International Grains Council
                                              Release No. 0196.97

Remarks
                              of 
                     Secretary Dan Glickman
                  International Grains Council
                London, England -- June 19, 1997

INTRODUCTION
     Thank you. It is an honor to be here. Thomas Macaulay, 19th century
British historian, lived in a time when free trade was, as it is now, a
major issue. He wrote,  Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which a
government can confer on a people, is in almost every country unpopular.' 

     Many of us share this paradox today. Our countries are thriving in the
new global economy, yet our people are skeptical of it. We find ourselves
making the case to our international partners that free trade benefits them,
while at home we argue that it is good for our own people, too. 

     Coming out of an era of us versus them, East versus West antagonisms,
it's hard for people to grasp that freer trade is simply good for all of us. 

     It is true, we do not live in a perfect world. In a perfect world,
trade would not be a prickly issue at all. Buyers and sellers would simply
find mutually agreeable terms and each be on their way. 

     But today, buyers and sellers are only part of a large cast of
characters, entities, and policies that control the exchange of goods,
making trade vastly more complicated, and sometimes unfair ... unfair to
those who do the trading, and -- in the case of trade in food -- unfair to
citizens who must pay heavy-handed subsidies, and unfair to hungry people
around the world. 

     Liberalizing agricultural trade is about much more than business. It
is about our emerging community of nations. It is about how we deal with one
another to the benefit of our own citizens and the world's. These are
economic issues, certainly. But they also have to do with our environment,
with world hunger, with war and peace. All this, we call  world food
security.'

     I raise these issues not because I took a wrong turn and was meant to
be addressing a humanitarian relief organization. I raise these issues
before the International Grains Council because we who work in agriculture,
and we who define the terms of agricultural trade, must never forget why we
have embarked on this shared -- sometimes irksome -- endeavor. 

     Fifty years ago this month, one of our great American Secretaries of
State, George Marshall, told his countrymen and women, 'whether we like it
or not, we find ourselves, our nation, in a world position of vast
responsibility. We can act for our own good by acting for the world's good.' 

     With those words, the United States began a historic effort to rebuild
this continent. That same year, 1947, GATT was born. It's no coincidence.
The nations of the free world were on a mission. We used freer trade to
build economic strength, international relations, and peace. 

     That is our history. It can also be our destiny. 

A DIFFERENT WORLD
     Already, it's a different world. We live in a global environment
that's transformed quite dramatically from what it was just a few years ago.
From South Africa, to South America, to Eastern Europe, we see freer markets
and freer people marching hand in hand. 

     As governments untangle themselves from the marketplace, farmers are
planting more for world demand, and less to satisfy bureaucrats. We in
government like to think that we can fix everything. But today's food trade
is a classic retort. It shows that perhaps the best way government can help
right now is by facilitating the private sector, encouraging competition,
discouraging concentration, and letting markets signal producers as to what
world food needs actually are. 

     We are all making progress on that front: 

     The European Community is changing its Common Agricultural Policy,
including reducing support prices on grains. Australia is restructuring its
Wheat Board. In Canada, rail transport subsidies are gone. And, Brazil has
removed the export tax on soybeans. 

     The United States, too, is fundamentally changing its agriculture
programs. In most cases, government no longer manages supply and demand. We
are phasing out traditional farm income supports, and our producers are
largely free to make their own planting decisions. That freedom is literally
changing the American landscape -- as the corn belt plants soybeans, as
Southern cotton growers try corn, and other regional crop traditions are
supplanted by what the market wants.

     Despite last year's volatile grain markets, we kept our word that the
U.S. would remain a reliable supplier -- no export taxes, no embargoes.
Foreign buyers had equal access to U.S. grains. 

     Of course, we reserve the right -- as all countries do -- to self
defense. I am prepared to use export subsidies to protect U.S. producers
from unfair trading practices. For nearly 2 years, we've held our fire in
hopes that others would cease theirs. But we will not do so alone forever.
Free and fair trade -- by definition -- can only be mutual.

     But overall, world agricultural trade is freer, more competitive and
more fair. 

     It is also more complex. We see that quite clearly with grains. My
country and many others are now exporting more value-enhanced products --
from baked goods to products with special characteristics, such as high-oil
corn. These products require more processing, better technology, faster
transportation, and more people involved in their production and shipment.
Much of the labor stays at home, as do the profits. So complexity is not
always a bad thing.

     We have made a good start. 

TRADE CHALLENGES
     Yet even with our reforms, trade distortions continue to be a major
drag on government coffers, on our people's wallets, and on the efficiencies
we need to feed a growing world and empower our people to compete to their
best advantage in global markets. 

     Export subsidies encourage producers to maximize income by maximizing
production, regardless of the cost or demand. The result? Lower prices for
farmers in other countries, likely trade wars as nations are forced to
retaliate with subsidies of their own -- not to mention various food gluts
and shortages.
  
