[Senate Hearing 106-766]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-766
THE ROLE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY
IN COMBATING POVERTY AND HUNGER
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC
POLICY, EXPORT AND TRADE PROMOTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 12, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-041 CC WASHINGTON : 2001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY,
EXPORT AND TRADE PROMOTION
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska, Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
BILL FRIST, Tennessee JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Ashcroft, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Missouri, press release
entitled ``State Department Endorses Ashcroft Bill To Expand
Food Production in Developing Nations,'' July 12, 2000......... 26
Letters to Senator Ashcroft in support of Senate bill S.
2106:
Dr. Roger N. Beachy, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center.. 69
Amb. Andrew Young, GoodWorks, International, LLC........... 70
Peter McPherson, president, Michigan State University...... 70
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs, director and Dr. Calestous Juma,
program director, Center for International Development at
Harvard University....................................... 72
Beachy, Roger N., Ph.D., director, Donald Danforth Plant Science
Center, St. Louis, MO.......................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri............ 32
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, prepared statement 3
Halweil, Brian, staff researcher, Worldwatch Institute,
Washington, DC................................................. 42
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 45
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, prepared
statement...................................................... 7
New York Times article by President Jimmy Carter entitled ``Who's
Afraid of Genetic Engineering?'', August 26, 1998.............. 33
Progressive Farmer article by Senator Richard G. Lugar entitled
``Let's Not Ignore Sound Science,'' February 2000.............. 33
Sandalow, Hon. David B., Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,
Department of State, Washington, DC............................ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Sarbanes, Hon. Paul S., U.S. Senator from Maryland, prepared
statement...................................................... 4
Science magazine article by Senator Christopher Bond entitled
``Politics, Misinformation, and Biotechnology,'' February 18,
2000........................................................... 68
Washington Post article by Marc Kaufman entitled ``Report Says
Biotech Fails To Help Neediest Farmers,'' July 11, 2000........ 24
Wayne, Hon. E. Anthony, Assistant Secretary of State for
Economics and Business Affairs, Department of State,
Washington, DC, prepared statement............................. 14
Young, Hon. Andrew, chairman, GoodWorks International, Atlanta,
Ga............................................................. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
(iii)
THE ROLE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN COMBATING POVERTY AND HUNGER IN DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on International Economic
Policy, Export and Trade Promotion,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Chuck Hagel
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Hagel, Lugar, Ashcroft, and Sarbanes.
Senator Hagel. Good afternoon. First I would like to
welcome all of our distinguished witnesses.
This afternoon the subcommittee will look at the role of
biotechnology and what role biotechnology can play in combating
poverty, hunger, and environmental degradation in developing
countries. Our first witness will be the Honorable David
Sandalow, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Before
coming to the State Department, he served as Associate Director
for the Global Environment at the National Security Council and
as Senior Director for Environmental Affairs at the White House
Council on Environmental Quality. Prior to his work at the
White House he worked in the General Counsel's Office at the
Environmental Protection Agency.
On the second panel is the Honorable Andrew Young.
Ambassador Young is chairman of GoodWorks International.
GoodWorks International is a consulting group based in Atlanta
that works with governments, companies, and individuals
throughout Africa to help raise living standards and expand
productivity, capacity, and individual opportunity. In this
capacity, Ambassador Young has become personally involved in
Africa's increasing interest in biotechnology.
Ambassador Young is well known to most Americans. In the
1960's he was a top aide to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In the
early 1970's he was elected to the House of Representatives
from Georgia and during the Carter administration he served our
Nation as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
The second panel also includes Dr. Roger Beachy, president
of the Danforth Plant Science Center of St. Louis, Missouri,
and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. At the
Danforth Center Dr. Beachy is working on a virus-resistant
cassava plant for Africa as well as other agricultural products
for developing countries. Many consider Dr. Beachy to be the
father of modern crop biotechnology. While on the faculty of
Washington University in the 1980's, Dr. Beachy's work led to
the development of the world's first genetically altered food
group.
Prior to his current position, Dr. Beachy headed the
Division of Plant Biology at the Scripps Research Institute in
La Jolla, California. He was also the director of the
International Laboratory for Tropical Agriculture
Biotechnology.
Our final witness is Mr. Brian Halweil, staff researcher in
Food and Agriculture Issues at the Worldwatch Institute in
Washington, DC. Mr. Halweil joined the Institute in 1997 as the
John Gardner Public Service Fellow from Stanford University.
His publications include an article on genetically engineered
crops, ``The Emperor's New Crops,'' in the summer 1999 issue of
Worldwatch Magazine.
Before coming to the Institute in 1997, Mr. Halweil
established a student-run organic farm on the Stanford
University campus and traveled extensively in Mexico, Cuba, and
Central America studying indigenous farming techniques.
So, welcome to all our witnesses. Before I ask my friend
and colleague Senator Lugar to present an opening statement or
any comments he wishes, allow me to make a brief statement that
I hope we will expand on during the course of the hearing.
Virtually all scientists agree that biotechnology offers
great hope for developing new vaccines, improving nutrition,
and improving crop yields while reducing the need for the
application of expensive pesticides and fertilizers. The
question has been whether there are risks inherent to
biotechnology that exceed any possible advantages it may
provide.
Clearly, biotechnology offers a great opportunity for the
American economy, American farmers, and American workers. The
United States leads the world in this technology, in its
application in both pharmaceuticals and in agriculture, and in
the export of biotech commodities and products. This advantage
will continue even as the technology is adopted abroad.
Few, however, have been looking specifically at
biotechnology's promise for developing countries. The
technology was perfected in North America and Europe. It has
been adopted primarily by Australia and countries in North and
South America. But its application may be most needed in
developing nations.
But for biotechnology to fulfill its promise in less
developed countries, it must be tailored to meet the market
needs of those countries. This point was made in a story in
yesterday's Washington Post. This article reported on a largely
positive white paper just released by the National Academy of
Sciences. It was prepared jointly with the national academies
in Britain, Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, together with the
Third World Academy of Sciences.
The report concludes that without using biotechnology it
will be impossible to feed the world's poor in the future
without destroying the environment. It warned, however, that
governments and biotech companies need to do more to make the
technology relevant and useable by farmers in these same poor
countries. Even though world population growth is slowing, the
world's current population of six billion will grow by at least
another two billion in the next 30 years. Virtually all that
growth will occur in developing countries.
Traditional cross-breeding techniques produced the Green
Revolution of the 1960's that led to significant increases in
productivity in agriculture. The Green Revolution, however,
depended on the adoption of new farming techniques and
expensive applications of fertilizer. For this reason, its
success was mixed in the developing world. African countries
particularly reaped few benefits from the Green Revolution.
Further gains in productivity and nutrition can be made
through biotechnology, which also offers the hope of reducing
the need for agricultural inputs. For this reason,
biotechnology also offers hope for avoiding the need for
further environmental degradation in developing countries.
Without the kind of productivity improvements offered through
biotechnology, many developing countries will clear ever more
tropical forests and plant on ever more marginal lands. We
should be seeking better productivity from existing high
quality crop lands in America as well as in developing
countries.
I believe that biotechnology is good for both the American
farmer and the developing country farmer.
Again, I welcome our distinguished witnesses and I look
forward to your testimony. With that, let me welcome the
distinguished ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, Senator
Sarbanes from Maryland, and Senator Lugar, who I think everyone
knows is chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Senator
Lugar, would you care to offer any comments?
[The prepared statement of Senator Hagel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Chuck Hagel
I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses here today.
This afternoon, the subcommittee will look at the role biotechnology
can play in combating poverty, hunger and environmental degradation in
developing countries.
Our first witness will be the Honorable David Sandalow, Assistant
Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs. Before coming to the State Department, he served as
Associate Director for the Global Environment at the National Security
Council and as Senior Director for Environmental Affairs at the White
House Council on Environmental Quality. Prior to his work at the White
House, he worked in the General Counsel's Office at the Environmental
Protection Agency.
On the second panel is The Honorable Andrew Young, Chairman of
GoodWorks International. GoodWorks International is a consulting group
based in Atlanta that works with governments, companies and individuals
throughout Africa to help raise living standards and expand productive
capacity and individual opportunity. In this capacity, Ambassador Young
has become personally involved in Africa's increasing interest in
biotechnology.
Ambassador Young is well known to most Americans. In the 1960s, he
was a top aide to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In the early 1970s, he
was elected to the House of Representatives, and during the Carter
administration, he served our nation as U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations. Since then, Ambassador Young has been Mayor of Atlanta, Co-
Chairman of the 1996 Olympic Games, and an international businessman,
and human rights activist.
The second panel also includes Dr. Roger Beachy, President of the
Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Missouri, and a member of
the National Academy of Sciences. At the Danforth Center, Dr. Beachy is
working on a virus-resistant cassava plant for Africa, as well as other
agricultural products for developing countries.
Many consider Dr. Beachy to be the father of modern crop
biotechnology. While on the faculty of Washington University in the
1980s, Dr. Beachy's work led to the development of the world's first
genetically altered food crop, a tomato that was modified for disease
resistance. Prior to his current position, Dr. Beachy headed the
Division of Plant Biology at the Scripps Research Institute in La
Jolla, California, where he was also the Co-Director of the
International Laboratory for Tropical Agriculture Biotechnology.
Our final witness is Mr. Brian Halweil, staff researcher in food
and agriculture issues at the World Watch Institute in Washington, DC.
Mr. Halweil joined the Institute in 1997 as the John Gardner Public
Service Fellow from Stanford University. His publications include an
article on genetically engineered crops, ``The Emperor's New Crops,''
in the summer 1999 issue of World Watch Magazine. Before coming to the
Institute in 1997, Mr. Halweil established a student-run organic farm
on the Stanford University campus, and traveled extensively in Mexico,
Cuba and Central America studying indigenous farming techniques.
Virtually all scientists agree that biotechnology offers great hope
for developing new vaccines, improving nutrition, and improving crop
yields while reducing the need for the application of expensive
pesticides and fertilizer. The question has been whether there are
risks inherent to biotechnology that exceeds any possible advantages it
might provide.
Clearly, biotechnology offers a great opportunity for the American
economy, American farmers and American workers. The United States leads
the world in this technology, in its application in both
pharmaceuticals and in agriculture, and in the export of biotech
commodities and products. This advantage will continue, even as the
technology is adopted abroad.
Few, however, have been looking specifically at biotechnology's
promise for developing countries. The technology was perfected in North
America and Europe. It has been adopted primarily by Australia and
countries in North and South America. But its application may be most
needed in developing nations.
But for biotechnology to fulfill its promise in less developed
countries, it must be tailored to meet the market needs of those
countries. This point was made in a story in yesterday's Washington
Post. This article reported on a largely-positive White Paper just
released by the National Academy of Sciences. It was prepared jointly
with National Academies in Britain, Brazil, China, India, and Mexico
together with the Third World Academy of Sciences. The report concludes
that without using biotechnology it will be impossible to feed the
world's poor in the future without destroying the environment. It
warned, however, that governments and biotech companies need to do more
to make the technology relevant and usable by farmers in poor
countries.
Even though world population growth is slowing, the world's current
population of 6 billion will grow by at least another 2 billion in the
next 30 years. Virtually all of that growth will occur in developing
countries.
Traditional cross-breeding techniques produced the Green Revolution
of the 1960s that led to significant increases in productivity in Third
World agriculture. The Green Revolution, however, depended on the
adoption of new farming techniques and expensive applications of
fertilizer. For this reason, its success was mixed in the developing
world. African countries particularly, reaped few benefits from the
Green Revolution.
Further gains in productivity and nutrition can be made through
biotechnology, which also offers the hope of reducing the need for
agricultural inputs. For this reason, biotechnology also offers hope
for avoiding the need for further environmental degradation in
developing countries. Without the kind of productivity improvements
offered through biotechnology, many developing countries will clear
ever more tropical forests and plant on ever more marginal lands. We
should be seeking better productivity from existing high-quality crop
lands--in America as well as in developing countries. I believe that
biotechnology is good for both the American farmer and the developing
country farmer.
Again, I welcome our distinguished witnesses, and I look forward to
your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Sarbanes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul S. Sarbanes
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. I also
welcome the distinguished panel of experts, from the public and private
sectors, before our subcommittee.
Biotechnology is a promising field and holds great potential for
mankind. My own state of Maryland has a large and diverse biotechnology
industry--it ranks among the top five states in the nation in terms of
biotechnology concentration--so I am acutely aware of the benefits
which have and will come from this part of our technology sector.
Indeed, the National Institutes of Health, our universities, and
numerous firms, many of which are on the cutting edge of research and
many of which are in the application stage, are all making an enormous
difference in our medicine, our health practices, the food we eat, and
the amount we produce. So I am very proud to say that Maryland and its
biotechnology sector play a significant role in the progress we are
making in getting more nutrient-rich foods to those in need.
The issue before us today is how biotechnology can help alleviate
poverty and hunger in the developing world. This is indeed a timely
topic. Unfortunately, the news from the developing world is decidedly
mixed, and often negative. There are some countries in the developing
world that have begun the process of lifting themselves out of poverty.
Others, however, are mired in debt, disease, and drought. Last week's
articles in the Washington Post about the AIDS epidemic in Africa is a
telling reminder of some of the terrible problems that the ``have-
nots'' in the world are encountering on a daily basis.
Biotechnology has led to higher food production in our country and
thus can lead to greater exports of food to the developing world, where
it is desperately needed. At the same time, biotechnology can help
farmers in the developing world grow more and healthier crops on less
land. This picture is seemingly a ``win-win'' situation for all
concerned. However, like most things in life, the actual situation is
not so simple.
Right now, the United States accounts for three-fourths of all
``transgenic'' cropland, meaning areas that are producing biotech
crops. Argentina and Canada make up most the remainder of such
cropland. There is very little cropland in Africa devoted to biotech
farming.
If our goal is to help alleviate poverty in stricken areas like
large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, then I believe we must work toward
the goal of re-establishing stable farming communities in these lands.
Ideally, farmers in these areas should be provided with biotech seeds,
at low prices, so that they can produce high yields. We must also
ensure that the introduction of biotechology in these areas does not
upset other organisms. For example, some biotech pesticides, if not
properly administered, can led to the suppression of other plants and
affect grazing animals.
I raise these issues to highlight the great potential of biotech
farming and to encourage all of us here to zero in on how best to
address the food needs of the world's poorest citizens. In this way, we
can truly have a ``win-win'' situation. I look forward to the testimony
of our panelists.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lugar. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask
consent that my statement be made a part of the record.
I simply want to comment from our work in the Agriculture
Committee that we have taken a look at some of these issues,
and this is why I welcome these distinguished witnesses today.
Dr. Borlaug, of the Green Revolution that you referenced, has
been a regular before the committee describing the remarkable
changes in China and India in his experience, projects in
Mexico dealing with maize and those in the Philippines dealing
with rice, all with the cooperation of our country.
