock-taking in the Doha Development Agenda. The negotiations won't be concluded here. But we must have tangible progress. We must set the negotiations from this point on, on a path to be successfully concluded by the target date of January 2005. Agricultural trade is of course of major importance to the food importing countries and to the food exporting countries. But it has taken on even greater significance in these talks. It has become critical to progress in other areas.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon all nations now to recognize the broader significance and to show new flexibility. Our objective is to find equitable, fair, and balanced approaches to expanding trade and stimulating growth for all -- especially in the developing world where most of the food consumers are. We seek significant results in all three pillars of the agriculture negotiations.

We are here in Cancun with the same high level of ambition we had at the outset. We want to eliminate export subsidies, the most egregious form of trade distortion. We want to significantly expand market access. Our goal is to greatly reduce tariff barriers that prevent trade and economic expansion. And we seek to substantially reduce and harmonize trade distorting domestic support. In short, we seek to remove the disparities in both market access and domestic support left over from the Uruguay Round.

We see the Doha Development Agenda as the opportunity of a generation to expand trade and fuel much needed economic growth all around the world. If we allow ourselves to become distracted with minor agendas and miss this opportunity, the next one could well be a long time in coming. This is all about opportunities: for farmers and ranchers in the United States -- and all over the world -- to compete for the growing consumer markets of the future.

The beneficiaries are all of us -- more jobs, higher incomes, improved nutrition. The specific beneficiaries are the developing countries, where these things are most needed. We are optimistic that the Ministerial will produce a clear path to a timely and successful conclusion of the talks. We certainly will be working to that end. And I am sure our colleagues will be as well.

Thank you again to all of you for being here today.

Moderator: Thank you, and we will open it up to questions.

Clovis Rockler [ph], Sao Paolo. Question: Mr. Zoellick, Would the United States accept the text of the "G" plan [G-20] as a basis for discussion on agriculture here and with the same status as the text of Ambassador Perez del Castillo?

Zoellick: The way the WTO process has historically worked is that we have chairmen that have the unenviable task of trying to put together views as best they can that represent all the members. As you know, the chairman of the General Council is a fellow member of Mercosur with Brazil, from Uruguay. That chairman put forth a paper. We have some difficulties with that paper, other countries have problems with that paper. It took some ideas from the G-20 paper that you mentioned. No one has accepted it as a conclusive document. My own view from years of experience is that we have to walk on the path the chairman sets. Now the G-20 paper has some good ideas in it, and it has some bad ideas in it. There are other people that have put forward various papers.

But let me emphasize something that is I think very important for the workings of the WTO. As all of you know, the WTO is a member organization. We have the challenge of how do you bring 148 people together. One of the only modest tools of governance that has been in existence is to allow the chair -- whether of a working group or the General Council -- to put forward a paper. So in the Uruguay Round, for example, Chairman Dunkle put forward a paper that stirred discussion. This is a paper that was not only put forward by the chair of the General Council, from Uruguay, but also the Director General of the WTO, Dr. Supachai [Panitchpakdi], from Thailand.

So although we are not totally happy with that paper, we are willing to work off it, and we urge all countries to work off that paper, because if we don't, I don't know what we would work off of. Because if one group of countries insists that their paper is co-equal with the chairman's paper, well, certainly you can see what will happen. Everybody else will insist on their paper. The USTR [Office of the U.S. Trade Representative] paper has got our ideal position, and I could put forth my own paper. So if we want to move this ahead, if we want to support the WTO as an institution, I think the best we can do is to try to work off the chairman's paper, not just in agriculture, but in all the areas. And everybody has got complaints, but that's the only way I can see to try to move forward.

Jim Pinkerton, with TechCentralStation.Com. Question: Ambassador Zoellick and Secretary Veneman, you both mentioned that you had met with the African cotton producers last night. Given the fact that the African countries say that the three billion dollars in subsidies to American cotton farmers are "killing" them -- which is a view shared by the New York Times and Oxfam among many other observers on this -- do you think, and you especially, Bob, touched on the political difficulties in changing these agricultural policies in the U.S., but do you think that the perception or the reality that America is killing African farmers is damaging to America's standing here within the WTO and in our larger diplomatic efforts around the world?

