Release No. 0077.00 
19th EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK CONFERENCE
Remarks
          As Prepared for Delivery
                                by
           U.S. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE DAN GLICKMAN
         19th EUROPEAN AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK CONFERENCE
                  LONDON, UK    MARCH 9, 2000

                                
     "Thank you Mr. Pooley.  I also want to thank Minister Brown and
Commissioner Fischler.  With me today are Catherine Woteki, Under Secretary
for Food Safety, and Isi Siddiqui my Senior Trade Advisor. 

     "I want to begin with the figure $346 billion.  That's the amount of
trade, in all sectors, that the United States and the European Union engaged
in last year.  For agriculture the overall figure was over $14 billion.

     "The depth of economic activity between the EU and the United States is
one clear reminder that we have a fundamentally strong working relationship  
that in most areas we agree far more than we disagree   that we are united in
our principles, and that we have come to appreciate and value our alliance and
our friendship.

     "Sixty years ago Winston Churchill said, "We do not covet anything from
any nation except their respect."  It is the mutual respect between Europe and
the United States that has allowed us to work together to move the entire
world to a greater level of prosperity, democracy, freedom and peace since the
dawn of modern civilization.  

     "In my five years as Secretary of Agriculture, too often I've noticed
that a disproportionate amount of our energies   on both sides of the Atlantic
   are focused on our differences, on what divides us, and not on what brings
us together. 

     "That is why it is important that we remember how far we've come
together, because it is from that foundation of mutual respect and cooperation
that we will find common ground, that we will solve our differences and meet
the problems that threaten each of us.  It is from that foundation that we
will continue to grow and prosper and create a safer, more humanitarian world.
                                
     "Today we live in a world marked by a very fast pace of technology that
changes our lifestyles, shrinks geographical boundaries and transcends the
forces of suppression through open communications the likes of which the world
couldn't even imagine even 50 years ago.  But for all the satellites and
computers, fiber optics and laser technology, one thing hasn't changed: The
life of each and every human being on this planet is still in the hands of our
farmers and ranchers  and it will always be that way.

     "By the middle of the century, world population is expected to top 9
billion people.  Depending on your perspective, you can look at that number as
providing a daunting challenge to world agriculture, or you can look at it as
an opportunity to build on the amazing achievements agriculture has achieved
in the last 100 years.  How well our farmers and ranchers fare depends on how
we meet the many challenges and opportunities facing world agriculture. 

     "In the United States, after the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, we
embarked on a new approach to government's role in farming.  It reduces
government's role in controlling supply and gives more market freedom to
farmers.  Government takes a more active role as the partner who focuses on
the big picture   in conservation planning, research, trade and market
development for example.  

     "But we also recognize that our farmers and ranchers do some of the most
back-breaking and most important work there is.  It involves extraordinary
risk and is often subject to factors way beyond their control.  Because of the
volatility and unpredictability of agriculture, and because we want to assure
a reliable food supply, we want to do what we can to make sure that farmers
have the opportunity to survive, and hopefully to prosper.  

     "So, in the United States, we are proposing to provide farmers with an
adequate safety net during bad times, but that allows them to fully capitalize
on good times.
                                
     "Today, farmers and ranchers in the United States and elsewhere are into
their third year of severe hardship.  Huge inventories, record worldwide
production, natural disasters and economic crises in Asia, Latin America and
Russia all contributed to dramatic declines in most farm prices.

     "In the United States, the difficulties hit at a particularly
inopportune time because American agriculture was also adjusting to the
sweeping changes in farm policy that I mentioned earlier.  The crisis was so
wide and so deep that Congress had to come up with huge sums to help farmers
survive the crises.  We were able to provide this aid  in a manner that was
consistent with our World Trade Organization commitments, but it was a costly,
band-aide approach   more patchwork than policy.
                                