I have often referenced anecdotally, at least in our
committee, my own farm situation. We have 604 acres in Marion
County, Indiana, where my dad got about 40 bushels to the acre
in the 1930's. He passed away in the fifties. I have been
responsible for the farm for the last 44 years. We have seen an
increase in productivity to an average of about 140 bushels to
the acre on that same farmland during my lifetime.
USDA points out that the gains in yields in our country
have been roughly of that order, about three times, in basic
crops--corn, soybeans, and wheat. I make that point because
others who have come before our committee--and each of you as
expert witnesses may have some estimates of your own. But given
anticipated world population changes in the coming half
century, even given high, medium, and low demographic
estimates, lead many to feel that yields may need to be
increased by three times again. That is, on the Lugar farm what
is now 140 bushels per acre may have to be more routinely 400.
This is quite a stretch. It is not clear how you get there.
It is all very clear that the need will be there unless a lot
of people starve in this world or we have terrible plagues that
change the demographics in horrible ways. We already understand
from testimony to our committee that even as we lament the
potential loss of the rain forests of the world, they are being
routinely chopped down in southern Mexico and elsewhere.
Documentation and papers here indicate that before people
starve, they chop down the rain forests. It is a basic
question, therefore, of human nutrition.
Having said that, the fact is that all of us in agriculture
have approached this issue as a production agricultural
problem, namely how do we got from 40 bushels to 140 bushels
per acre. As a corn farmer, I was not as interested as I should
have been in consumers of this corn. I am a lot more interested
in that subject having seen this remarkable article from Dr.
Delapena in the Science Magazine, who has been before our
committee. He noted that 250 million children in the world,
mostly in developing countries, suffer from vitamin A
deficiency and, as a result, 500,000 children in the world are
blinded each year. Through biotechnology, through staple foods,
vitamin A literally can become a part of their diets.
Looked at from the standpoint of health and humanitarian
causes, these are remarkable changes. But in the ag production
community or even in the processed foods community, that was
not our marketing objective. We were talking about production
and we were talking about interesting foods for the diets
principally of the American people or Europeans or others.
We will not only have to shift gears, because now we are
faced with a reaction of persons who are engaged in a near-
theology that somehow God has put together a corn seed in a
certain form and that alteration is likely to lead to terrible
results for humanity. That has to be examined, and it has been
examined backward and forward now for many, many years.
We have not had a single instance of testimony before the
Agriculture Committee that a single change of biotech has in
any way harmed a single person on this Earth over all these
years. But that has not quieted the anxiety for a moment. Now,
I have visited extensively as a member of this committee, as
have Senators here, with representatives from France and
Germany. I have talked to their agriculture people, their
ministers of agriculture, their committees, others who are
responsible, and they understand the argument perfectly well.
But they also say to me as a practicing politician: You have
got to understand, we have got a lot of fearful people who are
in a tizzy over biotech and we do not really feel our
leadership skills are sufficient right now to tackle this
thing. In due course, be patient.
Well, fair enough, but in the meanwhile years go by and the
problems of those who are to be served and to be helped are
manifested.
So I am hopeful, at least in this country, that those of us
who feel deeply about this will be thinking about consumers in
terms of health, humanitarian concerns, as well as the shear
quantities required to feed the world and how that will happen.
We had testimony today from Dr. Frist, a member of our
committee, who was in Sudan last week, a remarkable witness.
Very few people have seen Sudan as Dr. Frist saw it last week.
Even our Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Holbrooke, has
not gotten into those places.
People are being routinely starved as a matter of foreign
policy. So that goes on in other parts of the world, too. This
is not an open flow in which all of us are thinking about how
we feed people; but on occasion we do get on that track, thank
goodness. Hopefully, we will get better at it in terms of both
distribution and politics of food, even as we work out what we
have here.
So, Mr. Chairman, I welcome your calling this hearing. I
think it is tremendously important. It is a foreign policy
problem of great dimensions, in addition to an agriculture and
nutrition problem, a problem of health and humanitarian concern
that others of our colleagues will want to take up.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard G. Lugar
As we consider the debate surrounding agricultural biotechnology,
there are a few important points that come to mind. First, opposition
frequently accompanies technological innovation. Opposition arises from
fact, myth or cherished belief. The obvious difficulty is to determine
an elusive truth. Second, technologies that eventually win acceptance
do so after demonstrating a clear benefit to society with few risks.
Lastly, technology, spawned by the limitless bounds of human intellect,
continues to evolve as knowledge and understanding of our world
increases.
Agricultural biotechnology has inspired controversy but the debate
has become polarized and reactionary so as to preclude reasoned public
debate over merits of the new technology versus possible risks.
Exactly why agricultural biotechnology has attracted intense levels
of opposition, especially in Europe, deserves consideration. Testimony
received by the Senate Agriculture Committee during hearings last
October strongly suggests that biotechnology holds enormous potential
to improve the human condition. A prime example was the testimony about
research on the use of biotechnology to increase the vitamin content of
certain staple crops like rice and corn. In an article published in
Science magazine, Dr. Della Penna of the University of Nevada-Reno
noted that 250 million of the world's children, mostly in the
developing world, suffer from Vitamin A deficiency. As a direct result,
some 500,000 children are blinded each year. If staple foods that these
poorest of the poor children eat each day could be fortified with
additional Vitamin A through the application of biotechnology, a
worldwide scourge of blindness from dietary deficiencies could be
alleviated.
Biotech products on the market are already providing significant
societal benefits, such as reduced use of pesticides. These are
benefits for the farmers and their families who have had to handle
these chemical products and for the environment in general.
It is necessary to consider the environmental implications of not
developing agricultural biotechnology. Demographers predict that the
population of the United States will double over the next 100 years and
world population is set to increase 50% by 2050. Development and the
need for housing will place an inexorable pressure on land that now
constitutes a significant percentage of America's treasured open
spaces. Simultaneously, more food will be required to support
population growth and improving standards of living. If agricultural
efficiency remains static, then more land will be needed to grow more
food. Faced with the choice of starvation or cutting down forests,
mankind will have few options. An alternative does exist, and if
developed with the intent to improve the lives of people everywhere,
biotechnology can increase agricultural efficiency, reduce use of
chemical pesticides and improve food's nutritional value.
Agricultural biotechnology is a difficult public policy challenge,
and difficult issues require that we act in a conscientious and
responsible manner. This hearing today provides another opportunity for
us to review this important issue in a rational and thoughtful way.
Senator Hagel. Senator Lugar, thank you. You bring an
insightful perspective from both the committees that you have
either chaired or currently chair, plus your real life
experience as a real live farmer. So thank you.
Senator Lugar. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Senator Ashcroft from Missouri. Senator.
Senator Ashcroft. Well, first of all, Senator, thank you
for holding this very important hearing. I want to commend not
only you, but the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, for
his attention to these issues and these matters. A lot of
members of this committee have been long-time advocates for
biotechnology, which is advancing developments in
pharmaceuticals, food, clothing, and energy. A number of us
from the Midwest have seen what these advancements can do for
rural agriculturally based economies, and we want developing
countries to have the capacity to obtain these same
agriculture-related development benefits.
Biotech can be used as a tool to help in the fight against
poverty, in the fight against hunger, malnutrition, birth
defects, disease. Just a few months ago this committee approved
on March 23 a bill which I introduced that is designed to
promote sustainable development in Third World countries. S.
2106, which is a bill entitled ``Advancing Global Opportunities
for Biotechnology in Agriculture,'' is supported by Chairman
Helms as well as the ranking member of this committee, Senator
Biden.
I have had the privilege of working on this initiative with
two of the witnesses on the second panel, Ambassador Young and
Dr. Beachy, and their support has been critical to the broad
support the bill has gained.
So I thank you for this. I think to the extent that we can
be a part of helping underdeveloped nations which have such
great challenges relating to simply human survival, to the
extent that we can help them in any way we ought to be finding
ways to do it, and it is consistent with the United States and
what we stand for. The humanitarian decency of the American
people can be reflected in our eagerness to provide secure,
safe opportunities to not only help in the survival skills, but
in terms of avoiding some very serious problems. The wrong
vitamin deficiencies result in some children, numerous
children, being born blind needlessly, and we need to try and
think of ways to address these issues, to demonstrate that the
United States of America is a culture and society that has a
compassion that goes beyond the Atlantic and the Pacific, but
extends around the world.
So I thank you for this very important hearing and I look
forward to participating.
Senator Hagel. Senator Ashcroft, thank you.
Secretary Sandalow, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID B. SANDALOW, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC
AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Lugar,
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the role of biotechnology in combating hunger and
poverty in developing countries. This is a vitally important
topic. Every day more than 800 million people on this planet go
to bed hungry. More than one billion people live in abject
poverty on incomes of less than one dollar per day.
There is no single cause of this misery. Poor education,
pests, drought, disease, food distribution problems, and, as
Senator Lugar was suggesting, civil strife are all in part to
blame. But the enormity of the problem cannot stop us from
shaping a response. As we search for solutions, we must explore
all means available.
Mr. Chairman, in fighting hunger and poverty modern
biotechnology must be part of our arsenal. In the past several
months alone, the news has been filled with indications of the
great promise of this technology. Researchers have found ways
to enhance the vitamin A content of rice, promising great
strides in the fight against blindness and other diseases. A
working draft of the sequence of the human genome itself has
now been mapped, offering tremendous potential in using the
science of genetics to help fight disease.
At the same time, we must proceed with wisdom and caution.
Biotechnology presents both potential benefits and risks. In
the United States, we have had a strong and effective
regulatory system to address environmental and other concerns
from biotechnology for many years. As this technology advances,
we will continue to refine our regulatory processes. For
biotechnology to do the most good for the most people, we must
encourage and support credible science-based regulatory systems
around the world.
Today I will briefly address three topics: first, how
biotechnology can contribute to the fight against hunger and
poverty; second, barriers that must be overcome; and third, the
U.S. Government programs in this area. I have a written
statement which, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will
submit for the record. I also have a supplementary statement
from my colleague Tony Wayne, the Assistant Secretary of State
for Economics and Business Affairs, whose office has
substantial responsibilities in this area. With your permission
I will submit that for the record as well.
Senator Hagel. We will include both statements in the
record.
Mr. Sandalow. First, how can biotechnology contribute to
the fight against hunger and poverty? There are many ways. As
has already been suggested, some of the potential benefits
include: enhancing the nutritional benefits of foods,
increasing crop yields, reducing the need for chemical and
water inputs, increasing resistance to crop stress, and
producing medicines and vaccines that are more affordable and
accessible.
Among the most promising applications of modern
biotechnology are those that can enhance the nutritional
content of food. Vitamin A-enriched rice has recently been
developed and received much attention. Other possibilities
include vitamin A-enhanced oil, vitamin A-enhanced tomatoes,
and iron-enriched rice. Modern biotechnology can be used to
fight the many scourges that accompany malnutrition around the
world.
Some have questioned the need for such products, arguing
that poor people need balanced diets, not vitamin-enriched
rice. But we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the
good. Sadly, access to balanced diets is limited in many
countries by poverty, food distribution problems, and other
complex and entrenched social conditions. Staples such as rice
may be the only foods available. As we attack all causes of
hunger and malnutrition, increasing the nutritional content of
staple foods can make a difference in people's lives.
In addition, modern biotechnology can be used to develop
crops that are resistant to pests, drought, and disease.
Already, in the developed world and indeed in China the
technology is being used widely to reduce pesticide inputs,
helping to improve agricultural productivity and protect the
environment. Biotech pharmaceuticals can also make a
difference.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on at length about these potential
benefits. But rather than doing so, I would like to read some
words that especially struck me as I read them yesterday. They
were written by Florence Wambugu, director of an African
agricultural institute with expertise in biotechnology. She
wrote last year in Nature: ``The African continent more than
any other urgently needs agricultural biotechnology, including
transgenic crops to improve food production. Africa missed the
``Green Revolution.'' Africa cannot afford to be excluded or to
miss another major global technological revolution. It must
join the biotechnological endeavor.''
Her comments are quite consistent, indeed similar to, the
comments that you offered, Mr. Chairman, on the African
Continent.
A second important question: What are the barriers to the
use of modern biotechnology in the developing world? I would
note in particular three: cost, adequate regulatory structures,
and lack of knowledge and fear.
A threshold issue is cost: To gain the benefits of modern
biotechnology, adequate financing must be found. Many experts
have noted that, as with many technologies, initial
applications of biotechnology have primarily benefited those
with purchasing power in wealthier countries. For modern
biotechnology to help the poor farmer, we must find ways to
finance the use of this technology for the farmer's benefit.
Part of the answer to this challenge lies in the public
sector. We must find ways to support the work of universities,
research institutions, and in particular the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research, whose work has been
instrumental in fighting hunger and poverty for many years.
Part of the answer must be found in the private sector as
well. Private companies, of course, often have fiduciary
responsibilities to shareholders and have a very different role
than public sector institutions or charities. But we must find
creative solutions looking to public-private partnerships and
other tools. One encouraging example of work to date is the
collaboration between Monsanto, USAID, and the Government of
Kenya to develop a disease-resistant sweet potato that will
likely be among the first genetically engineered crops tested
in sub-Saharan Africa.
A second issue is the need for adequate regulatory
structures. Like any new technology, modern biotechnology
presents risks that must be managed. Environmental testing is
important, for example, to ensure gene transfer issues and
other matters are addressed. This administration is deeply
committed to helping developing countries build adequate
regulatory systems to manage and address biotechnology. Our
commitment is one reason that I am especially pleased that the
administration is strongly supporting Senator Ashcroft's bill,
S. 2106, its major thrust and intent, in advancing the global
opportunities for biotechnology in agriculture 2000. We look
forward to discussions among staff to resolve some technical
issues and then to working together to secure passage of this
important legislation.
A final barrier, one that I believe is critically
important, is lack of knowledge and fear. Around the world we
have seen lack of knowledge and fear emerge as major factors in
the development of modern biotechnology. In my view we should
neither minimize nor bemoan this important fact. We should
recognize and address it. We should work to promote scientific
cooperation and reasoned dialog on this topic. We should
recognize that this topic can implicate ethical and religious
issues for some. In the long run, modern biotechnology cannot
promote a better tomorrow unless people from around the world
understand it and have a stake in the technology's future.
Mr. Chairman, the third topic is what the Government is
doing today to address these issues. In light of time, I will
leave that largely to my written statement and any questions
that you and the panel would like to ask.
Let me conclude by saying that modern biotechnology is not
a panacea, but it can help to make a difference in the fight
against hunger and poverty. Using this new technology, we can
feed hungry children, raise incomes, fight disease, and protect
the environment. But these results are not guaranteed. To
realize the full potential of modern biotechnology, we will
need wisdom and creativity in the years ahead. We must find
ways to overcome obstacles and address concerns.
