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. # # #