     "So this year, to help avert costly, drastic, inefficient measures in
the future, President Clinton wants to develop a farm safety net that protects
farmers in times of crisis, that is non-trade-distorting, that is targeted to
those who need the help, that allows farmers to plan better for the future,
that empowers them to better manage risk, and that helps them to protect the
very natural resources that is the source of their livelihood and our food.  

     "The proposals we outlined in the President's budget and asked the
Congress to consider are based on redirecting some of the philosophical
underpinnings of farm policy. They are designed to be WTO-consistent, to take
a long-term perspective, to give farmers better control and thus free them to
do what they do best   grow our food.

     "And we want to continue to ensure that conservation -- the preservation
of our land -- is a centerpiece of farm policy.   The land is not something
that can be replaced like a piece of machinery.  We need to respect it above
and beyond its crop-producing capability; we must recognize it for what it is:
our most valuable commodity. 

     "Our goal is to prepare our farmers and ranchers for the challenges of
the new century.  But all of us know that no one nation can make a go of it
alone in a world of interdependent economies.  We are all faced with
conflicting problems in agriculture.  On one hand are issues of hunger,
malnutrition, sustainability, and providing adequate levels of sustenance in
places like sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the developing world.  

     "On the other hand, we have a big worldwide carryover of stocks
resulting in part from good weather, but also from new technologies that have
dramatically increased yields and production which has driven prices down and
threatens farmers' livelihoods.  These issues, coupled with the great shifts
in agriculture over the last few decades in production, distribution and
marketing have left many farmers and ranchers in a precarious position with an
uncertain future.  

     "We need to figure out how to give farmers and ranchers some economic
stability, and how to feed a hungry world, but without bankrupting our
respective treasuries.   This will not be easy.   And we need to do it in a
manner that is fair and equitable to all participants, and in a way that
preserves what we refer to as family-size production agriculture.  

     "In the United States we've made dramatic changes, for example, in trade
policy.  We had to overcome some domestic resistance to a new wave of trade
agreements ushered in by President Clinton that helped lead to unprecedented
economic prosperity.  And that battle continues.  The borders of the United
States remain the most open and least trade-restrictive of any major
industrialized country in the world.

     "The EU must overcome similar difficult choices in order to overcome the
barriers that will enable strong growth and greater prosperity.  Let's be
frank, export subsidies in the EU, while they are popular and may seem helpful
to those who benefit from them, are inefficient, trade-distorting and in the
long-run detrimental to healthy competition which is the lifeblood of a strong
economy.  
                                
     "What's more, they tend to work against the interests of small, less
developed nations who cannot compete with the heavily subsidized commodities
exported by countries using export subsidies.

     "Just look at China: In its move out of economic stagnation, China,
recognizing the need for efficiency to boost their economy, has agreed to
eliminate all export subsidies as it joins the WTO.

     "Right now we're in a dog-eat dog battle over subsidies and other trade
matters, when we should be coming together to solve some of the more
challenging issues facing agriculture.  The EU, US and other agriculture
producing nations must get together and raise the level of discourse -- away
from conflict and more toward resolution -- to discuss in depth the long-term
implications of world agriculture policy.  

     "We need to work collaboratively toward better coordination of each
country's agricultural policy positions.  We also need to find better venues
for, not just politicians, but farmers, ranchers and others to discuss our
respective problems.

     "By and large, the problems our farmers face are very, very similar. 
The economy of agriculture -- even in the U.S.    has not kept pace with the
outstanding general national economy.  None of our farmers will prevail unless
we, in the context of a rules based world trading system, work together.  It's
a long, slow difficult process but I think the result is worth the effort.  I
find that far too many politicians on both sides of the Atlantic spend far too
much precious energy critiquing each other's policies and not nearly enough
time working toward constructive compromise.   

`    "If you will excuse my phraseology, allow me to quote President Harry
Truman who said, "Any jackass can kick down a barn door, but it takes a
carpenter to build one."  We need a lot more carpenters.

     "While I am here, I plan to discuss these issues in depth with EU
Commissioner Franz Fischler and Agriculture Minister Nick Brown.