This country should be proud to be a global leader in this
remarkable new technology. In the years ahead, let us pursue a
rational and open dialog on this topic, applying the lessons of
science and respecting all points of view. If we do so, we will
leave a better world behind for our children and theirs.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sandalow and supplementary
statement of Mr. Wayne follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David B. Sandalow
introduction
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to discuss the role of biotechnology in
combating hunger and poverty in developing countries.
This is a vitally important topic. Every day, more than 800 million
people on this planet go to bed hungry. More than one billion people
live in abject poverty--on incomes of less than $1 per day.
There is no single cause of this misery. Poor education, pests,
drought, disease, food distribution problems and civil strife are all
in part to blame. But the enormity of the problem cannot stop us from
shaping a response. As we search for solutions, we must explore all
means available.
In fighting hunger and poverty, modern biotechnology must be part
of our arsenal.
In the past several months alone, the news has been filled with
indications of the great promise of this technology. Researchers have
found ways to enhance the Vitamin A content of rice, promising great
strides in the fight against blindness and other diseases around the
world. A working draft of the sequence of the human genome has now been
mapped, offering tremendous potential in using the science of genetics
to help fight disease.
At the same time, we must proceed with wisdom and caution.
Biotechnology presents both potential benefits and risks. In the United
States, we have had a strong and effective regulatory system to address
environmental and other concerns from biotechnology for many years. As
the technology advances, we will continue to refine our regulatory
processes. For biotechnology to do the most good for the most people,
we must encourage and support credible, science-based regulatory
systems around the world.
Today I will briefly discuss three topics: how biotechnology can
contribute to the fight against hunger and poverty; barriers that must
be overcome; and U.S. government programs in this area.
how biotechnology can contribute
How do we feed a growing population--which some estimate will reach
9 billion in the next 30 years--when most arable land on the planet is
already under cultivation?
How do we find new ways to deliver desperately needed medicines to
desperately poor people?
Modern biotechnology is part of the answer. Some of the potential
benefits of this technology include:
Enhanced nutritional benefits of common staple foods.
Increased crop yields.
Reduced need for chemical and water inputs.
Increased resistance to crop stress, such as drought.
Smaller losses from spoilage and longer shelf lives.
Increased income generation and rural development.
Medicines and vaccines that are more affordable and
accessible.
Among the most promising applications of modern biotechnology are
those that can enhance the nutritional content of foods. Vitamin A-
enriched rice has recently been developed and received much attention;
other possibilities include vitamin A-enhanced oil, vitamin A-enhanced
tomatoes, and iron-enriched rice. Modern biotechnology can be used to
fight the many scourges that accompany malnutrition around the world,
including illness, blindness, developmental problems and death.
Some have questioned the need for such products, arguing that poor
people need balanced diets, not vitamin-enriched rice. But we should
not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Sadly, access to
balanced diets is limited in many countries by poverty, food
distribution problems and other complex and entrenched social
conditions. Staple foods such as rice may be the only foods available.
As we attack all causes of hunger and malnutrition, increasing the
nutritional content of staple foods can make a difference in people's
lives.
Drought and disease plague developing country farmers around the
world. Here, too, modern biotechnology can make a difference.
Scientists are exploring ways to make mangoes, cassava, plantains and
other tropical crops resistant to drought and virus-born diseases.
Pests are also a significant barrier to agricultural productivity
around the world. By using modern biotechnology, scientists can insert
natural pesticides such as Bt into crops, reducing loss due to insect
damage. This technology is already helping farmers increase
productivity, while reducing pesticide usage, here in the United
States. In the developing world, the technology can help promote food
security and increase incomes among poor farmers.
Part of biotechnology's promise is to produce plants that are more
productive with fewer inputs (such as chemicals and water). Such
applications would reap enormous benefits for poor farmers, who could
use their scarce resources to produce crops that would better feed
their families while lessening or removing the need to convert new
lands to agriculture. And, these applications would help to protect
farmers from environmental fluctuations, such as drought. Such vagaries
of agriculture have had extremely serious impacts on the poor, as we
are seeing right now in parts of Africa, where drought is again taking
a terrible toll. The ability to stabilize yields will obviously offer
great benefits to U.S. farmers and consumers as well.
An eloquent statement on this topic comes from Florence Wambugu,
director of an African agricultural institute with expertise in
biotechnology. She wrote last year in Nature:
The African continent, more than any other, urgently needs
agricultural biotechnology, including transgenic crops, to
improve food production . . . Africa missed the Green
Revolution . . . Africa cannot afford to be excluded or to miss
another major global technological revolution. It must join the
biotechnological endeavor.
Biotech pharmaceuticals can also make a difference. Biotechnology
is being used to create a variety of medicines, such as new vaccines,
anti-cancer drugs and human insulin. Developing countries will benefit
by biotechnology's ability to produce a broader range of medicines in a
more timely and cost-effective manner. Vaccines for malaria and better
treatments for HIV/AIDS may both be on the horizon.
barriers to the use of modern biotechnology in the developing world
Nevertheless, there are barriers to the use of modern biotechnology
in the developing world. These include:
Cost.
Adequate regulatory structures.
Lack of knowledge/fear.
A threshold issue is cost. To gain the benefits of modern
biotechnology, adequate financing must be found. Many experts have
noted that--as with many technologies--initial applications have
primarily benefited those with purchasing power in wealthier countries.
For modern biotechnology to help the poor farmer in developing
countries, we must find ways to finance the use of this technology for
the farmer's benefit.
Part of the answer to this challenge lies in the public sector. We
must find ways to support the work of universities, research
institutions and other organizations with expertise in this area. In
particular, we must support the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research, whose work has been instrumental in fighting
hunger and poverty for many years.
Part of the answer must be found in the private sector as well.
Private companies, of course, often have fiduciary responsibilities to
shareholders and have a very different role than public sector
institutions or charities. But we must find creative solutions, looking
to public-private partnerships and other tools. We must find programs
that improve the lives of the poor, promote long-term acceptance of
this technology and help advance the goals of all concerned. One
encouraging example of work to date is the collaboration between
Monsanto, USAID and the Government of Kenya to develop a disease-
resistant sweet potato that will likely be among the first genetically-
engineered crops tested in sub-Saharan Africa.
A second issue is the need for adequate regulatory structures. Like
any new technology, modern biotechnology presents risks that must be
managed. Environmental testing is important, for example, to ensure
gene transfer issues are addressed. Issues related to pest resistance
may be important.
This administration is deeply committed to helping developing
countries build adequate regulatory systems to manage and address
biotechnology. Our commitment is one reason I'm pleased to announce
that the administration strongly supports the major thrust and intent
of S. 2106, ``Advancing the Global Opportunities for Biotechnology in
Agriculture of 2000,'' introduced by Senator Ashcroft. We look forward
to discussions among staff to resolve technical issues and to working
together to secure passage of this legislation. The programs described
in S. 2106 can help developing countries establish regulatory systems
to assess the opportunities and potential risks associated with modern
biotechnology.
A final barrier is lack of knowledge and fear. Around the world,
we've seen lack of knowledge and fear emerge as major factors in the
development of modern biotechnology. In my view, we should neither
minimize nor bemoan this important fact: we should recognize and
address it. We should work to promote scientific cooperation and
reasoned dialogue on this topic. We should recognize that this topic
can implicate ethical and religious issues for some. In the long run,
modern biotechnology cannot promote a better tomorrow unless people
from around the world understand it and have a stake in the
technology's future.
how u.s. is addressing issue
This Administration is strongly committed to finding ways for
modern biotechnology to help fight hunger and poverty. Our work in this
area cuts across many agencies, including the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the Department of State.
USAID spends roughly $7 million a year on agricultural
biotechnology in developing countries. USAID's work emphasizes two
aspects--cooperative research and technology development, and the
promotion of science-based regulatory systems. Cooperative research and
technology development efforts link U.S. universities and companies
with research and government institutions in developing countries. It
is important that developing countries have the technical and
institutional ability to access the potential of biotechnology for
themselves. Creating ownership over the technology helps diffuse the
political issues, and provides the basis for a science-driven
regulatory system. In addition, USAID supports the development of
biosafety regulatory systems and legal and management policies for
addressing intellectual property rights associated with biotechnology.
USDA spends more than $60 million annually on biotechnology
research, providing education programs to current and emerging
agricultural biotechnology markets, and on cooperative efforts with
researchers in developing countries. USDA has implemented special
programs for a targeted group of developing countries, and it conducts
training seminars, which provide a balanced view of biotechnology to
selected consumer, producer, processor, trader or regulator
representatives. In addition, USDA directs efforts toward educating
regulators and journalists on the science-based regulatory process
practiced in the U.S. for biotech crops and products, and it brings
interested stakeholders for U.S.-based training. The Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) of USDA not only conducts its own research into
biotechnology, it also manages a germplasm system that shares germplasm
freely with developing countries.
For example, USDA recently signed an agreement with sub-Saharan
African countries and Tuskegee University to facilitate technology
transfer related to agricultural biotechnology. Over $280,000 is also
spent annually on biotech outreach efforts in developing countries,
which includes biosafety symposia on the potential environmental risks
of biotechnology. USDA has also implemented special programs for a
targeted group of developing countries (including Thailand, Vietnam,
Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Chile, Uruguay, South Africa, Mexico,
Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, and Poland). USDA conducts training
seminars, which provide a balanced view of biotechnology to selected
consumer, producer, processor, trader or regulator representatives.
The Department of State is actively engaged as well, helping to
promote the beneficial application of this technology through many
channels. Our Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Bureau has been
working hard--organizing speaker programs, digital video conferences,
an international visitors program, fact sheets on U.S. agricultural
biotechnology regulatory processes for Embassy distribution, and
multiple websites, including an electronic journal. To enhance
information-sharing efforts, the Department of State recently allocated
$360,000 toward assisting with the effective implementation of the
Biosafety Clearing House. This web-based database of information
concerning living modified organisms (LMOs), provides a means for
sharing scientific and regulatory information among countries.
The issue of biotechnology in developing countries involves
questions of trade, and our Economic Bureau has been proactively
addressing this issue through multiple international mechanisms. These
include the establishment of a U.S.-EU Consultative Forum on
biotechnology, and the Secretary's Advisory Committee on International
Economic Policy (ACIEP) Working Group on Biotechnology. Our Economic
Bureau is also working to ensure that current discussions of
biotechnology in international negotiations, such as recent OECD
discussions, are driven by science.
conclusion
Modern biotechnology is not a panacea, but it can help make a
difference in the fight against hunger and poverty. Using this new
technology, we can feed hungry children, raise incomes, fight disease
and protect the environment.
But these results are not guaranteed. To realize the full potential
of modern biotechnology, we will need wisdom and creativity in the
years ahead. We must find ways to overcome obstacles and address
concerns.
This country should be proud to be a global leader in this
remarkable new technology. In the years ahead, let us pursue a rational
and open dialogue on this topic, applying the lessons of science and
respecting all points of view. If we do so, we'll leave a better world
behind for our children and theirs.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. E. Anthony Wayne
Dear Chairman Hagel:
Thank you for the opportunity to address for the record the
potential of biotechnology in agriculture to help alleviate global
hunger and poverty. As with any promising new technology with broad
application, we have seen that there are legitimate questions and
concerns. The United States Government has learned from experience the
importance of ensuring public safety and confidence in new products
while maintaining a climate conducive for economic growth and
innovation. In the international arena as at home, we favor the
consistent science-based, rules-based approach to assessing the
opportunities and risks associated with new technologies, particularly
those that affect food security and consumer welfare.
Biotechnology holds great promise to help alleviate poverty and
hunger globally. To explore its potential effectively, we encourage the
international community to avoid unnecessary restrictions or barriers
to new technologies such as biotechnology, while proceeding with wisdom
and care. We believe this can be done while protecting our domestic
regulatory programs. We need transparency and the effective use of
science-based decision making. Undue or unworkable trade restrictions
or regulatory barriers, especially on agriculture, could raise food
costs substantially and slow the safe development of biotechnology. It
is true that many governments and companies are investing heavily in
biotechnology--on which the U.S. has a strong start--and so it is
obvious that its promise is not completely unknown abroad.
We believe it is important to enhance and share international
understanding on the science of biotechnology. We also think that the
consensus among scientists--that bio-engineered foods are as safe as
other foods--is finally getting traction. We have worked hard to
encourage a balanced, calm, apolitical discussion of biotechnology.
Many fears about bio-engineered foods reflect a lack of complete
knowledge about our solid regulatory system and about the basic science
of biotechnology. The issue of biotechnology has serious implications
for U.S. agricultural exports, for the trading system more generally,
for global food security and development, and for how we manage
effectively the international approaches to the safety and
environmental aspects of promising new technologies. For these reasons,
the State Department is fully engaged.
Our Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Alan Larson and I work
closely in the interagency process on food safety and agricultural
trade issues. We also take a coordinated approach on the environmental
aspects of biotechnology with our Under Secretary for Global Affairs
Frank Loy and with Assistant Secretary Sandalow's Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. We also work with
Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy Evelyn Lieberman, who has
organized an interagency ``public diplomacy working group'' to help
coordinate the biotech issue internationally. We interact regularly
with USDA, the FDA, Commerce, EPA, USAID, USTR, and both the NEC and
OSTP at the White House on international discussions and negotiations
on biotechnology. The Secretary of State has also engaged directly with
her counterparts, and with interested stakeholders, to be sure we take
a balanced and inclusive approach to this pathbreaking technology. And
we are responding to many calls by U.S. constituents that we do still
more.
We are making a very specific effort to address the interests of
developing countries. Recently, we created a biotechnology working
group under our Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy
(ACIEP) comprised of 60 members. Among other items, it will consider
how we can better work with developing countries so that they benefit
safely from biotechnology's potential contributions to health,
nutrition, food security and agricultural productivity. We have
supported USAID, which is playing a very constructive role on
biotechnology, to continue assisting in building the capacities of
developing countries to adapt and use appropriately biotechnology to
meet critical needs. Under Secretary Larson has met with UN Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) Director General Diouf and discussed
what his organization can do to better support biotechnology in
developing countries.
We have successfully pressed for attention to the interests of
developing countries in recent discussions of biotechnology in both the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the G-
8.
It is important to remember that while foods derived from bio-
engineered inputs or processes have been on the U.S. grocery shelves
for less than a decade, farmers have been creating new plant species
through genetic modification for centuries. Whether we call it risk-
based decision making or scientific uncertainty, the precaution concept
has been embedded in U.S. health and safety programs since 1906, and
continues to be an essential element of the U.S. regulatory approach to
food and environmental programs. American farmers are proud of their
long-standing commitment to providing customers with products of the
highest quality and safety in the world. They have every incentive to
maintain that quality--including in our exports--and the consumer
confidence that it engenders.
