12th World Meat Congress
                                            Release No .0222.99

Remarks
          As Prepared for Delivery
                                           
                                   of
                U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman
                     12th World Meat Congress               
                     Dublin, Ireland   May 19, 1999

     "Thank you very much.  It's a great honor to be here and to have this
opportunity to speak to you today.  I want to acknowledge my European
counterpart, Franz Fischler, who will speak after me.  Commissioner Fischler
and I have built a relationship based on cordiality and trust that will serve
us well as we try to resolve some of the differences between the United States
and the EU.  

     "It was at this Congress four years ago that Commissioner Fischler and I
first met.  A lot has happened since then.  In June 1995, you'll remember, we
were flush with export opportunities.  It was a time of tremendous optimism
about the future of trade, not just in meat, not just in agriculture, but in
goods and services across the board.  The growing global marketplace was going
to line every pocket, empower every community and create prosperity the world
over.

     "Since then, we've been sobered by a global financial crisis that
devastated many of the emerging Asian economies and softened demand in Russia,
one of the world's most important markets for meat.  We've also endured a
global oversupply of pork that sent prices plunging to their lowest levels in
years...and in the U.S., to their lowest level since the Great Depression of
the 1930s.

     "But the meat industry around the world has withstood a few turbulent
years.  And thanks in part to the innovation and leadership in this room, the
future looks bright.  Sales from meat trade hovered around $44 billion in 1996
and 1997, but I think we've only scratched the surface of the potential that's
out there.  There are still many markets that have gone largely untapped.  In
the developing world, as incomes rise and middle classes grow, people will
have the means to supplement a grain-dominated diet with meats, as well as
dairy products and eggs. 
                                                            
     "But to seize the potential, we have a lot of work to do together.  Even
as our respective nations compete for market share, we must be partners in the
effort to strengthen and reinforce consumer confidence, the very foundation of
demand.  We also must be partners in the effort to construct a world trading
system where every producer gets a fair shake...where meat   and all goods and
services   are traded freely across oceans and continents.  
    
     "The next round of WTO negotiations later this year will be a turning
point in this effort.  It's critical that we make progress on a number of key
items in Seattle.  We must work to eliminate export subsidies, which make for
unfair trading practices and depress world commodity prices for all producers. 
We must rein in State Trading Enterprises, which continue to block our path to
an open, transparent trading system.  We must further discipline domestic farm
subsidies.  We must further reduce tariffs, which average 50 percent on
agricultural goods around the world and 42 percent on meat.  We need to open
markets by raising the ceilings on tariff-rate quotas, even as we try to phase
them out over the long run.  And -- especially timely and pressing right now -
- we must ensure the continued effectiveness of the rules governing sanitary
and phytosanitary measures; we have to make sure that science prevails, and we
cannot let nations hide protectionism behind unvalidated, secretive studies.

     "The global marketplace will serve all of us the best when it operates
fairly and efficiently, when products succeed or fail on their merits, instead
of being propped up by artificial government supports.  

     "The WTO faces daunting challenges   reconciling a noisy throng of
national interests, political agendas, economic models and cultural
traditions...and somehow harmonizing them within a uniform set of rules.  How
do you get Thailand and Denmark, or Ghana and Brazil, to see the world in the
same way...or at least in a similar way?  And anytime there is a WTO issue
involving the EU, it just becomes trickier, since the EU is not a single
nation, but an amalgam of autonomous member-states.

     "As difficult as it is, however, we need the WTO to work.  Otherwise
chaos will reign in the global marketplace, with each nation playing by its
own self-serving rules and accountable to no one.  And in order for the WTO to
work, its members have to respect its institutional authority.  

     "But in choosing to maintain its ban on beef from hormone-treated
cattle, in my judgment the EU has put all this at risk.  In joining the WTO,
we have all, including the EU, tempered some national impulses to serve the
greater, long-term global good.  We can't be selective about our WTO
responsibilities.  We can't accept them when they're convenient and ignore
them when they're not.  

     "Three times over the last year and a half, the WTO has ruled
unambiguously in favor of the United States on beef hormones  And still the EU
has not moved to lift the ban.  When the EU allowed last week's deadline to
come and go without action, the United States had no choice but to exercise
our rights and live up to our commitments to our producers.  We had no choice
but to make good on our promise to pursue retaliatory tariffs on European
goods coming into the United States. 
                                