     "This unprecedented level of interdependence, especially in agriculture,
is a result of the rise of the global economy.  In my five years as
Agriculture Secretary I have seen what trade means to agriculture's bottom
line.  Early in my tenure, we saw record agricultural exports in the United
States reach $60 billion in a single year.   But in the last year and a half,
we saw the bottom drop out -- and that has been true for farmers worldwide. 

     "We've all seen how significant trade is to agriculture's bottom line in
all of our countries.  If our economies are to continue to grow and prosper,
then we must look for new markets -- and that means we need an open trading
system.  
                                
Look at the facts:  Since 1960, tariffs worldwide have fallen by 90% while
global trade grew 1500% contributing to a quadrupling of world economic
production and a doubling of  per capita income.

     "The United States already is among the most open markets in the world. 
And, at the same time, we have one of the strongest and most prosperous
economies in the world.  I do not say that to boast, but to point out that a
free market is the lifeblood of a healthy economy.

     "Under the WTO we've made great strides in reducing trade barriers and
advancing our goals toward more free and fair trade.  As you know, the WTO had
a rough time of it last year in Seattle.  But, while some are questioning
certain WTO rules, operating procedures and policies, few are challenging the
basic tenet of the WTO's goals of creating a freer, fairer more open world
trading system.  A detour in the road does not change our destination.  That
is why we are working hard to jump start talks on agriculture and services
under the built-in agenda of the WTO.  
                                
     "Since the new year, there has been a flurry of diplomatic activity
among all participating nations, including developing nations, all with the
intention of developing a clear agenda so we can begin talks as soon as
possible.  I met with the WTO's Director General, Michael Moore, recently in
Washington, and both of us came away from that meeting encouraged that we are
making great strides toward getting these talks off the ground.

     "By facilitating free trade we are enhancing the ability of businesses
and consumers in all nations to raise their levels of prosperity. Consider for
example, the opportunity now before us to admit China into the World Trade
Organization.  China is home to 20% of the world's population -- the elephant
in the living room none of us can ignore.  China's commitment to adhering to
WTO standards is a bold statement that they intend to be a major player on the
world stage.  The Chinese have shown they understand that they must commit to
long-standing principles governing world trade   transparency, fair trade
practices, peaceful settlement of disputes and, most importantly, the rule of
law.  

     "Now, there are some who object to China's joining the WTO because
they're concerned about China's human rights violations, or their lax labor
standards, or their aggressive posture toward Taiwan.  We share these
concerns, and we're addressing them through appropriate channels.  But in the
long run, the surefire way to ensure that China does not change is to walk
away from this relationship.  If we want to open nations like China, if we
want to expose them to our values...to democratic principles...to the concept
of religious freedom...then we have to bring them into a rules-based global
system.  If we help China become a more open economy, eventually they will
become a more open society.

     "Along with lifting the entire community of nations, one of the biggest
motivations behind pushing for improved trade is to create new opportunities
for businesses, farmers and consumers.  But expanding opportunities is not
just about who you sell to, but what you sell them.  Developing new value-
added products, specialty crops and new technologies give farmers the
opportunity to broaden their base, and give consumers more choice.

     "Recently I took two significant steps that hopefully will make profound
contributions to farmers' ability to broaden their base, and to the choices
consumers have.  I recently appointed a biotechnology committee to advise me
on policy choices affecting this developing science; and this week, I
announced a uniform national organic standard defining what qualifies as
organic.  I might add that it is the strictest and most comprehensive organic
rule in the world.

     "As a society we do not have to choose one over the other.  In fact,
they both can serve us well.   In the United States, we strive to ensure that
consumers will always be able to make informed choices and that we maintain
the highest standards of safety American consumers have come to expect of
American food production.  

     "The fact is biotechnology can be an indispensable tool in meeting
growing global agricultural demand while lessening the strain on our precious
natural resources.  It can also help farmers produce a new generation of
specialty products to meet future consumer demand.  In fact, populous nations
like India and China are already well on their way down that road embracing
biotechnology.  Reports coming out of China predict that within five to ten
years -- that's not a long time -- half of China's fields will be growing GMO
crops. Some of the signals I've seen from the European capitals of late
suggest that the EU is in danger of falling behind the competition. 