President Clinton has underscored that this Administration, with
the help of our outstanding regulatory agencies, will continue to
maintain the highest standards of food safety, including biotechnology
food products. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a report
on April 6 that confirmed that the biotech food products currently on
U.S. grocery shelves (estimated at 30,000 products, or 70% of all food
sold in the U.S.) are as safe as traditional foods. Acknowledging that
no new technology is risk-free, the study also stated the need for
greater consideration of environmental risks and for continued
assessment of regulatory approaches to food safety. We believe that
such ongoing regulatory efforts will only improve our food safety
system. We have also encouraged others in the international community
to consider the value to consumer confidence and scientific innovation
of having apolitical, science-based regulatory structures.
With the global population positioned to top nine billion or more
in 30 years (up from six billion today), food security is of paramount
concern. Land is fixed, water is scarce and malnutrition seriously
impacts child development in many developing countries. As Ismael
Serageldin of the World Bank has noted, biotechnology plants and micro-
organisms are fundamental tools to help improve food production to meet
the growing demand for basic and nutritionally-improved food, while
reducing stresses on the environment caused by chemical pesticides and
herbicides, over-tillage, water runoff, and conversion of existing wild
habitats to agricultural uses.
Today an estimated 18% of the population in the developing world
does not have access to sufficient food to meet their caloric and
nutritional needs. Malnutrition kills 40,000 people every day.
According to a number of studies, biotechnology has increased select
crop yields by about 20% in particular areas (primarily due to
reduction of loss to pests, increased flexibility in crop management,
modification of plant architecture and development, and tolerance to
salinity and drought).
Biotechnology may also already be contributing to a dramatic
reduction of applications of chemical pesticides and herbicides.
According to a study by the National Center for Food and Agricultural
Policy, U.S. soybean growers made 16 million fewer active ingredient
chemical applications in 1998 compared to 1995 (a 19% reduction).
Scientists at the University of Arizona reported that U.S. biotech
cotton farmers enjoyed a 22% yield increase and an average 30%
reduction in pesticide use in 1998.
Improved food distribution and reduced energy consumption are other
benefits from the use of biotechnology since scientists have
successfully introduced genetic traits in fresh produce that prolong
shelf life. Biotechnology is projected to be of major importance in the
health care sector, where trials are advancing to store and deliver
malaria and other vaccines worldwide--embedded in bananas, for
example--thereby reducing the need for costly refrigeration, storage
and distribution. It would be irresponsible and inhumane not to try
hard to develop safely the incredible benefits which biotechnology may
be able to bring to people of all income brackets everywhere. We are
convinced that it is important to do so, with care and cooperation.
On July 6, the 1,800 member International Society for Plant
Molecular Biology joined more than 2,400 other scientists (including
Nobel Prize winners Norman Borlaug and James Watson) in signing a
petition endorsing biotechnology as a ``powerful and safe technology
that can contribute substantially to agriculture, health care and the
environment.'' On July 5, the Wall Street Journal reported that many
scientists in the developing world have embraced the enormous potential
of biotechnology. For example, Mexican researchers have bio-engineered
the world's first acid-soil crops, which reportedly could significantly
boost yields on half the arable land in the tropics and save huge
tracts of the forests.
Yet, globally, the U.S. Government and others who see the potential
of biotechnology for agriculture are facing challenges, including from
some in the European Union, that threaten to slow the dissemination of
this promising technology. The European Union's ambiguous approach to
precaution is incongruent with the science-based, rules-based approach,
which has served Americans and others very well.
Some believe recent EU actions are in part due to the serious food
safety scandals that have eroded European consumer confidence in the
regulatory agencies of the 15 EU member states, and to reports in
Europe media which continue to link alleged risks of ``Frankenfoods''
with such real fears as beef from ``mad cows.'' Heightened consumer
fears in this atmosphere have heavily influenced public policy-making.
The crisis in consumer confidence in Europe has overtaken the
legislative and regulatory process. In addition, there are interest
groups in Europe (such as subsidized industrial agriculture, and
organic production supporters) with their own agenda that are pleased
to support these developments. The result creates problems for the
United States in terms of trade, and could affect the world's ability
to benefit from the development of this technology.
A European Commission White Paper on Food Safety published last
February projects that over 200 new food safety regulations will be
proposed by 2001, affecting biotech seeds, crops, commodities, and
processed food and feed products. While the U.S. has adapted and
successfully implemented a risk-based approach to food and
environmental safety, the EU approach is currently based on a notion
they call the ``precautionary principle'' which is vague and undefined
and seems to leave product approval open to political judgement rather
than science-based evidence. Discussion in the EU of new standards for
agricultural biotechnology could impose fresh regulatory burdens on EU
economies and even slow or derail the development of the technology
worldwide, without scientific documentation of the potential risks. The
impact is already evident; no bio-engineered crops have been approved
in EU countries for over two years.
In the EU, the costs of production--and ultimately food prices--may
rise. Dependence on heavy pesticide use may continue. The much-lamented
``brain drain'' of European scientists and academicians leaving to
conduct their research in the U.S. may continue.
There would also be consequences beyond Europe. Many long-
anticipated biotech breakthroughs may be delayed, as the EU works to
convince others of its approach. ``Golden rice,'' for example, was
funded and developed by the Rockefeller Foundation and the EU--and the
scientists pledged to find ways to adapt this technology to the
developing world. (``Golden rice'' contains additional beta-carotene to
prevent the severe Vitamin A deficiency that contributes to blindness
or death for millions of children per year and the iron deficiency that
causes birth complications for a billion women and their babies.)
However, according to the Journal of Science, under pressure by groups
opposed to biotechnology, the EU has now diminished funding for plant
biotechnology research. ``Golden rice'' research was among the projects
that did not get further funding. USAID now plans to support the
adaptation of ``golden rice'' to the developing world.
Another aspect of this problem is the very serious access problem
the Europeans have created for U.S. bio-engineered crops. U.S. corn
exporters are losing $200 million annually in exports since 1998, and
other agricultural sectors are threatened because of the internal EU
paralysis over handling biotechnology and agriculture. Not only this,
the EU is endeavoring to convince others to adopt its restrictive and
ambiguous approach.
As a result, U.S. Government agencies have become extremely active
in the international arena, through organizations such as the U.N. Food
and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization-sponsored
Codex Alimentarius to ensure that biotech agricultural products and
foods are not singled out, demonized, or over-regulated and, at the
same time, that actual risks are appropriately controlled. Here, too,
we are working with developing countries to understand their viewpoints
and interests, and to share our concerns.
We are making strenuous efforts through the OECD process and the G-
8 Summits of major industrialized nations. We have also proposed that
biotechnology be addressed in the ongoing agriculture negotiations at
the World Trade Organization.
We will continue to seek workable paths forward with the EU to
overcome their concerns, while explaining our reservations with their
proposed approaches. President Clinton discussed biotechnology with EC
President Prodi last October and at the December 1999 U.S.-EU Summit.
The President and his EU counterparts committed to establishing a
``two-track'' approach to addressing biotechnology issues. The first
track consists of a government-to-government dialogue among senior-
level officials from U.S. agencies and the European Commission to help
resolve some of the problems and move the issue forward. The second
track consists of the creation of a Consultative Forum of eminent non-
government persons from both sides of the Atlantic to address a variety
of issues related to biotechnology and to provide a report in time for
the December 2000 U.S.-EU Summit. The forum may also address related
aspects of the agricultural biotechnology issue, including consumer
choice, environmental factors, ethics and the interests of developing
countries.
The United States participants in the U.S.-EU Consultative Forum
include eminent persons such as Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug and the
Rockefeller Foundation's Gordon Conway. We hope that the work of this
Forum of respected experts in their fields will help Europe move toward
a reasoned discussion of the issues related to biotechnology,
particularly agricultural biotechnology and its potential benefits for
sustainable development. We have also engaged bilaterally with the EU
through the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) Biotechnology
Working Group.
We have also launched energetic diplomatic and outreach efforts to
urge a careful, science-based approach to bolster international
consumer confidence that biotech products are regulated effectively,
and with a view toward maintaining high U.S. standards for food safety
and environmental protection. Our program consists of the creation and
maintenance of a website on biotech issues, and the initiation of
seminars, visitors programs, op eds, and videoconferences worldwide. We
have also initiated ongoing outreach to foreign press and non-
government organizations.
Our Embassies around the world are doing yeoman's work to help
raise awareness on this issue and to convey that we seek a balanced
approach to fair market access while addressing consumer and
environmental concerns. We have encouraged an awareness of the current
and potential benefits of this technology, stressed that we believe it
can play a very positive role in developing countries, and made clear
that we seek to ensure that the concrete benefits of biotechnology
agriculture are shared worldwide, while assuring a careful, science-
based regulatory approach.
Since February, the State Department's Bureau of Economic and
Business Affairs assumed responsibility for coordinating the U.S.
government's interaction with the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue
(TACD) to further the exchange of ideas between policy-makers and non-
government organizations. Biotechnology has been one of the main topics
of discussion by U.S. and EU government officials, along with U.S. and
European consumer groups, comprising the TACD. U.S. consumer groups in
the TACD trade working group discussed biotechnology when they met June
21 and the U.S. consumer groups in the TACD food working group will
likely discuss the issue with U.S. government officials July 19. We
expect the U.S. and EU government and NGO participants in the TACD to
examine biotechnology issues again when they meet September 14-15 in
Paris.
Despite these efforts, we are aware we are in an age where sound
bites shape public opinion and that more is needed to convey our
arguments for a careful, science-based approach and to make them
comprehensible to consumers--and even to many policymakers in developed
and developing countries. We will continue to focus our energy to
ensure that short-term political pressures surrounding the biotech
issue do not endanger our longstanding rules-based, science-based
approach to trade. The rules-based approach has allowed trade and
innovation to flourish and is the best means for the promise of
biotechnology to contribute to the fight against hunger and poverty
around the world.
Per capita food production has risen 25% since 1990, without
commensurate increase in land use, and global food trade has kept
prices down and hunger in check in many countries. All of which has
provided great benefits for people worldwide. To sustain and multiply
these positive results, the Department of State will, working closely
with other government agencies, remain vigorously committed to
resolving outstanding issues in a rational, science-based way in the
multilateral fora where biotechnology and agriculture are being
addressed.
We hope these efforts will contribute significantly to alleviate
global hunger and poverty. Thank you Chairman Hagel for the opportunity
to address these important issues.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Secretary, thank you.
I would like to begin with a couple of questions from your
written testimony before I ask my colleagues for their
questions. Could you frame up for the committee what in fact
the administration is doing to provide leadership in this area.
I think you harnessed it in your statement, but now if you
could develop your answer in some detail because I think there
is some agreement that this technology represents a tremendous
amount of hope for the future of mankind. Unless we are able to
implement it and process it and get to the productive capacity
that these nations need, then it will not do much good.
So with that, have at it, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a critically
important topic and our work in this area cuts across a number
of Agencies. I would emphasize three where there is significant
work that is going on: USAID, USDA, and the Department of
State.
USAID spends roughly $7 million a year on agricultural
biotechnology in developing countries, and its work emphasizes
two aspects: cooperative research and technology development
and the promotion of science-based regulatory systems. The
cooperative research and development takes place in part in
efforts to link U.S. universities and companies with research
and government institutions in developing countries. USAID also
has a critical role in funding the work of the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research as part of these
efforts.
USDA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, spends over $60
million in this area and that is annually. It is an annual
figure. It is work that relates to research primarily, biotech
research, but also outreach efforts in developing countries,
research into biotech and training and education programs. USDA
actually maintains a germ plasm data base which is very useful
in this area.
The Department of State, where I am privileged to work, has
had an aggressive diplomatic program in this area for quite a
while now. Our public diplomacy section has worked hard and at
great length around the world to get out the message about
biotechnology and its benefits and how it can be appropriately
managed. That has included hosting major conferences,
organizing speaker programs, digital video conferences, and
more.
We have allocated $360,000 recently toward assisting with
the effective implementation of the Biosafety Clearinghouse,
which is a very innovative web-based site to gather information
about biosafety for countries around the world, and this money
will go toward training developing countries to participate.
Our Economic Bureau has been very engaged with this area.
We have worked on the U.S.-EU Consultative Forum. The
Secretary's Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy
has a subgroup that relates directly to this issue and is
actively involved in OECD discussions as well.
That is a brief summary, Mr. Chairman, and I am happy to
provide more information if you like.
Senator Hagel. You mentioned in your statement that the
final barrier we are dealing with is ``lack of knowledge and
fear.'' What specifically is the administration doing to deal
with that? I heard what you said regarding the three agencies
and I suspect all three are dealing with the underpinning of
misinformation and knowledge and fear. But specifically, how do
you get--specifically how do you get underneath that, and then
tie that to the international scope of this.
Mr. Sandalow. Our work in this area, Mr. Chairman, cuts
across all levels within the Government from the President on
down. The President has spoken to this issue publicly. He has
spoken to this issue in his private diplomacy as well. This is
an area where the Department of State has been working
energetically.
In January, just as one example, there was a major
conference held in The Hague, I believe, in The Netherlands on
this topic, gathering together opinion leaders and experts from
around Europe to try to seek a rational dialog on the topic of
biotechnology on the Continent, where that has been very
challenging. Around the developing world, our embassies have
been doing this same type of activity, working with opinion
leaders actively to try to generate greater understanding of
this topic.
Another important element of our work is scientific
cooperation. We have done that diplomatically through the
Department of State as well as through USDA and elsewhere. This
is a big project and it is a long-term project. I think it is
imperative that we approach this on a bipartisan basis and that
we work together with the rest of the world to have reasoned
and sound dialog on this topic.
I think we have a real opportunity in this country. It is
an opportunity to have a more reasoned and rational debate than
has occurred elsewhere. I welcome this hearing, Mr. Chairman,
as part of that process and I hope that we can spread the
message around the world.
Senator Hagel. What role, if any, does the EPA play in
this?
Mr. Sandalow. EPA has an important regulatory function,
particularly on some of the pesticide issues related to
agricultural biotechnology. I am not aware of specific efforts
with respect to EPA's activities in the developing world, but
would be happy to ask them and submit that information for the
record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
[The following response was subsequently supplied:]
Response of Hon. David B. Sandalow
I am informed that EPA does not have a specific program regarding
biotechnology in developing countries, although it has assisted
developing countries in the creation of effective domestic regulations
on certain products of biotechnology.
Senator Hagel. I suspect you have had an opportunity to at
least see the Washington Post story yesterday that I referred
to in my comments. I do not know how deeply you have gotten
into the report and what the National Academy of Science has
said, but I would be interested in your reflection on what that
story was about and the potential of what the National Academy
of Sciences, along with its brother and sister agencies from
other countries, had to say.