Zoellick: You focused on reality, so let me focus on reality with you. When we first saw the proposal that has been put forward by Chad, and Mali, by Burkina Fasso and by Benin, we recognized its importance because we certainly recognize that cotton to these economies is fundamental today and to their development. So our colleague, actually, has already had some chance to discuss their proposal with them in both Africa and in Geneva. And last night, as we mentioned, Ann and I met for over an hour with the ministers of the countries.

Now the first observation I have about the proposal, having had a chance to discuss it, is that it highlights the importance of ambitious results in all of agriculture. And of course the U.S. proposal is to cut subsidies and tariffs in all of agriculture.

But there is another important dimension to that proposal which we discussed last night, and that is that since cotton is obviously the raw material for textiles in garments, the U.S. proposal to eliminate all tariffs on goods -- including on textiles and clothing, I might add -- would boost this market, too. But second, the United States has complemented its approach for formulaic reductions with initiatives in both agriculture and goods. We are one of the few countries that supports them in both areas. And last night, what we introduced with our African colleagues was an idea of how we might be able to address their concerns by developing a sectoral initiative to address distortions, not only in the cotton market but in the man-made fiber market and in the textile and clothing trade market, because the aim here is not just to reduce subsidies for cotton, but eliminate tariffs for cotton and, frankly, increase demand for cotton and cotton products. They are all closely interconnected. Just to give you a little sense of how this works is that in the case of the United States, 84 percent of the cotton products sold in the United States are imported products. So, yes, we grow a lot of cotton, but the cotton products we use are generally imported. And through that, the United States accounts for some 22% of all cotton textile purchases worldwide.

What this also underscores is the vital interconnection between the agriculture and the goods sector. Many people, Oxfam, the New York Times, others that you cite, have noted that one of the problems in the trading system is that many of the developing countries are commodity producers but there are higher tariffs and protections that prevent them from getting up to other levels of production, including manufacturing. And so what we wanted to try to do with them is to come up with a sectoral proposal that not only helps them as cotton producers, but I hope will help them as apparel producers -- and, frankly, help other Africans as apparel and textile and clothing producers.

And the other point that we suggested with them is that we already have some AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] programs and there are some World Bank programs that are focusing on some of their restructuring needs, so perhaps we could combine that with this overall. So our goal here would be to try to help African cotton and textile and clothing producers together become more competitive.

Now, the other aspect of this is that we already have a preferential trade program, called the AGOA -- the African Growth and Opportunity Act -- which improves access for African cotton, African textiles, and for clothing. But there are going to be changes in the overall international marketplace. For example, our quotas come off on textiles and apparel in 2004. There are many countries that will be selling us cotton products that could buy their cotton from African countries -- if they lower their tariffs. So where we are is we urge some follow-up discussions, and what we said is that we hope we can actually work out some language as part of this text that would make this a joint sectoral initiative between those African countries. And we hope others that might benefit from the textile and clothing area, to really get at the whole sector -- the cotton, the man-made fibers, some of which are subsidized and unfairly compete against it -- and the textile and clothing sector.

Clark Davis. Question: You mentioned the textile quotas coming off in 2005 and both U.S. manufacturers and some other countries which had originally backed the removal of these quotas are now saying that they are worried that once these quotas come off, China is going to begin to produce every textile garment and apparel garment in the world. To what degree do you see this fear of China underscoring difficulties in reaching an agreement here in Cancun?