     State trading disrupts and manipulates markets through artificial
pricing. On the export side, they often hide subsidies. On the import side,
they can contrain supply and raise prices for consumers. 
 
     High tariffs are equally damaging, and far more widespread. They
shield producers from the realities of the marketplace, and fuel the need
for expensive subsidies and price supports. 
We have made good progress in reducing tariffs, but we can and should go
even further. 

     But perhaps the greatest threat to freer trade is phony science.
Unfounded sanitary and phytosanitary objections have the potential to wreck
the delicate balance of fairness we are trying to establish. They threaten
to replace tariffs and other barriers just as they come down in earnest --
leaving us walking in place when we ought to move forward. Sound science
must be the final arbiter of trade disputes. 

     Of late, we have seen significant breaks in the logjam. The United
States was able to expand market access for U.S. fruits and vegetables in
Chile, Japan, and China. We reached general agreement with the EU on
veterinary equivalency, smoothing the path for freer trade in meats.
Unfortunately, we haven't resolved our difference on poultry. But where we
have succeeded, there has been a strong willingness on both sides to work
through these issues in a good faith, science-based manner. 

     We have all made the critical decision that some degree of
agricultural trade liberalization is in each of our best interests. Now, we
must have the courage to step forward yet again. We need to build trust and
move forward together -- not grudgingly, but willingly -- in a good-faith
effort to set a positive and lasting precedent for world trade.

CHINA
     That, of course, requires that we all play by the same rules. Take
China. 1 in 5 people on this earth live in China. It is the world's largest
and fastest growing market. 

     China's accession to the World Trade Organization could be a win all
around. Grain exporters would gain greater consistency and a more level
playing field in the world's largest market. But China, too, would benefit
from fair trade. After all, it is a net agricultural exporter. 

     We can't afford to forget that. We can't have a WTO member --
especially one of China's size and economic strength -- that doesn't play by
the same rules as everyone else. Tariffs and subsidies need to come down.
They need to abide by sound science. State trading needs to be phased out.
We have seen some progress. China has agreed to let foreign grain traders
deal directly with private importers, once they are in the WTO.

     It's important that we continue to see progress, and continue to push
for it. Right now in my country, there is an earnest debate underway over
whether we continue Most Favored Nation trade status -- which is actually
normal trade relations -- with China. The debate actually has very little to
do with trade. It has to do with how the United States can be most effective
in encouraging China to be a responsible member of the world community on
other issues -- most notably human rights and the transition of Hong Kong.

     The answer for President Clinton and the vast majority of our foreign
relations community is obvious: Trade is the currency of the post-Cold War
era. Often, it is our primary means of dealing with one another. The world
is no longer carved up into opposing camps. Democracy has prevailed, and we
are defining a new world -- a more peaceful, prosperous and open world.

     Creating unity is not easy. We see this here in Europe right now with
the debate over the Euro. I won't throw myself into it, except to say that
it is human nature for people to want to preserve their cultural identity.
Stronger global economic ties don't have to threaten that.

     This is a debate we have all the time in trade negotiations,
particularly with food. Negotiators always say that food issues are the
toughest to iron out, and for understandable reasons. They cut to the heart
of deeply held beliefs about how a country feeds itself -- what we call
self-sufficiency. 

     During the Cold War, dependence on imports was seen as a sign of
weakness. It doesn't have to be today. A robust, reliable and interdependent
world marketplace could give our nations unprecedented strength. 

     For one thing, it would free our people to produce what the market
values most from them. When I make this case in places like New York City
where there aren't too many farmers, I frame it this way. I say, look at
your own circumstances. You need to feed yourself every day. How do you do
it? Most of you go to work, you earn a paycheck and you go to the grocery
store. I even go further out on a limb and bet that they do significantly
better for themselves buying food through the marketplace with their
earnings than if they spent half their time digging up their backyards.

     Clearly, it's more complicated on a national scale, but it's equally
outdated. We need to be able to rely more on each other. To do that, we have
got to free agricultural trade. Building on the progress of the Uruguay
Round is the challenge of the 1999 negotiations. My challenge to all of you
today is: Why wait? 

     Freer and fairer agricultural trade will leave a lasting, positive
imprint on our world. It will leave a more peaceful, more prosperous and
less hungry world. We should not wait for that world. We should make it.

     I understand that some countries do want to put on the brakes. They
say that trade in food is different. I agree. But it takes me to the polar
opposite conclusion. Agricultural trade is the most important trade that we
do. It is at the heart of our 50-year endeavor. It will help us build a
community of nations that rises together economically, democratically, and
peacefully.

BIOTECHNOLOGY
     Achieving this vision for our future will require living up to the
commitments we made at the World Food Summit in Rome. Each of us must do our
part to cut in half the number of the world's hungry by 2015. 