Mr. Sandalow. I have had a chance to look at the report
quickly and I think the report emphasizes the important
opportunities in biotechnology in the developing world. Its
conclusions, which are stated right up front, emphasize that
biotechnology can make a big difference and that we need to
pursue biotechnology in the developing world. I think it is
particularly important that this report comes not just from the
American National Academy of Sciences, which is of course an
esteemed body, but also from national academies from about six
or seven other countries, including developing countries. So it
represents a broad-based consensus on this important topic.
Some of the issues in the article you referred to are
important. They are ones that need to be addressed. The
intellectual property issues in particular are ones that are
going to have to be worked on over time. But I have not had the
chance to review the report closely or to gather together my
colleagues in the government to do a more comprehensive
assessment. But based upon a quick review of the report itself,
I think it sends a very strong message that this is a
technology with tremendous potential that we should be working
to pursue in the years ahead.
Senator Hagel. What can we do that we are not now doing to
harness the resources of both government and the private sector
to work more closely together on this issue?
Mr. Sandalow. I think I said this a moment ago, but perhaps
the most important piece is having rational, reasoned
discussions like the one we are having right now. I think
another important piece, Mr. Chairman, is passing Senator
Ashcroft's very important piece of legislation once we have had
our technical discussions on them. I think that type of effort
can really help in the developing world.
Fully funding the President's international affairs budget
would help as well. It would help us get the message out around
the world. There is a variety of activities we can do that can
make a difference, Senator.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just
following along your line of questioning, I was intrigued by
your written testimony, Secretary Sandalow, on how the United
States is addressing the issue. You have pointed out the money
is being spent by USAID, by USDA, and the trade agencies having
an interest in this.
I suppose the question that keeps coming back to me,
however, is how the administration is coordinating an effective
strategy, given all of these disparate elements. Harking back
to the Agriculture Committee experience, we had USDA, EPA, FDA
sort of shoulder to shoulder at the table, because these are
all elements trying to think through both the production, the
safety, and the trade aspects, and to testify on the efficacy
of biotech, which they all did and it was helpful.
Interestingly enough, industry people who were witnesses
that day wanted to do more. This is almost counterintuitive,
that people who feel they are often overregulated on this
occasion want government officials who were giving testimony
perceived as credible on the basis of their scientific studies,
the hundreds of hearings, regulatory tests, and what have you,
to do more in safe and healthy.
Now, the point was made that other countries do not have an
FDA, or may have something equivalent to an EPA, but they may
or may not. There may not have, in other words, credible
government agencies, officials, or inspections, so that myths
can abide for a long time. There may be no touchstone with a
degree of credibility in the government.
Now, our problem it seems to me is huge in this respect,
and I do not fault this administration or anybody else. I am
just trying to think it through. Who is to be the spear-carrier
for all of this? For example, the Secretary of State may visit
with her counterpart, Mr. Fischer in Germany, and talk about
this, and he is very knowledgeable about the issue. Likewise,
Charlene Barshefsky with the trade people. Secretary Glickman
routinely goes to Europe to talk about this to the EU people.
I would say they have made virtually no headway. When I
follow along in a much more modest way and talk to the same
people, not only has the ball not moved, but the so-called
Montreal Protocol adopted last year made it virtually
impossible for the United States even to export a bushel of
seed corn. We have had protectionist problems with Europe for a
long time with regard to corn generally. But in the past, we
exported a few bushels of seed corn and, given the warning and
efficacy labels and so forth, they can keep that at the dock
here.
So we are dead in the water. Some would say, well, you
cannot mix together foreign policy problems, science problems,
economic problems. These all ought to be conveniently
separated. Certainly you would not ever want to mention NATO
and anything we do with European countries that has to do with
security and sort of fundamental relationships with Europe.
But at some level somebody has to do this. I am just
thinking aloud with you, but I wonder in the administration
have people tried to think this problem through, despite the
fact that you are doing some good things with a little money
here, a little money there, a dab of this or that? The fact is
after the Seattle events or the events here in Washington at
the time of the IMF and the World Bank meetings, there are a
great number of people in the streets that do not like this
subject at all. As a matter of fact they are a rather volatile
demonstration of what appears in much more gentile language in
the New York Times ad.
I saw one ad, for example, in February. It was the sixth of
a series. I had missed the first five. It suggested seriously
that agriculture, food and safety have gotten out of hand in
this world; we would be better off, rather than having 100-acre
farms, to have 30-acre farms, to deliver food to the doorstep,
to get rid of all chemicals, to get rid of all exports and,
therefore, end the spread of difficulties that might come from
whatever experiments we have been doing.
This is being seriously argued with a whole host of
foundations and very reputable Americans signing their names to
this. This is serious. This is in our own country. This is not
the Europeans, whether they are theologically disposed or
simply protectionist, or Third World countries saying you have
left us behind, you have been so worried about your own
commerce and your own profits that you really did not think
about us at all, and therefore we really want some attention.
This is, I think, a very big issue, which is being met I
think superficially. What has happened in the administration?
What sort of talks have you had with Secretary Albright or
Secretary Glickman or Ms. Barshefsky or the President or
anybody to address this issue. If allowed to continue, it could
have debilitating effects not only on our trade with Europe,
but on the feelings of many Americans toward Europeans, many of
them my constituents, who as a matter of fact are more worried
right now about the fact that there is no trade in beans and in
corn than they are with whether NATO subsists or survives. They
have changed their focus, and this is a serious issue.
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you, Senator. You made a comment that I
want to be sure to highlight because it is so important. You
noted that there are many countries that do not have food
regulatory agencies that have the public confidence that our
FDA has here in the United States and that that plays a role in
this issue. From my travels in Europe, I would underscore that
that is a central factor in the issue of biotechnology in
Europe.
Unfortunately for American farmers, unfortunately for
Europeans, I believe unfortunately for the rest of the world,
in Europe this issue has gotten caught up in an entirely
unrelated set of issues involving food safety, and that is
unfortunate. It is something that we are working on on a hard
and sustained basis.
You asked about coordination and I want to strongly agree
with and underline the premise of your question, which is that
this is a remarkably cross-cutting issue, the issue of
biotechnology. And I think that is in part because
biotechnology has so many potential impacts across so many
corners of our lives. Biotechnology can help improve crop
productivity, biotechnology can help with medicine,
biotechnology has trade impacts, biotechnology raises issues
domestically, biotechnology raises foreign policy issues.
As a result of that, we find biotech issues arising across
the Government. As a result of that fact, the White House has
pulled together a team which is helping to coordinate that and
the different policy councils in the White House coordinate
work on this issue as they do work on other issues. That is one
of their classic functions. It is critically important that
they do that.
You asked about Secretary Albright and the President's
activities. I have had the privilege to talk to each of them on
this topic. Secretary Albright, most recently has been deeply
engaged on this topic, and has hosted lunches. The State
Department makes this a regular part of her diplomacy and a
priority, I might say.
In closing, Senator Lugar, you mentioned the so-called
Biosafety Protocol that was adopted up in Montreal. That is not
the topic of this hearing, but I would ask you just to keep an
open mind on this agreement and I would like to make two points
about it. It has, first, an unambiguous savings clause with
respect to the World Trade Organization, so nothing in that
agreement will in any way compromise any trade rights that we
have.
Second, I believe it is an important part of the long-term
confidence-building around the world about biosafety. In the
long run this issue is not solved by only opening markets. This
issue is only solved when markets are open and there is public
acceptance of this product around the world, and part of the
public acceptance process I think is this type of international
regulatory structure.
Senator Lugar. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Senator Lugar, thank you.
We have been joined by the distinguished senior Senator
from Missouri, Senator Bond. I think on our second panel you
are going to introduce Dr. Beachy, and if it is appropriate I
am going to ask your friend and colleague Senator Ashcroft to
go ahead and present his questions to Secretary Sandalow. Nice
to have you with us.
Senator Bond. I appreciate being invited as an officious
intermeddler and I am delighted to be here and follow something
on which I have been working. I just want to compliment the
Assistant Secretary on the work that has been going on. We were
in Thailand earlier this year and one of the key concerns there
was making sure that the people of Thailand had the ability to
assure for themselves that the food was safe. We have asked the
very fine Ambassador, Ambassador Richard Hechlinger, to work
with you to build the capacity in Thailand so Thailand's
scientists can assure the people of Thailand that the food is
safe. Very exciting, and I will talk more later.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hagel. Senator Bond, thank you. You always bring a
certain amount of stature with you and we are grateful for that
at this humble committee.
Senator Ashcroft.
Senator Ashcroft. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would
stipulate that it is a high degree of stature.
May I inquire--Secretary Sandalow mentioned the item from
the Washington Post and you had mentioned it earlier. I think
we were all focused on that. Has anyone submitted that for the
record?
Senator Hagel. I think you are doing so and it will be
included.
[The Washington Post article follows:]
[From the Washington Post, Tuesday, July 11, 2000]
Report Says Biotech Fails To Help Neediest Farmers
panel calls for allowing seed saving, other steps to eliminate barriers
to technology sharing
(By Marc Kaufman)
Commercial considerations are keeping advances in biotechnology
from the poor farmers in developing countries who need them the most,
according to a joint report, by the National Academy of Sciences and
seven other academies around the world.
In addition, contentious issues regarding who owns modified plant
genes, and whether biotech seeds can be re-used, are slowing the
process of making genetically improved forms of staples such as rice,
and cassava available to the 800 million people worldwide who don't
have enough to eat, according to the report.
``This is a situation where major change and a lot more energy are
needed,'' said president Alberts, of the U.S. Academy. ``The new plant
technologies are not being used in many parts of the developing world
where the needs are greatest.''
The ``white paper''--prepared by a working group from the academy,
the Royal Society of London, the national academies of science of
Brazil, China, India, Mexico and the Third World Academy of Sciences--
will be released today, in London. The report generally embraces
biotechnology and rues the ``backlash'' against the technology in
Europe and elsewhere. Without gene modification technnology, the report
concludes, it will be impossible to feed the world's poor in the future
without destroying the environment.
But so far, most genetically modified crops have been grown in
North America and other developed areas where private companies selling
high-tech, high-yield seeds can earn profits, but where widespread
hunger is not a problem.
To change that dynamic, the report strongly encourages private
corporations to share their technologies with scientists and farmers in
developing countries. It specifically calls for loosening some patent
and intellectual property restrictions, and for farmers in developing
nations to be allowed to re-use biotech seeds--a practice that is
sometimes forbidden now.
And the report calls on wealthy nations to substantially increase
funding to the Consultative Group for International Agricultural
Research, a World Bank-sponsored group that supports 16 international
agricultural research centers that have been losing financial aid
steadily for years. While the ``Green Revolution'' that increased crop
yields greatly in the postwar period was largely engineered by the
public sector, most agricultural biotechnology today is funded and
controlled by private companies.
``I think the [biotech] companies are ready to share some
technologies as long, as it doesn't backfire on them commercially,''
said Alberts. ``They are suffering from public pressure now and want to
do some things that are a public service.''
Val Giddings, vice president of the Biotechnology Industry
Organization, which represents 900 companies and academic centers,
agreed that ``the technology is not being used as it could and should
be, and that's a very real problem.''
But he said it is ``not fair to look to the private sector to solve
problems, of international assistance'' and that governments need to
increase their own funding of agricultural biotechnology. He said that
many international biotech sharing programs are already underway,
including some involving ``golden'' rice high in vitamin A, and virus-
resistant papaya and sweet potatoes.
Regarding the intellectual property issues that the report
stresses, Giddings said they were a ``red herring'' that has generated
much theoretical concern but little on-the-ground difficulty ``The
argument that they present some kind of barrier has been way
overblown,'' he said.
Scientists now routinely splice genes from different species into
crops to help them grow faster and ward off pests and diseases. These
engineered crops at first were embraced by U.S. farmers, who planted
them on 70 million acres in 1999.
But the crops have also become increasingly controversial,
especially in Europe. Opponents fear crops that produce their own
pesticides might cause insects to become more resistant, creating a
need for more or stronger chemicals in the future. One recent study
suggested that such crops could kill Monarch butterflies. To address
enviromnental and public health concerns, the report said that every
nation should have a regulatory system in place to watch for any
adverse effects.
The European concerns are definitely effecting the spread of
biotechnology to the developing world, Alberts said. European
Governments have been generous donors to international agricultural
research programs, but they have grown reluctant to finance
biotechnology projects they would not undertake themselves.
According to the report, researchers are working on new crops
useful to developing nations, including salt-resistant corn modified
with a gene from mangrove trees, potatoes and bananas produced with
vaccines against infectious diseases, and a variety of dwarf crops that
increase the edible parts of plants while reducing the vegetative
parts.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit
organization chartered by Congress with a mandate to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical issues.
Senator Ashcroft. I am grateful to Ambassador Young for
having brought me a copy, although all of us have been focused
on this. I am very pleased to see this kind of reporting. It is
of note that this is not just from seven different countries.
There are seven other academies, including the Third World
Academy of Sciences, which I think helps us a lot.
Let me thank Secretary Sandalow for appearing before the
committee. As an individual that has been a proponent for
biotech issues for the administration, you are very aware of
the need to help developing countries set up science-based
regulatory systems and obtain adequate education on the uses
and potential of biotechnology. I do believe your statement,
that it is important for us to have discussions that are
science-based and that emphasize the rational, and to have
opportunities such as the one you described with the USAID,
Monsanto, and Kenya relating to the consortium to develop
disease-resistant sweet potatoes.
It seems to me that those are the kinds of--are likely to
create the stubborn facts that will be the friends of hungry
people, of people who need help. I thank you for that.
I once, not long ago, had a meeting with a delegation from
Nigeria. I met with the Nigerian Ambassador, Ambassador Aminu,
the Federal Minister of Science and Technology, and the Senate
chairman of Commerce, Science, and Technology Committee, and
their main point was yield. They said that enhanced crop yields
resulting from the use of agricultural biotechnology could help
feed a growing population and bolster economic development that
is so very promising.
They also recognized that bio-enhanced foods could assist
in combating diseases specific to developing countries. I am
very pleased with that.
I want to thank you very much for your statements about S.
2106. You joined the Nigerian delegation in saying that they
welcome a science-based approach and that we should encourage
science-based approaches in developing countries. I appreciate
the administration's strong endorsement of the measure. We look
forward to working toward its implementation as quickly as
possible.
I would just like to say that if you could comment on what
you think would--how this would likely be implemented, comment
on the goals to encourage more educational and technical
assistance to developing countries on genetically enhanced
sustainable agriculture, and particularly I would suggest that
I would like to work as expeditiously as possible. I would like
to try and work to get something done this year. Do you feel
like a timeframe that includes our efforts this year is within
the expectation of the administration?
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you, Senator. I hope so. The need is so
great, the opportunities for implementation are enormous. They
would include working in developing countries with experts on
the ground. They would include scientific cooperation. They
would include funding for additional research, the building of
regulatory programs. The list is lengthy, and I hope this is
something that we can work together on very, very quickly.
