Standing Committee on Biotechnology, Food and Fiber
                                                               
                                           Releases No. 0148.00
Remarks
                               by
         Deputy Secretary of Agriculture  Rich Rominger
            First Meeting, National Research Council
      Standing Committee on Biotechnology, Food and Fiber
                Production, and the Environment
                 Washington, D.C.   May 4, 2000
  
  "Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.  Secretary
Glickman and I have been working long and hard to move agriculture forward by
creating new technological opportunities for farmers in the U.S. and abroad.
For the last quarter century, USDA has had major roles in biotechnology
innovation and commercialization, in assuring its safety, and disseminating
information to the public. 

  "Let me give you a quick overview of our work in biotechnology. 

  Our Agricultural Research Service is the premier public research
institution for agricultural biotechnology in the world. But it's not alone in
handling research innovation at both basic and applied science levels, as well
as risk assessment research. We also depend on the research of our Forest
Service, and the network of partnerships with land grant colleges and
universities through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service.  This includes our Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grants Program.  

   "USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research
Service study economic changes brought about by biotechnology and their impact
on farmers throughout the production and marketing chain. 

   "We look to our Natural Resources Conservation Service for emerging farm
management issues related to biotechnology.  The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service plays vital regulatory roles to ensure the safety of new
biotechnology products, including  transgenic plants. In the future, our Food
Safety Inspection Service will assure the safety of meat and poultry products
from transgenic animals, when they're ready to be brought to slaughter and
market.

    "Our regulatory marketing agencies -- the Agricultural Marketing
Service and the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration --
have the tough job of ensuring an efficient marketplace that's fast changing
with the commercialization of technological advances.  And our Foreign
Agricultural Service is on the front lines worldwide to promote the export of
our agricultural products that have met our rigorous regulatory requirements. 
So biotechnology is critical to our agencies, our missions and our priorities,
department-wide.

THE NEED FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW
" As the Secretary has indicated, we recognize the potential of
biotechnology and we're keen to see that potential realized.  We also see this
technology evolving rapidly, and we know that the Department must be
proactive, well-informed, and adaptable in order to keep pace.  As we tackle
this internally and with our sister Agencies, the work you're starting here
will encompass aspects of that effort. It will set the stage for biotechnology
projects that will evolve as new technology brings new questions.  Let me echo
the Secretary that we attach great importance to the work you're undertaking.  


LOOKING TO ACADEMY EXPERTISE
 " And it's no surprise that we would come to the Academy for advice. We
have a long history of cooperation on many subjects, including biotechnology. 
In the 1980's, the Academy helped develop a framework for field testing
genetically engineered plants and microorganisms. Those efforts enabled
progress in research and regulation. Now we've moved quite a bit beyond that
framework: American farmers are growing tens of millions of acres of
genetically engineered crops. 

 " USDA scientists and regulatory officials have worked hard to develop a
science-based, fair, and transparent regulatory system, but we can always make
it better.

   "Generally,  those who have adopted the technology have been pleased
with its performance.  But not everyone is satisfied that all issues have been
considered. Some sectors of the farm community believe that the technology may
pose unacceptable risks.  This is where we look to the Academy. Your
expertise, your credibility and your dispassionate analysis carry significant
weight. NAS is the most respected scientific body in the world.  When the
Academy speaks, people listen.  Your recent report on genetically modified
pest protected plants bears this out.

  "We are proud that this is a USDA-based and USDA-supported project.  We
want and expect your work to be of value to USDA.  That's why we asked to
establish a Standing Committee on Biotechnology. 


PRESENTING SCIENCE IN CONTEXT
  "We recognize that your first study, though significant, is part of a
bigger picture and process. We've also set up the Advisory Committee on
Agricultural Biotechnology which held its first meeting a few weeks ago. The
ACAB will focus on larger policy -- rather than technical   issues. But its
input may well be valuable in identifying issues and making recommendations to
the Secretary that he might pass along to you for analysis by this  Committee. 
We believe this process brings a broad perspective to identifying issues for
study, and we intend to make good use of it.  A working group of the ACAB will
get underway in the next several months and we look forward to working with
you through this process.

  "One of the most critical things you can do for us is put your
recommendations into clear contexts.  As our world becomes more and more
technical, it becomes increasingly difficult for people to grasp the big
picture -- how individual pieces of information fit into the whole puzzle.  We
hope you'll shed light on the trees and the forest.  This is particularly
important as more and more citizens have never spent time on a farm, have lost
touch with how their food is produced, and equate a small urban green space
with "nature."

  "We need your help here. 

  "Many biotechnology critics rightly or wrongly want the government to
certify that new products are zero-risk before they come to the marketplace.
Unfortunately, this isn't a zero-risk world.  Even traditional farming
practices and traditional ways are not without risks, and they only increase
as world population grows.  We know we need to do better.  Again, context is
all-important.  
  
  "We look to your first study to consider how USDA's scientific evaluation
of transgenic plants is working, whether some of our fundamental assumptions
are correct, whether our data collection and analyses are sound. We expect a
hard look, and we will seriously consider your recommendations.  
  
  "Your analyses of USDA's risk assessment processes will be most useful if
they give readers a solid context of agriculture today as well as basic
biological principles.  We're looking to you to analyze whether we've
accurately identified and addressed the issues related to the movement of
genes from one crop to another crop, or from one crop into the wild
environment.  If we haven't gotten it entirely right,  tell us what we've
missed, and if there are potential risks, what the magnitude and likelihood of
harm from those potential risks might be. Tell us the types of situations
where we need more data. And   most important    help us put the risks that
concern us all into  meaningful perspective.


ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
  "This brings us to the subject of environmental monitoring.  Even though
we've made assessments and found that certain new varieties meet our high
standard of safety, the public wants reassurance. The public wants reassurance
that if something comes up, we'll notice it, consider it, address it, and take
actions to deal with "it", whatever "it" may be.  

  "On the other side, if good things happen out in the field, we need to
note those effects as well.  But how do we do that?  The Department can't send
employees out to watch cornfields with no clear idea of what to do. We can't
ask farmers to camp out in their fields to do the same.  

  "What the Department wants to know is basic: what makes sense?  What's
important to monitor?  What's effective to monitor?  How do we go about
monitoring? How do we know when and when NOT to monitor?   We'll need to make
sense out of any monitoring data and we'll need a baseline for comparison to
get a real-world estimate of effects.  If we should be watching for unexpected
environmental effects, do we do this randomly or devise a solid game plan? In
short, we must use our resources wisely and not overburden our officials,
farmers, and others.

  "We expect that we'll be coming back to the Academy a number of times in
the not-too-distant future.  Crop plants that have completed our regulatory
processes aren't alone in the pipeline. Other products and other questions are
coming.  We've already had field trials of  genetically engineered insects,
plants intended to produce new pharmaceuticals, and genetically engineered
trees.  Food safety issues concerning meat and poultry from transgenic animals
are just around the corner.  USDA will be wrestling with these issues in the
next several years, and we -- and the public -- will need the Academy's input
and guidance.  As we set priorities, we'll be bringing additional projects for
your expertise.  The Secretary, the Department, and I are support all that
you're doing. We feel that we're entering a new era of cooperation with the
NAS, and we're enthused about building on our working relationship to push and
understand the frontiers of science in the service of our farmers and
consumers. Thank you.