Release No. 0445.97


Remarks
                              by 
                 Deputy Secretary Rich Rominger
            27th Soybean Seed Research Conference &
            52nd Corn & Sorghum Research Conference
         American Seed Trade Association Annual Meeting
             Chicago, Illinois -- December 10, 1997


"Role of the USDA in Positioning U.S. Agriculture for Exporting Transgenic   
 Products"
     
     Bill, thanks very much. And my thanks to the American Seed Trade
Association for bringing all of us together.  Like everyone here, I've
probably got more questions than answers. But that's what this conference is
all about... and I'm delighted to be part of the ASTA's annual opportunity
to explore those questions and lay the issues facing this great industry out
on the table.            

     I want to recognize our international visitors here today. Speaking
not for myself, but for my great-grandfather, I encourage everyone to take
in the exhibit on the contributions of German immigrants to American
agriculture.  My thanks to the ASTA for the initial research grant for the
exhibit, and to the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany and the
Agricultural Art and Science Foundation for having a big hand in producing
it. More than one million people have seen the exhibit so far and I
understand it's booked til the year 2001. 

     I've got to admit that it was my wife Evelyne, with her mostly English
roots, who  convinced me to provide information and artifacts from the
Rominger family. As usual, I'm glad I took her advice. I don't lean toward a
public display of family history. But I've come to see this as a tribute to
my great-grandparents -- Blickle and Rominger, who came from the Black
Forest to settle farms in California. More important, it's a chance to
portray agriculture's stability and change through the generations for the
public and for my own children, who still work the land, producing seed and
other crops.   

     Right now, American agriculture is struggling with tough questions
about stability and change. And when we talk about generations, we're
probably talking about first and second lines of genetically-engineered
seed, rather than children or grandchildren. We've already got the first
real-world applications of biotechnology moving through the agricultural
production pipeline. But moving right along with them are questions of
safety, sound science, ethics, and fairness. These are today's versions of
earlier discussions about trade numbers and data. The  debate is moving into
an entirely new realm as we head into the 21st century.

     USDA's role is to remind us all that modern agriculture is ultimately
a business whose success depends on productivity and competitiveness. We
have a commitment to further the production of U.S. agriculture and move
those products in trade once we're satisfied that they represent sound
science. We have a responsibility to fight protectionism in all its forms,
to continue to work for principled, open trade through discussion and
negotiation. And we have an obligation to keep asking hard questions: how
can the U.S. respond conscientiously -- as the most blessed nation of
abundance in the world -- to the crisis of hunger? And how do we do this in
a sustainable way, without stressing our land and destroying our resources?

TRADE 

     Just last week, Secretary Glickman signed a statement of intent with
Argentina to form a joint committee of high-level officials. We're pledging
to work together -- quickly and fairly -- through trade difficulties ...
like market access, food safety, research and technology. 

     This is an important step for the U.S. seed industry. U.S.-Argentine
agricultural trade is at an all-time high, with U.S. sales led by planting
seeds -- record-high this year -- and consumer-oriented agricultural goods.

     From Argentina, the Secretary went to Chile. He stopped by the Pioneer
seed farm and processing plant in Buin. Chile has been a progressive nation
in biotechnology ... responsible, systematic and thorough. When I visited
Chile in October, I told the Chileans how much we appreciate their efforts
to get U.S. biotech corn seed approved. The Secretary did the same last
week. We're hoping to get a green light for human food use there in the near
future.

     On the overall trade front, we're looking at the second largest year
ever for farm exports, projected at $58.5 billion in '98. We're expecting
gains in livestock, grains, and horticultural products. Nearly $9 billion
worth of soybeans and products are heading to the European Union, China,
Asia and Latin America. This reflects their versatility as a livestock feed
and food ingredient, and the ability of our researchers to come up with that
versatility in varieties and breeding lines.       

     This past year, planting seed exports were a record high, up 27
percent from the year before. Corn seed was number one, followed by
soybeans, alfalfa, sweet corn, tomato, flower seed, and sorghum. 

     Since the early 1970s, exports of U.S. planting seeds have been
averaging gains of more than 5 percent each year. Their value has literally
doubled in just 10 years -- to over $800 million now.  And in the past
decade, that same export value has grown from 10 to 20 percent of total
commercial seed sales. The increasing importance of planting seed exports
results, in no small measure, from the partnership between ASTA and USDA.
For four decades, ASTA has been a Foreign Market Development Cooperator. And
the U.S. seed industry, through ASTA, has set the standard for participation
in our market development programs by contributing at the high end -- $2.50
to $3.00 -- for every FAS program dollar.