Senator Ashcroft. One other insight, and I do not mean to
consume all my time. You said that we have a greater
opportunity for a reasoned understanding of this issue than has
been made in other settings. This is certainly a place where we
must have reason to prevail. So not only should we have these
discussions here, but I think the legislation is designed to go
to those other settings and provide a reasonable and rational
scientific base.
I think what we have seen is, in the absence of science-
based reasons, these other discussions fill what otherwise
would be a void, and the light of the truth and the light of
fact and reason and science must dispel an environment which
allows the panic and unreasonable to be propagated.
So I thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply grateful for your willingness to
participate in this issue in this way. I do not want to
underestimate it. This really is not about science; this is
about human beings who are suffering because we have not had an
adequate understanding of science. The real bottom line here
are countries and communities and families and individual human
beings who are in serious difficulty, absent health, absent
nutrition. And we can help correct this by just making sure
that the truth of reason and science is the basis for
decisionmaking.
Thank you very much.
[A press release from Senator Ashcroft follows:]
[Wednesday, July 12, 2000]
press release from senator john ashcroft
State Department Endorses Ashcroft Bill To Expand Food Production in
Developing Nations
State Department, Ambassador Young, Danforth Center's Dr. Beachy
Testify about Importance of Ashcroft Legislation
Washington, DC.--U.S. Senator John Ashcroft's efforts to help
developing nations expand food production and combat global hunger
today won the endorsement of the U.S. State Department.
Testifying in Congress today, David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary
of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs, announced the Administration's strong support for legislation
sponsored by Ashcroft. Ashcroft's bill will encourage developing
nations to make appropriate use of American biotechnology products, a
field in which Missouri-based Monsanto is a world leader.
Ashcroft, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said:
``U.S. agriculture biotechnology holds the prospect for substantial
benefits to the world in a number of critical areas. Enhanced crop
yields resulting from the use of agricultural biotechnology will help
feed a growing global population and help fight world hunger. Healthier
bio-enhanced foods also will assist in combating diseases specific to
the developing world that arise from vitamin and other nutritional
deficiencies. I'm pleased that the Administration is behind our efforts
to help developing nations see the benefits of biotech.''
The Ashcroft-sponsored ``Advancing the Global Opportunities for
Biotechnology in Agriculture Act'' (S. 2106) assists developing
countries in setting up regulatory systems to review the benefits and
potential risks of genetically-enhanced agriculture. Such systems will
allow third world countries to establish standards that judge new
products based on objective scientific principles, and not on the
protectionist approach of the European Union. To accomplish this, the
Ashcroft bill sets aside $6 million (FY2001) in U.S. AID's budget for
agricultural development.
In addition to Sandalow, former UN Ambassador Andrew Young, now of
GoodWorks International, and Dr. Roger Beachy of the Danforth Plant
Science Center in St. Louis testified today before the Senate Foreign
Relations Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and
Trade Promotion. Young has discussed with Ashcroft the need to assist
African nations with biotech products to help combat debilitating
illnesses such as river blindness and HIV/AIDS.
Along with fighting world hunger and combating diseases,
agriculture biotechnology in third world countries will have
environmental benefits. Pest and disease resistant crops developed
through biotech will reduce the need for herbicides and pesticides.
Plus, greater agricultural yields will minimize the need for additional
farmland to feed and clothe the world's growing population.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March approved the
Ashcrofi bill as an amendment to the Technical Assistance, Trade
Promotion, and Anti-Corruption Act (S. 2382), which has since been
referred to the Senate Banking Committee.
Senator Hagel. Senator Ashcroft, thank you.
Unless any of my colleagues have further questions for
Secretary Sandalow, we will allow you to escape with the caveat
that we might have some additional questions for the record.
Mr. Secretary, thank you.
Mr. Sandalow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel. We appreciate your good work.
If the second panel would come forward, we will get
started. Thank you.
Gentlemen, thank you and again welcome. We are grateful
that you would take time to come up and share with us some of
your thoughts. Ambassador Young, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW YOUNG, CHAIRMAN, GOODWORKS
INTERNATIONAL, ATLANTA, GA
Ambassador Young. Mr. Chairman, I am really grateful for
your invitation to convene these hearings and to this
distinguished committee. I come not as a scientist or a
technology expert. I am basically a preacher, and I hope you
will forgive me if I try to put this in the kind of context
that I think I see evidence of already in this hearing.
Our mandate is to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal
the sick. As I tried to do that, I ended up in first civil
rights, then in politics, only to realize that when I was in
Congress we were very short of money. So that when I went to be
mayor of a city I realized that the private sector was the
source of much of the money, much of the technology, and that
only by working together, the nongovernmental agencies, the
political process, and the private sector, could we really make
any headway.
We have had a tremendous success of that. In the South
dealing with civil rights, it was the business community long
before the government that was responsive, and religious
nongovernmental agencies far more sensitive. I end up applying
the same social strategy to dealing with the problems of the
developing world. I read that there is a crisis brought on
essentially by the health of the African Continent, and we tend
to be somewhat removed from that. Last Christmas the Minister
of Health from Senegal came by to visit me in Atlanta and asked
for help. I said: I do not know what I can do, but if you have
a few of the Ministers of Health from African countries that
would like to come visit with us in Atlanta, we can probably
host you and get the Center for Disease Control and some others
to sit with you.
We ended up with 32 Ministers of Health from the African
Continent coming, and we ended up as we sent out invitations,
we got responses not only from the governmental agencies
dealing with health and nutrition and CARE and the Red Cross
and the Carter Center, but we also got a very good response
from the corporations that are involved on the African
Continent.
One of the reasons was that poverty, nutrition, disease are
becoming increasingly workplace security issues. So we have
found that with some of these ad hoc coalitions, including
particularly the biotechnology area, that we have American
businesses, American universities, American religious
institutions, trying things together.
There are no guarantees, but it was a situation of
desperation. So the missionaries from Church World Service came
and said they had discovered a tree that was indigenous to the
African Continent--they happened to be located there in
Elkhart, Indiana, Senator--and that this tree has amazing
properties of iron and vitamin A and C. So they are planting
tree forests and planting trees near people's homes, where they
might use these leaves and the roots and the flowers in their
diet.
The representative from Monsanto, I think it was, came from
Johns Hopkins and said that one tablet of vitamin A would
probably cut the death rate of malaria by 30 percent. So that
the efforts to put vitamin A into rice or into cassava or into
corn become both nutritional and medical. We found that African
Ministers of Health and their science and technology divisions
were very interested in being involved and getting some of
their scientists involved in looking at things that they can do
with their crops and looking for our help.
We also found that the disease factors could be a national
security issue, that much of our oil security now is, our
backup is West Africa, from Nigeria down to Angola. Ninety
percent of the workers in those oil fields are Africans, are
trained by mostly American and British and French companies.
They are not immune to the diseases of the region. But if you
think of the economic problem that oil companies that are 90
percent indigenous Africans with the other 10 percent coming
from my home State of Louisiana and East Texas, down in the
Gulf, that if they had to bring another 10 percent of the work
force from the United States what would it do to the price of
oil?
The American companies that are involved on the African
Continent in development with some success all see a pending
crisis and are beginning to work together in some ways to
address the questions of disease. But in the absence of a cure,
what can you do to keep people healthy? We have found that
nutrition is secondary prevention in AIDS, that when you are
involving people who are HIV-positive in good nutrition, even
when there is not yet a cure, it makes them responsible for
their disease, it encourages them, it involves them in units
not unlike our experience with Alcoholics Anonymous, where
people who are victims of a disease, instead of giving in in
despair, decide to take on the challenge of preventing the
disease in others.
So that creating that kind of consortium between our
scientists, our churches, our universities, and our politics is
one of the things that we have been engaged in at GoodWorks. We
do not have any results to report, except that everybody is
interested and anywhere we get together to try anything almost,
it works, in terms of the kinds of crops that we have been
experimenting with.
Before the awful war between Ethiopia and Eritrea I was
there and, in spite of the fact that the Ethiopians were
leading the assault on biotechnology in the Montreal Protocol,
there were 11 million farm families that had been organized by
Norman Borlaug and Jimmy Carter and the Ethiopian Government.
Agriculture in Ethiopia was largely involving genetically
enhanced seeds and crops and doing it quite successfully.
So that we have in the real world people dealing with real
problems coming together, trying to find something that could
work, that works, in a sense of desperation. On the other side,
I think there are theoretical fears and hearings like this I
think come together and help us have some clarification of
those.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Andrew Young
Good afternoon. First, let me thank Senator Chuck Hagel and members
of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on International Economic
Policy, Export and Trade Promotion for inviting me here today to speak
about the role of biotechnology in combating poverty and hunger in the
developing world.
I am not here as a scientist, a technology expert or a farmer, but
as a concerned citizen who has spent a great deal of his life devoted
to work in Africa. As the world population continues to increase and
infectious diseases pose a growing threat to Africa and other
developing nations, I believe that we in the industrialized world have
a responsibility to help. We have a responsibility to harness all the
tools and resources that modern technology can offer to combat the
plight of the world's hungry and sick populations--for their sake and
for the sake of global stability.
I am sure that most of you here read some or all of last week's
Washington Post series on HIV/AIDS in Africa. By any account, the
figures are shocking, and a solution to this pandemic seems a distant
reality.
Of the more than 34 million people in the world living with HIV/
AIDS, almost 25 million are in sub-Saharan Africa--that is almost 74%
of the global HIV/AIDS population. To-date, Africa has suffered 83
percent of all deaths due to HIV/AIDS, and is subject to nine out of
ten new infections.\1\ What does this mean in terms of practical
realities? It means that every day in sub-Saharan Africa, 5,500 people
die from the AIDS virus.\2\ It means that health care costs for AIDS in
struggling democracies are consuming budgets that could otherwise be
used for preventative care, or to combat other curable illnesses and
disease. It also means that food security in these countries is further
threatened as adults fall sick and die--resulting in a decline in
agricultural productivity due to the loss of farm labor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
\2\ The Washington Post, July 5, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Nigeria, for example, President Obasanjo is fighting for
democratic reform after years of military dictatorship. But the country
he has been elected to lead includes 2.7 million people infected with
the AIDS virus. Likewise, South Africa is home to 4.2 million people
with HIV/AIDS--more than any other nation in the world.\3\ The impact
of this disease on the most productive segments of these societies,
many of whom are largely engaged in agriculture and represent the
mainstay of many African economies, requires further attention and
consideration. Thus, in addition to preventing the spread of the
disease and caring for those already infected, African leaders must
rapidly look past conventional approaches to agriculture, which may
soon become obsolete in the face of declining rural populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ UNAIDS Region Fact Sheet 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why has this pandemic exacted such a high toll in Africa and other
developing countries? Much of it is related to poverty, the primary
threat to development. It makes people more vulnerable to infectious
disease through malnutrition, family break-ups, and homelessness--all
of which are high-risk factors. Furthermore, when you are struggling
with daily survival, your immune system is weakened, access to medical
care is scarce, and education and awareness are low.
Clearly, poverty, malnutrition and disease go hand-in-hand. Poverty
remains the root cause of hunger and malnutrition throughout the
developing world. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa--one of the
world's poorest regions--nearly one-third of all children are
malnourished and about 20% of women are underweight.\4\ A dangerous
consequence of malnutrition is that it weakens the immune system and
leaves populations more susceptible to infectious diseases, such as
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other forms of illness. Without access to
nutritious foods and much-needed cash crops, Africa has little hope of
battling the poverty and malnutrition fueling the spread of HIV/AIDS
throughout the continent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ UNICEF, 1998 State of the World's Children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let me get to the point of this testimony--the role of
biotechnology in combating hunger, poverty and disease in the
developing world. At hand is the question of how new technologies can
empower Africa and other developing countries to engage in sustainable
agricultural practices that will feed their growing populations, while
also helping protect against disease.
I contend that the answer to this question requires a three-fold
approach: (1) improving agricultural production, resulting in higher
yields of food and cash crops; (2) enhancing the nutritional content of
staple foods; and (3) introducing new pharmaceutical products, such as
oral vaccines, to developing nations. Biotechnology can make a critical
difference for developing nations in all of these areas.
It is indisputable that steps must be taken to improve agricultural
production in the developing world. As populations in the world's
poorest regions continue to grow by nearly 90 million per year, the
International Food Policy Research Institute estimates that farmers
will have to produce 40% more grain globally by 2020 to keep up with
rising food demands. Furthermore, the United Nations predicts that by
2020 more than half the people in the developing world will live in
cities. While today up to 80% of the people in sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia grow the food they eat, in 25 years, up to 60% of that food
will have to be supplied through market channels.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Daleep Mukarji, Christian Aid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These truths come to us at a time when we are running out of new
fertile lands to cultivate, and a history of poor farming practices
have damaged arable lands in much of the developing world. We are also
at a time in which staple crops are being decimated by viruses and
pests before they can be harvested for hungry populations. Throughout
Africa, for example, approximately 60% of the cassava crop--an
important staple and source of calories--was lost to the cassava mosaic
virus in 1998.\6\ In Kenya alone, it is estimated that 40%-60% of crop
yields are lost to pests annually. And, as I mentioned earlier,
countries stricken with AIDS are rapidly losing much of their rural
farm labor--the backbone of traditional farming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Council for Biotechnology Information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faced with these truths, the answer cannot be for farmers in the
developing world to continue traditional practices, such as clear-
cutting temperate and tropical forests or boosting the use of chemicals
which can contaminate groundwater supplies. The answer can be found in
new technologies that increase crop productivity in the poorest
countries by up to 25% without increasing labor, while also reducing
the use of pesticides and insecticides. The answer can also be found in
the development of new crops, which resist other natural challenges
such as drought and changing weather patterns, or which offer novel
nutritional benefits.
Let me give you two examples of concrete successes in Africa of
biotechnology applications that are already making improvements to
agricultural production possible.
In the Makathini Flats area of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa,
the improvements to production by small landholders using a
genetically enhanced cotton variety have been significant, with
economic savings on average of $140 U.S. per hectare. Farmers
are capturing these savings by reducing agricultural inputs
such as pesticides, and through higher yields. As a result, the
adoption rate of this cotton variety among farmers growing on
just one to five hectares of land has increased dramatically--
from 60 during the 1998-99 growing season to more than 600
during the 1999-2000 season.\7\ Enhancing production of such an
important cash crop helps alleviate poverty among these small
landholders, many of whom are women, which can be directly
linked to improved nutrition and a better quality of life for
the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Monsanto Company.
In Kenya, the Monsanto Company partnered with the Kenya
Agriculture Research Institute and the U.S. Agency for
International Development to develop genetically improved
varieties of sweet potato resistant to virus infections (these
viruses have traditionally destroyed 50%-80% of the continent's
sweet potato production). As a result of this collaborative
effort, a Kenyan variety of sweet potato was recently approved
by the Kenya Biosafety Committee for import, and field trials
will soon be underway to ensure that the new variety is
properly evaluated under local conditions and local
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
regulations.