Zoellick: Well, China, as you know, just entered the WTO at the Doha meeting, so the agreement was in November 2001 and they came in at the start of 2002. China has done an impressive job of trying to connect its growth with moving towards openness and linking to the trade system. Obviously, that creates competition for people. It also creates opportunities. If you look at a lot of countries in Southeast Asia, they are looking towards the growth in China as being a source of additional business. And if you look at U.S. exports to China -- now that China is implementing some of its WTO obligations -- I think in the first five or six months our exports increased some forty percent, more than their exports increased to us. So keep in mind -- my other overall point -- I'd like to see China become an overall growth part; frankly, I'd like to see it from Japan and Europe -- and China can play the role as well.

Now, I think China has an opportunity at this meeting. And it is not going to be easy, because China is a new member and it is just feeling its way around. But Ann and I saw that in the run up to Doha, even before China became a WTO member, it played a very positive role in launching the Doha negotiations. We had APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] meetings in Shanghai in the spring and in the autumn, and China's support for the Doha Round was very positive. We hope that China will also be supportive here in trying to move forward the overall negotiations, because it would benefit China in the manufactured goods area. It would also benefit in the agricultural area. But the final point on this is that as we have said to the Chinese, since we have about a hundred million dollar deficit with China, we want to keep our markets open to China. That's good for our consumers, it's good for competition, and it's good for China. But we can only do so if China is also opening up its markets and playing a positive role. So, we have had good contacts with China and I am hoping to see my Chinese colleague -- we haven't yet arranged it -- so that we can try to follow up on some of these ideas together.

Sergio Leo, [from a Brazilian newspaper.] Question: Mr. Zoellick, as you said that you intend to discuss the framework here in Cancun, and hope to discuss the numbers later, do you think it will be necessary another ministerial meeting to discuss specifically those numbers? Are you planning to make the discussion that was scheduled in Cancun in two stages -- here try to discuss the framework and six months after, three months after, to discuss the numbers and the methods and modalities to discussion?

Zoellick: I have to say, after the day of meetings we have had so far, you are really pressing to ask if you think I am going to go through this again within six months. (Laughter). I think this will be a decision that all of the countries will have to come to together. What we have said -- what we think might be useful -- is that if we come up with a framework, the countries would need to agree on some deadlines for all the items to come together. In other words, I think one of our flaws is to have different deadlines for different items. You have to have them all come together. Our view is that to keep on track that should probably be some time early in 2004, February or March, and that would be a deadline. We hope that the work can be done in Geneva, but sometimes in the past, sometimes there have been special sessions where ministers come in and help. But I think our practical thought would be that if we can get the framework, let's set a deadline for all the items in the relatively near future--we have to hear what others suggest about that -- to keep the momentum, assuming we have it coming out of this, but also have a deadline that would move that next stage that gives us a realistic shot at completing this by the goal we set.

[inaudible] from Australia. Question: The United States and the Cairns Group had a fairly similar aggressive agenda for agricultural reform until the U.S.-U.K. bill was produced. The Australian minister, the head of the Cairns Group, has written to you about your position. Is that position of the Americans that you adopted in that paper a politically realistic position and is the position that the Cairns Group and the G-20 countries are now adopting, do you believe that that is unrealistic and unlikely to produce any meaningful reform?

Zoellick: I think it is frankly premature to determine what is realistic. That is what we are all here to try to do over the next few days. What I can say is this: Other countries gave us the unenviable and inevitable task of trying to see whether we could draw out of the CAP [EU Common Agricultural Policy] reform as much ambition as we could from Europe. And we didn't have much time to do it because, frankly, we wanted to avoid the specter of the United States-EU coming up with something right before this meeting. We wanted to give time for people to review it, comment on it, get views from Brazil and other major players. In that sense, frankly, the process worked. �� think many countries didn't think we would be able to come up with something. Now, it is our preferred product? No. And your question started out with U.S. and Cairns Group having ambition. One of the points we made to our Cairns Group colleagues is that we continue to have ambition. We want to eliminate export subsidies. We're willing to cut our domestic support subsidies. We are willing to cut our domestic support significantly if we can get market access on others. But all three pillars have to move together, as Doha said.