     That relationship, those years of development, are paying off. It's
our job to make sure they continue to pay off. 

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

     Since the Farm Bill passed a year-and-a-half ago, Secretary Glickman
and I have been hearing one question over and over from producers: with
government moving out the back door of income support, who's coming in the
front? Where do we go from here? Who's there to help us in the riskier,
market-oriented agriculture of the 21st century?

     The agriculture community looks to research and science to fill in
where government and market stabilization left off. They see it as
agriculture's new safety net. And rightly so.

     For our part, now that we're out of the business of income support,
we're freer to focus on the vital infrastructure that supports our export
numbers and holds promise for global food security.

     Biotechnology is our greatest hope. It's like a stone skipped into a
pond. The effects just keep on rippling out from the center. It dramatically
increases crop yields. It uses less water and pesticides, offers greater
nutritional value. And, in the process, there's less stress on fragile lands
and forests.

     Food biotechnology is already making its presence felt. It's filling
consumer demand with high-quality, good-tasting food products produced in
ways that are environmentally sustainable. On the production side, about 15
percent of the 1997 soybean acreage was planted to herbicide-resistant
soybeans from seed distributed by more than 70 companies. Twelve percent of
all U.S. corn planted this year was genetically engineered for insect
resistance. 

     The fact is that the U.S. has a tremendous lead on the rest of the
world in biotechnology, and that includes agricultural technology. 
Single-gene traits, easiest to develop, are the first to market. The first
engineered crops have single-gene traits that affect production -- like Bt
corn that's toxic to some caterpillars. 

     The Chicago Tribune ran an article recently on one producer who was
ecstatic over the results of his biotech planting.

     "When I walked through the fields planted with Bt corn," he said, " I
couldn't find one corn borer, not one. I plan to plant 60 percent of my corn
crop in Bt corn next spring." Not only did the farmer's 80 acres of Bt corn
come through without a single borer. They yielded 210 bushels per acre --
about 10 bushels more than his conventional corn.  

     Last spring, I had the chance to get a close look at the research
behind numbers like these at the Plant Gene Expression Center in Albany,
California. They're working there on ...     * Genetic engineering of
monocots -- corn ...  

     * Large-scale genome sequencing ... 
     * Identifying plant disease resistance genes ...isolating the "N" gene
...
     The "N" gene is the joint discovery of USDA scientists and the
University of California at Berkeley, working side-by-side in a truly unique
research partnership. It may impact Third World countries in ways we can't
fully project. With its capacity to protect against disease without the use
of costly agri-chemicals, it may benefit both their environment and their
economics.

      Partnerships like this stand behind American agriculture's lead in
plant genetics.

     USDA is committed to assuring the broadest application of plant
genetic improvements to the U.S. farmer. We're committed to keeping the
American seed industry ahead of the world in improved plant material. This
may require release of germplasm. It may require a special partnership with
private companies. It's precisely this ability to collaborate and
participate in commercial development that gets our producers the quickest
and broadest benefit ... and keeps American agriculture in the forefront of
genetic advance.

     Technology transfer is nothing new to USDA. But, like everything else,
it's evolved over time. The tools used to transfer discoveries have changed.
The terminology has changed ... intellectual property rights, patents,
licenses, CRADAs (or Cooperative Research and Development Agreements),
strategic partnerships, and commercialization are today's language.

     But the goal hasn't changed -- to move ARS research results quickly to
those who need them.  And, by almost any standard, USDA historically has --
and still has -- the most effective technology transfer of any government
agency.

     Now we're working to refine those partnerships. We're looking to
involve customers in research planning and technology application. This
demands cooperation with extension, with producer organizations, Federal and
State regulatory and action agencies, and customer advocacy groups.

     A recent effort coordinated by ARS is a fine example. The Latin
American Maize Project is a unique collaboration  -- companies,
universities, government scientists -- to broaden the genetic diversity of
corn.  This genetic material is valuable, and now it's been saved.  We
expect the development of specialty corns to boost the U.S. share of the
export market and help maintain consistent quality for domestic users.
Ultimately, it will figure in the success of the agricultural economy and
let us adapt more easily to our export challenges. 

THE U.S. GUARANTEE OF SOUND SCIENCE

     Our challenges, as you know too well, are formidable.

     Whenever I start to consider how far we've still got to go in public
understanding of science, I think of a recent cartoon and just how far we've
come.

     A little boy, watching the news with his mother on Veterans Day, is
confused by a story about the Tomb of the Unknown Solider. Puzzled, he turns
to his mom and says, "Why don't they just check his DNA?"

