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." #