Now, I think we have some added insights about what Europe might be able to do and what it might not be able to do. And I've shared those with our colleagues and I've also said that if you can get Europe to move more, have at it. We are doing the best we can and I think the real test will be, not only how we further design the framework, but what numbers go into that framework. And that is going to be the real challenge. But at least my own view is that the framework certainly supports any level of ambition that one is able to achieve. Now, to be fair to our European colleagues, agriculture is a bit of a defensive issue for them, so they have things they want, including some movement in goods. For some of the countries that are very aggressive on agriculture, all of a sudden don't see the benefits of open markets when it comes to goods. United States at least on this problem has the benefit of a consistent position. We want to open up markets for agriculture, goods and services. And we will do the best we can on the Singapore issues to try to help others. So in that sense we hope we can facilitate this, but I have been very clear to our Cairns colleagues and I have been very clear to you, we retain ambition. That is what we would like to achieve. What each country will have to decide, and this where I will come to your politically realistic, is what can we realistically do at this point? What might we do in a few months? And, is that good enough? And if not, what do you lose? And those are the questions that people will have to be debating late at night and perhaps with their capitols.

[inaudible] Smith, Wellness Journal, United States. Question: Last week there was a press conference which was in response to your statement, Mr. Zoellick, that there was overwhelming scientific evidence that there are no dangers from genetically engineered foods. The press conference at the National Press Club pointed out that the FDA's [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] own scientists in 1992 believed that the foods were inherently unsafe. Further, that five to ten thousand people fell sick and about a hundred people died from a genetically-engineered food supplement. And that even though there has been very little safety testing, the little that has been done has shown serious problems about laboratory animals. Have you reviewed that information? If not, are you willing to review that information, and perhaps reface the challenge of the WTO of Europe in light of the potential safety problems of genetically-modified foods that several scientists around the world are talking about now?

Zoellick: For some reason I had a little bit of a hard time hearing you, but let me start and that let Ann add in. No, seriously, for some reason I didn't get all the words.

Look, I am happy to try to review any information on a topic, but I would say that when the scientific academies -- the French Academy of Sciences, the French Academy of Medicine, the same in Britain, the same in the United States, same around the world -- have found that genetically-enhanced foods are a benefit to the world, I would urge you to read some of that science. And I would urge you to perhaps go back and look at how this developed through hybrids. I come from the agricultural part of the country. Hybrids are nothing new where I grew up. And, frankly, what genetically-enhanced foods do is give the possibility of moving through the hybrid process more quickly to deal with some problems that I am very concerned about: drought-resistant crops, crops that help yields with purer fertilizers, crops that can increase production, including in developing countries. So I'll be happy to read whatever the FDA has; sometimes it's a little dense, but I'll do my best -- if you promise to also keep an open mind about the possibilities of what has been enhancing food production in America and around the world, and which was the source of the Green Revolution and why perhaps some of the people from Asia in this room are living.

Veneman: If I might just add, we have in our country a very thorough review process for bioengineered foods. It involves agencies, including the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture], EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and FDA, so we have a multiple-agency review process. We look at the safety issues, we look at the environment issues, we look at all of the issues. But I think it is very important that we look at the promise of biotechnology and the regulatory sectors under which it operate. Look at the benefits that biotechnology is already giving us. Benefits to the environment from using less pesticides, benefits for nutrition, particularly in some areas of the world where there are nutrition deficits, things like the Vitamin A rice that has already been developed. And as Ambassador Zoellick said, benefits for the developing world. We just held a conference in Sacramento, California, in June talking about the promise of new technology for the 800 million people who are still hungry around the world. One of the primary speakers there was the Nobel laureate, Norman Borlaug, who said that if some of the regions of the world, like Africa, missed the next revolution, as they did the Green Revolution, it would be truly unfortunate, because we do need to use the whole of the technologies available in a very positive way to address how to help people all around the world and to feed the world.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Bureau 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