While improved agricultural production is essential to ensure an
increased and sustainable source of food for the developing world,
biotechnology also has the potential to make crops more nutritious.
This is critically important when vitamin A deficiency affects 125
million children globally, and causes irreversible eye damage in 14
million children everyday.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ismail Serageldin, CGIAR Vice President, The World Bank, March
29, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of you may already have heard about ``Golden Rice,'' a strain
of rice that contains more iron and beta-carotene, a precursor of
vitamin A. AstraZeneca, the maker of Golden Rice, has approached more
than 80 developing nations across Asia, Africa and Latin America with
regard to donations of the Golden Rice seeds, and has received a strong
welcome for this new technology.\9\ For countries in which rice is a
staple, families will have a source of vitamin A provided to them in
their daily meals, which can reduce the staggering rate of river
blindness among children, or the high-risk factors facing children of
iron-deficient mothers, such as physical and mental retardation,
premature births and infant mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Zeneca Ag Products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the pipeline is technology to enrich African maize varieties
with beta-carotene, much like the technology which has been
successfully employed in the development of high beta-carotene canola
and Golden Rice. Approaches such as these will enable African
governments to employ food-based nutritional strategies which can help
in the fight against infectious diseases such as AIDS and malaria, in
addition the chronic problems of river blindness and malnutrition
generally.
One of the most amazing breakthroughs in biotechnology, though, is
the oral vaccine, which will allow consumers in the developing world to
become inoculated against deadly diseases through locally-grown food
crops for a small fraction of the cost of traditional vaccines. For
example, Professor Charles Arntzen of Cornell University is currently
developing a hepatitis vaccine in bananas. Just imagine . . . bananas
are foods that are eaten by infants and children, as well as adults.
They can be eaten raw, and they are widely available throughout the
developing world.
If Dr. Arntzen's project is successful, the banana could deliver
the vaccine at two cents a dose, compared to about $125 for a
traditional vaccine injection.\10\ Right now, an estimated 300 million
people globally carry the hepatitis virus and as many as one third of
them will die from its effects within the year. Furthermore, by using
biotechnology to develop edible vaccines, you bypass the needs for
distribution, refrigeration, or the sterilization of needles that are
ongoing hurdles to traditional vaccination programs in much of the
developing world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Dr. Charles Arntzen, President, Boyce Thompson Institute for
Plant Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those of us fortunate to live in the United States or Europe,
it is difficult to comprehend the realities of daily life for the
people of sub-Saharan Africa and other developing regions. While we
grow an abundance of food for consumption and enjoy three meals a day,
there are more than one billion who currently live on less than a
dollar a day, and between two and three billion who live on less than
two dollars a day.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Ismail Serageldin, CGIAR Vice President, The World Bank, March
29, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poverty, malnutrition and disease go hand-in-hand, and we must
fight it head-on with all the tools at our disposal.
With 800 million people--mostly women and children--chronically
malnourished,\12\ we have a responsibility to share technologies that
will empower the small landholder to grow higher yields of more
nutritious foods through sustainable practices. That is what
biotechnology can offer, and that is the reality that we must embrace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Ambassador, thank you, and we will come
back around with a series of questions.
Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM
MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you first of
all for holding this hearing, because I can think of no more
important subject to deal with in this committee or in this
body, in this Congress, than how we can do something that would
be of significant assistance to the people in the developing
parts of this world who live in grinding poverty, experience
malnutrition, experience the impact of diseases, and a whole
series of programs, problems, that are very difficult to deal
with.
I believe that biotechnology has, plant biotechnology, has
the opportunity to do things. What Ambassador Young talked
about really was laid out very well. I do not know if you all
have looked at it, but I sat down and watched a four-part
series by the BBC talking about biotechnology. It presented the
negative side, the opposition on BBC, the opposition to plant
biotechnology, people saying: We do not want to disrupt the
lives of the indigenous farmers in Africa. And the camera crew
went out to look at the farmers who were trying to eke out a
subsistence living in Africa, one family where the grandchild
had not eaten for 3 days, and they fed them before they could
even interview them, and they showed the impact of diseases, of
invasive weeds, the problems that they have with those crops.
We know the statistics around the world, the tremendous
number of people who are suffering from malnutrition, can be
helped significantly, and the first and probably the most
exciting one is the Golden Rice, the beta carotene-enriched
rice which provides the vitamin A that can reduce significantly
the five million deaths of infants from malnutrition, the half
a million cases of blindness every year that are caused by
malnutrition, lack of vitamin A in the diets.
I always travel with a number of very thoughtful articles
and, Mr. Chairman, one that is particularly compelling is from
Progressive Farmer, written by our distinguished colleague from
Indiana. I would offer these to see if you want to include
these, and an article by former President Jimmy Carter, that I
think outline some of the challenges and the tremendous
opportunities that biotechnology offers.
Senator Hagel. We will first check the authenticity of
this, of course, with Chairman Lugar, but they will be included
in the record.
[The material referred to follows:]
[From the Progressive Farmer/February 2000]
my thoughts--a page of opinion
Let's Not Ignore Sound Science
(By Senator Richard G. Lugar)
Galileo, if he is looking down from the heavens as he once gazed up
at them, must find the current public discussion of the emerging
science of biotechnology uncomfortably familiar. Myth, rather than
scientific fact, has come to predominate the debate.
The European press refers to genetically engineered grains as
``Frankenstein food,'' and respected research scientists are accused of
``playing God.''
Galileo's crime was that he challenged the popular but mistaken
belief that Earth was the center of the universe. It was a myth firmly
ingrained in the societal values and institutions of his time.
Eventually and inevitably, Galileo's science triumphed over myth. It
offered an incalculable benefit to society.
I recently held two days of hearings of the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry to begin sorting the facts about
biotechnology from the myths.
The testimony the committee received suggests, in sharp contrast to
what has been written in the popular press in Europe, that
biotechnology holds in its logic and ingenuity enormous potential to
improve the human condition. Some of the country's leading scientists
and the three federal agencies charged with the oversight of
biotechnology spoke of the tremendous potential benefits that could
result from the genetic engineering of crops.
They detailed the approval and regulatory oversight processes,
which evaluate new products in terms of food and environmental safety.
They spoke of the hope that biotechnology offers to developing nations
of the world.
Dr. Bob Buchanan of the University of California-Berkeley believes
the research he has been conducting could, in the not-too-distant
future, result in nonallergenic forms of wheat. This could unburden
millions of people who currently cannot eat this common food. Dr. Dean
Della Penna of the University of Nevada-Reno is doing groundbreaking
research on using bioengineering techniques to enhance basic foodstuffs
with vitamins.
Increased vitamin E in vegetable oil could potentially reduce the
risk of heart disease or of certain cancers by significant amounts.
Increased vitamin A in basic foods such as rice, corn and casava could
help address serious diet deficiencies in the Third World that result
annually in 500,000 children going irreparably blind.
Witnesses also spoke of environmental benefits. Dr. Roger Beachy of
the Danforth Plant Science Center in Missouri, told how insect-
resistant potatoes, cotton and corn are removing millions of pounds of
chemical insecticides from the environment. Dr. Ray Bressan of Purdue
University discussed his research on making crops more drought
resistant, which would help prevent human incursion on marginal and
environmentally sensitive lands.
I only wish there had been greater media coverage of our hearings,
because the public deserves to hear both sides and to understand the
promise of biotechnology. The hallmark of a progressive society is the
ability to engage in an informed, logical and balanced discussion. It
has been written that the greatest enemy of the truth is not the
intentional falsehood, but rather the pervasive and enduring myth.
Myth has, heretofore, characterized the European debate over
biotechnology, and we must take great care that it does not prevent a
truly informed discussion here.
______
[From the New York Times, August 26, 1998]
Who's Afraid of Genetic Engineering?
(By President Jimmy Carter)
Atlanta.--Imagine a country placing such rigid restrictions on
imports that people could not get vaccines and insulin. And imagine
those same restrictions being placed on food products as well as on
laundry detergent and paper.
As far-fetched as it sounds, many developing countries and some
industrialized ones may do just that early next year. They are being
misled into thinking that genetically modified organisms, everything
from seeds to livestock, and products made from them are potential
threats to the public health and the environment.
The new import proposals are being drafted under the auspices of
the biodiversity treaty, an agreement signed by 168 nations at the 1992
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The treaty's main goal is to protect
plants and animals from extinction.
In 1996, nations ratifying the treaty asked an ad hoc team to
determine whether genetically modified organisms could threaten
biodiversity. Under pressure from environmentalists, and with no-
supporting data, the team decided that any such organism could
potentially eliminate native plants and animals.
The team, whose members mainly come from environmental agencies in
more than 100 different governments, should complete its work within
six months and present its final recommendation to all the nations (the
United States is not among them) that ratified the treaty. If approved,
these regulations would be included in a binding international
agreement early next year.
But the team has exceeded its mandate. Instead of limiting the
agreement to genetic modifications that might threaten biodiversity,
the members are also pushing to regulate shipments of all genetically
modified organisms and the products made from them.
This means that grain, fresh produce, vaccines, medicines,
breakfast cereals, wine, vitamins--the list is endless--would require
written approval by the importing nation before they could leave the
dock. This approval could take months. Meanwhile, barge costs would
mount and vaccines and food would spoil.
How could regulations intended to protect species and conserve
their genes have gotten so far off track? The main cause is anti-
biotechnology environmental groups that exaggerate the risks of
genetically modified organisms and ignore their benefits.
Anti-biotechnology activists argue that genetic engineering is so
new that its effects on the environment can't be predicted. This is
misleading. In fact, for hundreds of years virtually all food has been
improved genetically by plant breeders. Genetically altered
antibiotics, vaccines and vitamins have improved our health, while
enzyme-containing detergents and oil-eating bacteria have helped to
protect the environment.
In the past 40 years, farmers worldwide have genetically modified
crops to be more nutritious as well as resistant to insects, diseases
and herbicides. Scientific techniques developed in the 1980's and
commonly referred to as genetic engineering allow us to give plants
additional useful genes. Genetically engineered cotton, corn and
soybean seeds became available in the United States in 1996, including
those planted on my family farm. This growing season, more than one-
third of American soybeans and one-fourth of our corn will be
genetically modified. The number of acres devoted to genetically
engineered crops in Argentina, Canada, Mexico and Australia increased
tenfold from 1996 to 1997.
The risks of modern genetic engineering have been studied by
technical experts at the National Academy of Sciences and World Bank.
They concluded that we can predict the environmental effects by
reviewing past experiences with those plants and animals produced
through selective breeding. None of these products of selective
breeding have harmed either the environment or biodiversity.
And their benefits are legion. By increasing crop yields,
genetically modified organisms reduce the constant need to clear more
land for growing food. Seeds designed to resist drought and pests are
especially useful in tropical countries, where crop losses are often
severe. Already, scientists in industrialized nations are working with
individuals in developing countries to increase yields of staple crops,
to improve the quality of current exports and to diversify economies by
creating exports like genetically improved palm oil, which may someday
replace gasoline.
Other genetically modified organisms covered by the proposed
regulations are essential research tools in medical, agricultural and
environmental science.
If imports like these are regulated unnecessarily, the real losers
will be the developing nations. Instead of reaping the benefits of
decades of discovery and research, people from Africa and Southeast
Asia will remain prisoners of outdated technology. Their countries
could suffer greatly for years to come. It is crucial that they reject
the propaganda of extremist groups before it is too late.
Senator Bond. Let me make just a couple of comments about
Roger Beachy. His record and his credentials and his works will
speak for themselves, but I had the pleasure of traveling to
Southeast Asia with Dr. Beachy, who is now heading our very
promising Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis. When we
were there it was obvious that we did not need to have a
biographical sketch, because the scientific leaders in
Singapore and in Bangkok knew of Dr. Beachy. He has already
worked with them and trained many of the scientists. The hope
and the promise that he brings, along with all of his
colleagues in this field, are really very significant and
exciting.
I want to mention to my colleagues that, at my request, the
Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee has
included $30 million for funding biotech research and
development initiatives to combat the maladies that plague the
world--hunger, malnutrition, and drought. We specifically
designated $5 million for the International Rice Research
Institute in the Philippines to bring this development into
full production. We put in, included a designation for
University of California at Davis for control of parasitic
weeds in Africa, to Tuskegee University to identify gene
technology applications for combating hunger and malnutrition,
the International Laboratory for Tropical Agriculture
Biotechnology at the University of Missouri in St. Louis to
work on diseases threatening rice, tomatoes, cassava, and a
million dollars for the Danforth Plant Science Center to work
with researchers from Thailand and elsewhere to help them
develop genetically engineered products which can resist
diseases.
Dr. Beachy with his team have, I believe it was, tomatoes
that could be resistant to the viruses destroying the crop in
Thailand, and he has a tremendous story to tell. I believe that
this technology is not recreational. It is to solve the world's
health, humanitarian, environmental challenges.
I thank this committee for holding the hearing and I am
very proud to present a man who is well known throughout the
world in plant biotechnology, Dr. Roger Beachy, to address the
committee.
Senator Hagel. Senator Bond, thank you.
Dr. Beachy.
STATEMENT OF ROGER N. BEACHY, PH.D., DIRECTOR, DONALD DANFORTH
PLANT SCIENCE CENTER, ST. LOUIS, MO
Dr. Beachy. That is a hard one to follow, Senator Bond.
Thank you for the introduction.
Senator Hagel, thank you for calling this subcommittee
hearing and for allowing me to make a few remarks to Senator
Lugar and Senator Ashcroft and others that are here today.
The Danforth Center was established in 1998 and is
formatted on the model of the great independent biomedical
research institutions that have come to drive the biomedical
research community. The Danforth Center is devoted to research
in plant biology to improve human nutrition and sustainable
agriculture production.
In many ways the Danforth Plant Science Center is unique in
its mission because it has dedicated 10 percent of resources as
well as 10 percent of the physical facility to conduct research
specifically related to the needs of agriculture in developing
countries. This effort includes training scientists to increase
intellectual and technical capabilities that are relevant to
their home countries. Training is provided in plant science and
biotechnology in areas which they request.
I welcome the opportunity to present testimony on the
importance of research in plant sciences, agriculture, food,
and nutrition. In particular, my focus today will be on the
areas related to the importance for the benefit of the poor and
developing countries and as an essential step in the fight
against hunger and disease.
Few of us in this room will deny that there are tremendous
needs around the world for adequate amounts of nutritious food.