     "The rhetoric, as we all know, has gotten pretty hot on the beef hormone
issue, and I don't know that anyone is well-served by turning it up another
notch here today.  I didn't come to Dublin to bang on the podium.  But I did
come here to restate our determination to move forward, firmly, in seeing that
this ban is lifted...and ensuring that all producers are treated fairly in the
global marketplace.

     "At the same time, I believe it is important to view this dispute
through a wider lens.  At the heart of this dispute are two different cultural
attitudes.  The two sides are looking at this with different sets of eyes.  In
the U.S., we are more likely to look at science and see a force for
agricultural progress.  I think Europe is generally a little more skeptical,
perhaps concerned about even the theoretical possibility of risk.  After all,
the beef hormone debate is about more than just the bottom line, although
that's important too.  This is not your ordinary trade battle over steel or
computer chips, where a few tariff percentage points might be at issue.  This
is about food -- about the food we eat and the food we give our children to
eat.  And because it's about food, it's about public health, an issue where
nations might choose their own very exacting domestic standard...and balk at a
global standard that they consider inconsistent with their own.

     "We should be careful.  We should ask questions about the food we're
putting in our mouths.  And the burden of proof should always be on the
product, its purveyors and its promoters to prove safety, not on the consumer
to prove health hazards.  

     "The American people have asked all the questions and have demanded the
answers.  That's why we have such a strong regulatory system, which has
approved products that meet the burden of proof and rejected those that do
not.  The American people are as discriminating as anyone about what they
consume.  Don't confuse their acceptance with complacence.  

     "Just yesterday, before I came to Ireland, I spoke to an American group
called the National Consumers League.  They've been around for 100 years, and
they have been in the vanguard of every effort to empower consumers with
information and protect them from the potential excesses of the marketplace. 
My point is that American consumers are alert and vigilant on food safety
issues.  They are well-organized; they have powerful advocates.  We have to be
accountable to them, and we are. 

     "Skepticism about new food products is to be expected and, in fact,
encouraged.  But it's all in how we deal with that skepticism.  If we give in
to our skepticism without testing it...if we allow skepticism to evolve into
complete denial...if we only fret about infinitesimal risks without
considering the benefits...then we may lose out on innovative new products
that can enhance consumers' diets and create jobs and economic growth.  
                                
     "But if we apply rigorous standards...if we are vigilant about
safety...if we conduct science-based risk assessments...if we set up a system
of regulatory checks and balances...if we have a transparent process in which
the public participates...then we can proceed with confidence that the
products that make it to market are safe.  As I said, the key to growing our
market is to inspire and sustain consumer confidence. 
                                
     "I want to talk for a minute about the way that we build consumer
confidence in the United States.  I want to talk about our food safety
efforts; about the way we handle new biotechnology products; about the
regulatory system we've constructed and the confidence it gives the American
people.

     "In fiscal year 1997, our government inspectors examined over 10 billion
livestock, poultry and egg products.  We have moved to a new science-based
food inspection system called HACCP   Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point.  HACCP calls for scientific analysis to detect pathogens that can't be
caught by the inspector's naked eye, while maintaining inspection which
examines the animals for disease and prevents contamination of products during
slaughter and processing.  All but the very smallest plants have already
implemented HACCP, and the entire industry will be in compliance by January of
next year.

  "We are also beginning to go beyond plant-based inspection to a more
comprehensive farm-to-table approach.  Instead of simply monitoring the
activity of slaughterhouses and processing plants, this approach will address
food safety concerns that might exist before the animal is brought to
slaughter and after the product leaves the plant.

  "We know that we can't completely eliminate outbreaks of foodborne
illnesses, but we can move quickly to control them.  We've introduced a new
computer network called PulseNet, which links public health laboratories
around the country and allows them to quickly identify incidents of foodborne
illnesses and alert the public.  We then use epidemiology to find the source
and interrupt the outbreak.
            