     "But regardless of biotechnology's potential, the consuming public, the
private sector, the academic community, the farm community and those of us in
government should not be afraid to ask the difficult questions.   All of us
have to understand the safety and environmental implications of biotechnology. 
Our testing has to be rigorous.  We have to be as vigilant as ever.  And we
have to make sure that those involved in determining the safety of
genetically-engineered products are independent from the people who stand to
profit from them.  

     "The regulatory procedures we have in place are not only meeting the
challenges of biotechnology, but we are adapting them to grow and develop
alongside this new technology.  One of the reasons why I  appointed a
biotechnology policy advisory committee, and why I asked the National Academy
of Sciences to create a standing biotechnology committee and to do an
independent review of our approval process is in order to keep pace with the
rapidly changing developments of such a relatively new science.   We want to
ensure that the regulatory processes we rely on to protect public health and
the environment are state-of-the-art.

     "But, there's an aspect to this debate that has been largely overlooked
  biotechnology's potential to alleviate hunger and malnourishment in
developing countries.

     "Too often we focus our energies on the priorities of the developed
world -- on an ideological debate between commercial and cultural elites: on
one hand dwelling on the fear of this new technology, and on the other hand
consumed with what it can do for us.   To a large extent that debate is short-
sighted.  With world food and nutrition needs already out of balance and
growing exponentially   800 million people are hungry or undernourished   the
current debate risks subverting a technology that can help, even save, the
less fortunate around the globe.
                                
     "I recently read about scientists in Switzerland who developed
genetically engineered rice containing beta-carotene, the biochemical that
turns into Vitamin A.  Vitamin A deficiency is a leading cause of blindness
and contributes to childhood illnesses leading to a million deaths a year in
the developing world.  And the potential is there to develop rice to battle
iron deficiency and anemia.  This is a particularly important role for
government sponsored research.  

     "Unfortunately, this kind of research is the exception rather than the
norm because, frankly, it's not profitable. I fear that the raging
transatlantic debate over GMOs isn't even considering that which may be
biotechnology's legacy   its ability to feed a rapidly growing world
population and enhance global food security in an environmentally sustainable
way.  I think it would be good if all of us moved away from a dispute that
focuses on the "haves" and consider the implications of biotechnology for the
"have-nots."

     "But, for any technology, new or old, we must insist that everything we
do -- every step we take -- is based on sound science.  Knowing that there is
a strong, science-based, regulatory regime assuring the safety of the products
we allow on the market, gives us the freedom to choose, innovate, experiment,
be bold, and to open our minds to new possibilities.  

     "By way of example, let me discuss an area in which the EU and the US
disagree, and where sound scientific research should prevail.
We continue to seek a speedy resolution to our dispute over the EU's ban on
U.S. beef.  Decades of worldwide scientific studies have convincingly
demonstrated that consumption of beef from animals produced with the six
approved growth-promotants does not pose a risk to human health.  The United
States is asking the EU to comply with its WTO commitments by lifting the ban
on these products.  I do want to commend the government and scientists of the
UK for taking the lead and applying sound scientific principles in concluding
that these products, when used responsibly, are safe.  Following the UK's lead
would provide EU consumers with the same safe choice given American consumers. 


  "It is clear that we have many shared goals.  It is clear that we have a lot
in common.  It is also clear that we have some differences.  And you know, we're
going to find a way to solve them,  because our mutual history is proof-positive
that our friendship has been very fruitful.  

  "But I'm not saying anything new here.  Ever since the New World was settled,
we've had our disagreements.  But we've learned from those experiences.  All of
our nations have benefitted from working together, from mutual trust and respect. 
 I promise you, we will work through our differences.  We will.  And the
consumers, and the men and women of world agriculture, will be better off for it. 
Thank you."

                               #