     At its heart, freer agricultural trade is about feeding the world.
Uninhibited trade allows food to flow easily to those who need it. Free
market reforms allow countries to develop to the point where they can buy or
grow the food they need. We cannot feed a world of isolationist nations.

     But will we even have enough food to go around? The honest answer is
maybe. I talked earlier about the importance of sound science governing our
decisions, nowhere is that more critical than in waging world war on hunger.

     In subsaharan Africa -- where hunger is most epidemic -- it is
estimated that a doubling of the projected increase in grain yields over the
next 10 years could cut the region's hungry by half -- making a 25% dent in
total world food aid needs. 

     That is why, on the shores of Lake Victoria, you'll find Kenyan
researchers developing maize seeds that have been genetically altered to
resist a parasite that's cut corn crops in half for millions of African
farmers. Those researchers are working not to boost farm incomes, but to
save the lives of their people. 

     Technology has given us the means to help them. The best scientists in
the world have shown these means to be safe. Can we stand idly by and not
use them? Can we not share what we know with countries who are desperate for
these advances? Surely, the answer is no. 

     I know that biotechnology is an extremely sensitive issue here in
Europe. I know this from personal experience. When I led the U.S. delegation
to the World Food Summit, protesters pelted me with genetically-engineered
soybeans, then took off all their clothes to draw the media's attention. 

     I'll admit that's not likely to occur in my country. But America's
consumer movement is stronger than ever. President Clinton is a very
committed advocate of it. He has done more than any President in our history
to improve America's food safety. 

     Sound science is the sole arbiter of our public health decisions. In
fact, our record is so strong that -- despite the public's growing cynicism
toward government, in general -- food safety is an area where Americans feel
that government does an outstanding job looking out for them. 

     I have the utmost respect for consumers here in Europe who have a
genuine concern for the public health. I, too, take a  first do no harm'
approach. I, too, value healthy skepticism. 

     But I also believe that sound science must trump passion when it comes
to answering the most critical question of the 21st century: How do we feed
a growing world in a sustainable way?

     This spring, I travelled to the international wheat and corn research
center -- CYMMET -- in Texcoco, Mexico, looking for answers. These
laboratories are the birthplace of the Green Revolution -- the massive
technological advances of the  60s that enabled us to feed a rapidly growing
world without destroying our environment. 

     Since that visit, I've met the father of the Green Revolution, Dr.
Normal Borlaug. I hope that all of you get the chance to meet him, too. When
I toured his facility, I was stunned into silence by a sign on one of the
walls. It had to do with Norin 10 -- the dwarfing gene for wheat -- the sign
read:  A single gene ... has saved 100 million lives.' 
     
     Their work, and others like it, can save millions more ... which
leaves us with some choices to make. 

     We know that biotechnology holds out our greatest hope of dramatically
increasing yields ... in harsh weather climates ... using less water ...
less pesticides ... crops with more nutritional value ...
... and without the destruction of fragile lands and forests. We also know
that test after rigorous scientific test have proven these products to be
safe. We'll continue to insist on an arms-length, objective testing process
that is independent from industry. 

     Given these assurances, what do we do? I can only speak for the United
States, but our position is very firm. As long as these products prove safe,
we will not tolerate segregation. We will not be pushed into allowing
political science to govern these decisions. The stakes for the world are
simply too high.

     Ask diabetics why they choose to take insulin -- which is genetically
engineered. Ask cancer patients and AIDS patients who are treated with a
whole generation of genetically engineered drugs. Their answer is simple:
It's life or death. Ultimately, that is our choice as well.

     It is our choice. But those who turn a blind eye to this technology
must ask themselves: What is the alternative? How do we feed more people
without tearing up the rainforests to create more farmland? How do we
decrease pesticide use? 

     How do we do it? ... Hope? ... Crossed fingers? ... Wishful thinking?
... Blind adherence to culture and history?

     The truthful answer is: We can't. There is currently no alternative
that gives us these dramatic advances. 

     In one hand, we have a technology that has proven safe and promises a
second revolution in food production. The other hand is empty. 

     There is no way to feed a hungry world, or an economically growing
world, without embracing the future. We must make this choice. We have an
obligation to our world, and it cannot wait. If we leave these decisions to
future generations, it may very well be too late. 

     If we do not act soon to acheive sustainable agricultural growth, we
cannot sustain this world. 

CONCLUSION
     This is not an easy time to lead. But the times have handed us a
tremendous opportunity to change the way of the world. Our chapter in
history may not provide the dramatic fodder of allies and enemies, battles
won and lost. But it's certainly the chapter I want my children to live. 

     A sustainable earth. Soils that last another 10,000 years. A less
hungry world. A peaceful, prosperous community of nations. These can all be
our legacy. How we trade in food will say a lot about our commitment to
seeking it. Let us graduate together from tentative first steps to the
confident, bold strides of global leadership. 

     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