  "Consumer outreach is a linchpin of our approach to food safety.  We
have launched an aggressive campaign to promote the importance of safe food
handling and preparation.  The Department of Agriculture also has a toll-free
Meat and Poultry Hotline that provides answers to consumer questions about
food safety.

  "And these safeguards have been successful because we've built strong
partnerships with consumers, producers and industry as well.  Industry
understands that food safety is more than a public health concern.  It's also
a shrewd business strategy...because, quite simply, safe food sells.
  "Our approval process for biotechnology products is similarly tight and
comprehensive.  Three separate federal agencies   the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental
Protection Agency -- have jurisdiction, and each impose  demanding and
scrupulous scientific standards.  
                                
  "Consumers   the ultimate arbiters of a product's success   are given an
important role.  We hold public meetings to get comments on policies and
regulations as they're being developed.  We post information on the Internet
about products under review.  When a product is finally approved, Americans
can and do believe in the integrity of the process because they've watched it
happen...and participated in it themselves.

  "Last year, when our government published the preliminary rule on
organic foods, we got a staggering response, over 270,000 consumers, who had a
very definite opinion about the rule...and whose input compelled us to adjust
our organic standards.  The people spoke; we listened.  The process worked
because it was open, inclusive and transparent.  The development of the
organic rule is also an example of our understanding in the United States that
there is a diversity of agricultural tastes out there.  Our producers work
hard to respond to every market niche, and we in government make public policy
accordingly

. "I think there's this misperception out there that American agriculture
-- and the American meat industry in particular -- is a corporate monolith,
force feeding hormone-treated beef and GMOs to reluctant European consumers,
while the U.S. government cheers them on.  

  "The truth is that almost half of the nearly 900,000 beef operations in
the United States have less than 50 head of cattle.  If you want to buy beef
that's not treated with growth hormones, you can get it from the United
States.  If you want free-range chicken, you can get it from the United
States.  

  "And as for our government, we can, as we say in the United States, walk
and chew gum at the same time.  Yes, we aggressively promote American products
in global markets.  But that doesn't prevent us from maintaining effective
controls and regulations.  We are able to keep the two functions separate. 
And we don't export anything that hasn't been deemed fit for domestic
consumption.

  "It's all about choice.  We don't want to push our beef from hormone-
treated cattle to the exclusion of other quality products.  But we do believe
it should be one of the options on the grocery-store shelves.  

  "We are sensitive to the fact that the BSE scare looms in the European
consciousness and has, quite naturally, heightened consumer anxiety about food
safety.  We understand that, even if the beef hormone ban were lifted
tomorrow, our companies would have a significant marketing and public
information challenge ahead of them.  That's okay.  American industry is
prepared to meet that challenge.  All we're asking for is a fair chance to
compete, a fair shot to get in the race.  But with the ban in place, we are,
unfairly and unjustifiably, out in the cold.

  "And even as we remain steadfast in our belief that today's science has
deemed beef hormones safe, we also recognize that science is ever-evolving. 
We are open to new information, as long as it's presented in a complete and
accurate fashion...and as long as it is subject to the rigorous peer review of
the scientific community.

  "I hope that we do resolve the beef hormone dispute in a way that meets
the most pressing concerns of both sides.  In a post-Cold War era,
disagreements like this one will become more and more common, as nations'
economies become increasingly interdependent and commercial issues   rather
than national security issues -- come to dominate the international dialogue. 
We need to find ways to resolve them before they escalate into full-blown
trade wars.

  "Let's remember: we are, after all, allies.  Not just allies, but allies
who have, for half a century, been the force for freedom and democracy in the
world.
                                
Allies who have built the strongest military and diplomatic partnership the
world has ever known.  Allies who are now fighting side-by-side to end ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo.  Given all that, you would think we could come to some
agreement on the issue of beef hormones.  
                                
  "This is a time for leadership, not rigidity or narrow self-interest. 
We need to gain some perspective.  If we take the long view, I think we'll
realize that the stakes involved in any one market access issue pale in
comparison to the stakes involved in ensuring a free, open, rules-based world
trading system, which will create prosperity and opportunity the world over. 
That's where we should be focused.  That's our ultimate goal.  Let's all of us
  not just the United States and Europe, but all of us   get there together. 
Thank you very much.

                             # # #