     When it comes to gaining global acceptance of the results of our
science, nothing is that simple. But the U.S. position is that
straightforward. The message President Clinton, Secretary Glickman and I
have taken around the world is that sound science must be the ultimate
arbiter of trade differences. Acceptance of this principle is the only way
that nations committed on paper to a free and fair trading environment will
demonstrate that they are committed in fact.

     The critical test in international trade rules is a single question:
what does sound science say? The U.S. takes this question very seriously.
The answers we offer for all commodities are based on rigorous testing and
uncompromised scientific review.

     USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the
Environmental Protection Agency regulate the environmental risk of
engineered crops. Before we permit engineered crops to be grown
commercially, APHIS must approve them. We check any possible risks from the
transfer of foreign genes or harmful genes to other species. It's often the
case that engineered crops -- like soybeans and Bt cotton --  pose less risk
to the environment than the technology they replace.

     The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates food safety for crop
products. The FDA has found no special safety hazard in food engineering.
Transgenic foods may enter the U.S. without special labeling unless a new
gene product is involved that causes a nutritional change or carries
consumer risk -- like an allergen.
     U.S. citizens, as a whole, have confidence in the safety of their food
supply. They understand that we don't rush to judgment. They accept the
effectiveness of our regulatory system to monitor the safety of transgenic
products.

     But the scenario is much different in some of our principal export
markets.  Although Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans were shipped to Europe
last year, other new varieties are stuck in the EU pipeline.

     Our frustration isn't necessarily with a lack of approval of biotech
products. It's with the chronic uncertainty governing the EU's approval
process. As Secretary Glickman has written to Agricultural Commissioner
Franz Fischler, we feel this uncertainty threatens to disrupt commercial
trade in agricultural commodities. 

LABELING

     And we're opposed to mandatory labeling of genetically engineered
products, as recommended by the European Commission.

     The U.S. has serious questions about the specifics of the labeling and
the testing that the EU is proposing. We feel that the special labeling of
biotech foods is unnecessary and will mislead consumers. Labeling should be
reserved for providing information to consumers on health and safety. The EU
argues that it won't label for health and safety reasons, but to protect the
consumer's right to know. 

     We're pleased that the EU appears to have backed away from a
requirement to segregate biotech products. But we're watching carefully to
make sure that the final outcome of the labeling policy isn't tantamount to
segregation.   

     We're also making it abundantly clear that we'll fight protectionism
in the guise of phony science barriers. We'll continue to press in
international negotiations for science-based sanitary and phyto-sanitary
trade regulations.  We'll hold all countries to their commitments under the
World Trade Organization. Internal politics and other unjustified trade
disruptions are unacceptable. We hope to see biotechnology at the top of the
agenda in the next round of WTO agricultural trade talks. This will be one
of the most serious decisions we make for our world as we head into a new
century.

     We need to work hand-in-hand with you and with others in the industry
-- growers, processors, and the trade -- to ensure that transgenic seed is
approved by other countries on a timely basis. Otherwise, trade disruptions
will be inevitable. 

     We in government are doing our best to gain foreign market acceptance
of U.S. grain from transgenic seed. But our task will be made impossible if
foreign approval processes are ignored, or seed is marketed without
necessary consideration to the requirements of other countries. The
integrity and comprehensiveness of our approval system for GMOs (genetically
modified organisms) certainly provide a good basis to assure that products
we approve will be approved elsewhere. But great care must be taken to
ensure that trade is not halted simply because we've ignored this factor.

     As I said, we need to continue to work together on this problem. 
     
     As we work to champion the cause of biotechnology, we must also do a
better job of teamwork -- government and industry -- to educate the world's
consumers. Much of the biotech debate hinges on fear.  Lack of knowledge
fans the flame of fear. We can do better.
 
     Those nations steeped in uncertainty fail to see scientific advance as
a much-needed continuum. We have little doubt that the debate will modify
over time as the demand for food  grows ...  especially food produced in a
way that attends to the environment.  It's inevitable that countries failing
to adopt the best technologies will falter.

     So our mission is to pursue the course of science and to navigate
short-term roadblocks with our sights fixed on the long-term benefits to our
farmers, our industries, and our fragile environment. This is more than
science, or dollars and cents. It's a matter of conviction that we are doing
everything within our power to guarantee safety. From that point, it's a
matter of conscience that we must use every safe tool at our disposal to
feed a growing world.  As former President Jimmy Carter has said,
"Responsible biotechnology is not the enemy; starvation is." It's a powerful
mandate, and one that we take on -- with you -- with seriousness and great
satisfaction. Thank you.  

                                #

NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet.
Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov