Standing Committee on Biotechnology, Food and Fiber Releases No. 0148.00 Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Rich Rominger First Meeting, National Research Council Standing Committee on Biotechnology, Food and Fiber Production, and the Environment Washington, D.C. May 4, 2000 "Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Secretary Glickman and I have been working long and hard to move agriculture forward by creating new technological opportunities for farmers in the U.S. and abroad. For the last quarter century, USDA has had major roles in biotechnology innovation and commercialization, in assuring its safety, and disseminating information to the public. "Let me give you a quick overview of our work in biotechnology. Our Agricultural Research Service is the premier public research institution for agricultural biotechnology in the world. But it's not alone in handling research innovation at both basic and applied science levels, as well as risk assessment research. We also depend on the research of our Forest Service, and the network of partnerships with land grant colleges and universities through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. This includes our Biotechnology Risk Assessment Grants Program. "USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service study economic changes brought about by biotechnology and their impact on farmers throughout the production and marketing chain. "We look to our Natural Resources Conservation Service for emerging farm management issues related to biotechnology. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service plays vital regulatory roles to ensure the safety of new biotechnology products, including transgenic plants. In the future, our Food Safety Inspection Service will assure the safety of meat and poultry products from transgenic animals, when they're ready to be brought to slaughter and market. "Our regulatory marketing agencies -- the Agricultural Marketing Service and the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration -- have the tough job of ensuring an efficient marketplace that's fast changing with the commercialization of technological advances. And our Foreign Agricultural Service is on the front lines worldwide to promote the export of our agricultural products that have met our rigorous regulatory requirements. So biotechnology is critical to our agencies, our missions and our priorities, department-wide. THE NEED FOR EXTERNAL REVIEW " As the Secretary has indicated, we recognize the potential of biotechnology and we're keen to see that potential realized. We also see this technology evolving rapidly, and we know that the Department must be proactive, well-informed, and adaptable in order to keep pace. As we tackle this internally and with our sister Agencies, the work you're starting here will encompass aspects of that effort. It will set the stage for biotechnology projects that will evolve as new technology brings new questions. Let me echo the Secretary that we attach great importance to the work you're undertaking. LOOKING TO ACADEMY EXPERTISE " And it's no surprise that we would come to the Academy for advice. We have a long history of cooperation on many subjects, including biotechnology. In the 1980's, the Academy helped develop a framework for field testing genetically engineered plants and microorganisms. Those efforts enabled progress in research and regulation. Now we've moved quite a bit beyond that framework: American farmers are growing tens of millions of acres of genetically engineered crops. " USDA scientists and regulatory officials have worked hard to develop a science-based, fair, and transparent regulatory system, but we can always make it better. "Generally, those who have adopted the technology have been pleased with its performance. But not everyone is satisfied that all issues have been considered. Some sectors of the farm community believe that the technology may pose unacceptable risks. This is where we look to the Academy. Your expertise, your credibility and your dispassionate analysis carry significant weight. NAS is the most respected scientific body in the world. When the Academy speaks, people listen. Your recent report on genetically modified pest protected plants bears this out. "We are proud that this is a USDA-based and USDA-supported project. We want and expect your work to be of value to USDA. That's why we asked to establish a Standing Committee on Biotechnology. PRESENTING SCIENCE IN CONTEXT "We recognize that your first study, though significant, is part of a bigger picture and process. We've also set up the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology which held its first meeting a few weeks ago. The ACAB will focus on larger policy -- rather than technical issues. But its input may well be valuable in identifying issues and making recommendations to the Secretary that he might pass along to you for analysis by this Committee. We believe this process brings a broad perspective to identifying issues for study, and we intend to make good use of it. A working group of the ACAB will get underway in the next several months and we look forward to working with you through this process. "One of the most critical things you can do for us is put your recommendations into clear contexts. As our world becomes more and more technical, it becomes increasingly difficult for people to grasp the big picture -- how individual pieces of information fit into the whole puzzle. We hope you'll shed light on the trees and the forest. This is particularly important as more and more citizens have never spent time on a farm, have lost touch with how their food is produced, and equate a small urban green space with "nature." "We need your help here. "Many biotechnology critics rightly or wrongly want the government to certify that new products are zero-risk before they come to the marketplace. Unfortunately, this isn't a zero-risk world. Even traditional farming practices and traditional ways are not without risks, and they only increase as world population grows. We know we need to do better. Again, context is all-important. "We look to your first study to consider how USDA's scientific evaluation of transgenic plants is working, whether some of our fundamental assumptions are correct, whether our data collection and analyses are sound. We expect a hard look, and we will seriously consider your recommendations. "Your analyses of USDA's risk assessment processes will be most useful if they give readers a solid context of agriculture today as well as basic biological principles. We're looking to you to analyze whether we've accurately identified and addressed the issues related to the movement of genes from one crop to another crop, or from one crop into the wild environment. If we haven't gotten it entirely right, tell us what we've missed, and if there are potential risks, what the magnitude and likelihood of harm from those potential risks might be. Tell us the types of situations where we need more data. And most important help us put the risks that concern us all into meaningful perspective. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING "This brings us to the subject of environmental monitoring. Even though we've made assessments and found that certain new varieties meet our high standard of safety, the public wants reassurance. The public wants reassurance that if something comes up, we'll notice it, consider it, address it, and take actions to deal with "it", whatever "it" may be. "On the other side, if good things happen out in the field, we need to note those effects as well. But how do we do that? The Department can't send employees out to watch cornfields with no clear idea of what to do. We can't ask farmers to camp out in their fields to do the same. "What the Department wants to know is basic: what makes sense? What's important to monitor? What's effective to monitor? How do we go about monitoring? How do we know when and when NOT to monitor? We'll need to make sense out of any monitoring data and we'll need a baseline for comparison to get a real-world estimate of effects. If we should be watching for unexpected environmental effects, do we do this randomly or devise a solid game plan? In short, we must use our resources wisely and not overburden our officials, farmers, and others. "We expect that we'll be coming back to the Academy a number of times in the not-too-distant future. Crop plants that have completed our regulatory processes aren't alone in the pipeline. Other products and other questions are coming. We've already had field trials of genetically engineered insects, plants intended to produce new pharmaceuticals, and genetically engineered trees. Food safety issues concerning meat and poultry from transgenic animals are just around the corner. USDA will be wrestling with these issues in the next several years, and we -- and the public -- will need the Academy's input and guidance. As we set priorities, we'll be bringing additional projects for your expertise. The Secretary, the Department, and I are support all that you're doing. We feel that we're entering a new era of cooperation with the NAS, and we're enthused about building on our working relationship to push and understand the frontiers of science in the service of our farmers and consumers. Thank you.