Adequate food and nutrition are essential to ensure the
physical and intellectual growth and development of children
that eventually lead to healthy and productive adults, as
Ambassador Young has indicated. It is well known that
malnutrition in utero leads to increased diabetes,
hypertension, and heart disease. Malnutrition in utero can
cause deleterious effects two generations subsequent to a
poorly fed mother, with impacts on intelligence and on
learning. Two generations. We must get started on addressing
the needs.
Low intake of calories leads to kwashiorkor, marasmus,
edema, and other conditions. Vitamin A deficiencies have
already been discussed today. Deficiencies in dietary folic
acid, a B vitamin, leads to reduced intelligence because it is
important for the development of neuronal cells.
It is estimated that 850 million people currently are
undernourished or malnourished in the world. Sixty percent of
the undernourished are in marginal environments where intensive
agriculture is not likely to be established or successful. The
challenge is to meet the current needs. But, think of the needs
that are in front of us for the eventuality of a world whose
population may be as great as 9 billion in 2040. Yet, there is
limited land on which to produce food without further
destroying the important forest and wilderness areas that
produce life-giving oxygen, that cleanse our air, to protect
and sustain biodiversity, and assure that underground stores of
water are sufficiently purified to be suitable for human
consumption.
Agriculture producers in the United States have a growing
awareness of their duties as keepers of the environment. Many
are actively reducing the use of harmful agrichemicals while
maintaining highly efficient production of safe foods. Plant
scientists and agriculturalists have developed better crops and
improved production methods that have enabled farmers to reduce
the use of insecticides and chemicals that control certain
diseases. Methods such as integrated pest management and no-
till and low-till agriculture have been tremendously important
in this regard.
Some of the success has come through the judicious
application of biotechnology to develop new crops that resist
insects and can tolerate certain herbicides. You have heard of
the work of biotechnology to develop cotton varieties and corn
that resist the cotton boll worm and the corn borer. These
varieties of crops have allowed farmers to reduce the use of
chemical insecticides by between 1.5 and 2 million gallons
since 1996 while retaining or increasing crop yields.
Crops that tolerate certain friendly herbicides have
increased no-till or low-till agriculture tremendously, saving
valuable topsoil that we are going to rely on for the next 100
years.
Although biotechnology has increased productivity for
American and Canadian farmers, the technologies are not widely
available or more importantly are not adapted, for applications
in parts of the world that could benefit the most. Those
peoples who require more food and better nutrition are amongst
those who are not seeing the rewards of scientific discovery.
In Asia and Africa, where rice is the main food, stem borers
and other insects and viruses and fungal diseases continue to
suppress crop yields. Diseases caused by fungi and viruses
decrease yields of crops such as groundnut, chickpeas, papaya,
sweet potatoes, yams, cucumbers, melons.
However, modern methods of crop improvement, coupled with
better farming practices, can make a real and significant
difference in crop production in all areas of the world.
Biotechnology can be used to reduce crop losses due to disease,
to insects, and post-harvest deterioration and rotting of
foods. This is perhaps best demonstrated by several examples.
Start with the virus that causes a severe disease in papaya, a
ring spot disease. It reduces papaya production and kills trees
in Asia and in parts of Latin America and in Africa. In
northern Thailand papaya is a major staple vegetable, and is
used in green salads. Consider the leaf curl disease of white
potatoes in all producing areas, and the virus that causes
yellowing of leaves in sweet potatoes throughout East and
Central Africa. Consider the virus that causes stunting and
yellowing in rice, a disease that is known as tungro,
throughout Central Asia. Each of these important diseases can
be controlled through biotechnology.
Consider also the production of cotton in India, Pakistan,
and Egypt and other countries where the boll worm and boll
weevil can reduce yields and farmers' profits. We have learned
that in some parts of India farmers commit suicide rather than
face the consequences that come with financial losses that are
caused by insect attack. When smallholder farmers in China and
South Africa grew native cotton varieties that contain the B.t.
gene for insect resistance that was introduced via
biotechnology farmers realized between $150 and $200 per
hectare increased profits. It is estimated that more than a
million farmers in those two countries have benefited from the
use of the B.t. gene in cotton. The increased profits come
because the farmers did not need to purchase insecticides to
control the pests.
An important preliminary study that came out of China found
that farmers that used fewer pesticides also had fewer medical
problems and required fewer trips to doctors' offices--not
often considered in the savings that biotechnology brings.
Perhaps the most striking examples of biotechnology are yet
to come. We have heard of the benefits of beta-carotene
enriched rice. There is great hope and expectation that
consumption of foods that have higher levels of vitamins,
whether in improved canola oil or rice or other crops, will
have the benefits that have been mentioned in various
presentations today.
Researchers have also developed foods that can deliver
certain types of therapeutic substances, such as vaccines, that
can stimulate the body's defense against diseases.
During the past 20 years I have been privileged to
participate in the development of knowledge that contributed to
certain biotechnologies. In the early eighties my lab at
Washington University in St. Louis, in collaboration with
scientists at Monsanto Company, developed methods to produce
virus-resistant crops. Later my labs at the Scripps Institute
made relevant discoveries in gene regulation, disease
resistance, and vaccine development.
From the mid-1980's I made a committed effort to apply
those technologies to improve agriculture for peoples in
developing countries. The reasons I made that decision are
several: First, there was a growing need to improve the
efficiency of food production while decreasing reliance on
agrichemicals worldwide
Second, there was a need to increase the nutrition and
healthiness of people around the world.
Third, there was a great need for more well-trained
scientists in developing countries to use modern methods to
improve food production.
All of us recognize that there are many challenges to the
production, preservation, distribution of adequate foods of
high nutrition. And science can only be part of the solution.
Nevertheless, we determined to use our technology to benefit
agriculture in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
In 1988, with a small grant from the Rockefeller Foundation
and the agreement of the French Government's organization known
as ORSTOM--now known as IRD--one of their scientists, Dr.
Claude Fouquet, joined my group at Washington University.
Fouquet had spent 13 years working in agriculture in Africa
before coming to us. In 1991, Fouquet and I then established a
program called the International Laboratory for Tropical
Agriculture Biotechnology. Between 1991 and today we have
trained more than 130 scientists from 19 countries. More than
80 percent have been repatriated to their home institutions
where they are working hard to develop indigenous science to
apply to local crop production.
The last thing I want to leave you with is my opinion that
the United States has not kept apace with the rapid growth of
science and technology that is needed to ensure its utility and
its acceptance. We have not looked ahead to address the issues
of acceptance of transgenic crops. Many of us in the scientific
community stand ready to participate in whatever manner we can
to provide the expertise and technologies necessary to improve
food production, nutrition, and food safety, in developing
countries. We are anxious to provide training environments, and
to communicate electronically and otherwise, to send the
information where it can be best used. In short, we want to be
relevant to agriculture outside of the United States as well as
to agriculture within the United States.
What is in short supply--and we are very grateful to the
efforts of Senator Ashcroft and Senator Bond in this regard--is
a commitment from our Government to provide the training and
modest infrastructure that allows scientists to create
knowledge, and to develop crops that enable them to feed
themselves. We cannot simply send the wheat from which those
that are hugry can make bread. What we must do is create an
atmosphere for collaboration, as opposed to colonialization, in
science. We must work together to further the production of
sufficient food of high nutritional content to meet the needs
of those that request our help.
Only when food needs are met will people be prepared to
face the health issues. Only then will vaccines be successful
and anti-HIV drugs and other pharmaceutical treatments reach
their full potential. Make no mistake about it, food and
nutrition are absolute keys to health, productivity, and social
stability.
It is not too late for the United States to recognize the
issues and to chart the way to collaboration and to be the
world leader in implementing important and meaningful solutions
to the challenges of a growing world population.
Again, thanks for your attention and your dedication to
make this happen.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Beachy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger N. Beachy, Ph.D.
Senator Hagel, members of the subcommittee, and others in
attendance, thank you for the invitation to appear before the
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export and Trade
Promotion. I am Roger N. Beachy, Ph.D., President of the Donald
Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, Missouri. The Danforth Center
was established in 1998 as an independent, not for profit institution,
formatted on the model of the great independent biomedical research
institutes in the U.S. The goal of the Danforth Center is the discovery
of new knowledge in plant biology and applications of that knowledge to
develop more sustainable agriculture, to improve human nutrition and
human health, and to encourage commercial development of research
discoveries. In many ways the Danforth Center is unique in its mission,
as it has dedicated 10% of its resources and facilities to conduct
research specifically related to the needs of agriculture in developing
countries. This effort includes training scientists in the development
of intellectual and technical capacities that are relevant to their
home countries in the areas of plant science and biotechnology. The
website of the Center, www.danforthcenter.org provides current
information about our charter and mission statement, and the status of
current research faculty and research programs.
I welcome the opportunity to present testimony on the importance of
research on plant sciences, agriculture, food and nutrition. The
particular focus of my remarks relates to the importance of research
for the benefit of the poor in developing countries and as an essential
step in fighting hunger and disease. Few of us deny that there are
tremendous needs around the world for adequate amounts of food.
Adequate food and nutrition are essential to ensure the physical and
intellectual growth and development of children, and leading to healthy
and productive adults. For example, it in known that:
Malnutrition in utero leads to increased diabetes,
hypertension, and heart disease.
Malnutrition in utero can cause effects two generations
subsequent to the mother, with probable impacts on intelligence
and learning.
Low calorie intake leads to kwashiorkor, marasmus, edema and
other conditions.
Vitamin A deficiencies can lead to blindness; Folic acid (a
B vitamin) deficiencies reduce intelligence.
It is estimated that 850 million people currently are
undernourished or malnourished worldwide. Seventy percent of the
world's poor are in rural areas, 60% of which are in marginal
environments where intensive agriculture is not likely to be
established. The challenge is to meet the current needs, and to prepare
for the eventuality that by 2040 the world's population will reach 9
billion. Yet, there is limited land on which to produce food without
further destroying the important forests and wilderness areas that
produce life-giving oxygen, cleanse our air, protect and sustain
biodiversity, and assure that groundwater enters the underground stores
sufficiently purified to be suitable for human consumption.
Agricultural producers in the U.S. have a growing awareness of
their duties as keepers of the environment; many are actively reducing
the use of harmful agrichemicals while maintaining highly efficient
production of safe foods. Plant scientists and agriculturists have
developed better crops and improved production methods that have
enabled farmers to reduce insecticides and chemicals that control
certain diseases. Methods such as integrated pest management, no-till
or low-till agriculture have been tremendously important in this
regard. Some of the success has come through the judicious application
of biotechnology to develop new varieties of crops that resist insects
and that tolerate certain herbicides. For example, biotechnology was
used to develop varieties of cotton and corn that are resistant to
attack by cotton bollworm and corn borer. These varieties have allowed
farmers to reduce the use of chemical insecticides by between 1.5 and 2
mil gallons, while retaining or increasing crop yields. Crops that are
tolerant to certain ``friendly'' herbicides have increased no-till and
low-till agriculture, reducing soil erosion and building valuable
topsoil to ensure the continued productivity of our valuable
agricultural lands.
Although biotechnology has increased productivity for American and
Canadian farmers, the technologies are not widely available or not
adapted for application in parts of the world that could benefit most.
Those peoples who most require more food and better nutrition are
amongst those that are not seeing the rewards of scientific discovery.
In Asia and Africa where rice is the main food, stem borers and other
insects, and virus and fungal diseases continue to suppress crop
yields. Diseases caused by fungi and viruses destroy crops and decrease
yields of crops such as groundnut, chickpeas, papaya, sweet potato,
yams, cucumbers, melons, and a host of other fruits and vegetables.
However, modern methods of crop improvement, coupled with better
farming practices, can make a real and significant difference in crop
production in the tropical, poor regions of the world. Biotechnology
can be used to reduce crop losses due to disease, insect attack, and
post-harvest deterioration and rotting.
This is best demonstrated by several examples. Consider the virus
disease that causes a severe ringspot disease in papaya--the disease
reduces papaya production and kills the trees in Asia, in parts of
Latin America, and in Africa. Consider the virus leaf curl disease on
white potatoes, the virus that causes leaf yellowing in sweet potatoes
throughout each and central Africa. Consider the virus that causes
stunting and yellowing in rice, a disease referred to as tungro,
throughout central Asia. Each of these important diseases can be
controlled through biotechnologies that increase the resistance of
these plants to the viruses.
Consider the production of cotton in India, Pakistan, Egypt and
other countries wherethe boll worm, boll weevil and other insect pests
can reduce yields and farmer profits, to the point where farmers in
some parts of India commit suicide rather than face the effects that
come with financial losses. When smallholder farmers in China and South
Africa grew their native cotton varieties that contain the B.t. gene
for insect resistance that was introduced by biotechnology, farmers
realized between $150 and $200 per hectare increased profits. It is
estimated that more that a million farmers (combined) in these two
countries have benefited from insect resistant varieties of cotton. The
increased profit came because the farmer did not need to purchase or
apply insecticides to control the pests. A related study implies that
farmers that used fewer pesticides also had fewer medical problems and
required fewer trips to doctor's offices. These are real and tangible
benefits of biotechnology.
Perhaps the most striking examples of how biotechnology can improve
human nutrition are found in rice varieties, and varieties of canola
that have been improved by biotechnology to increase the amounts of
beta-carotene. This precursor of Vitamin A is in short supply in diets
in many parts of the world. There is great hope and expectation that
consumption of foods from these crops will alleviate or reduce the
chronic Vitamin A deficiencies in the diets of many of the poor in Asia
and Africa. Other research is underway to use similar types of
biotechnologies to increase the levels of other vitamins, and to
improve the amount of proteins in crops that have low levels of
protein, such as potatoes and cassava. Researchers are also developing
foods that can deliver certain types of therapeutic substances, such as
vaccines, that stimulate the body's defense against certain endemic
diseases.
During the past 20 years I have been privileged to participate in
the development of knowledge that contributed to establishment of
certain agricultural biotechnologies. For example, in the early 1980s
my laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis, in collaboration
with scientists at Monsanto Company, developed a method to produce
plants that resist infection by certain types of virus diseases, using
biotechnology. My labs at Washington University and later at The
Scripps Research Institute (La Jolla, CA) also made relevant
discoveries in the areas of gene regulation, disease resistance, and
vaccine development.
From the mid-1980s, when we made some of the early discoveries in
biotechnology, I have made a committed effort to apply them to improve
agriculture and human health of peoples in developing countries. The
reasons for this decision are obvious: First, there is a growing need
to improve the efficiency of food production worldwide, while
decreasing reliance on agrichemicals. Second, there is a need to
increase the nutrition and healthiness of peoples around the world.
Third, there is a great need for more well trained scientists in
developing countries that can develop and use modern methods to improve
food production and quality in developing countries. All of us here
recognize that there are many challenges to the production,
preservation and distribution of adequate food of high nutrition, and
to ensure food security for all peoples. Science can provide only part
of the solution, but nevertheless, we determined to do what we could to
address the needs of agriculture in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
In 1988, with the aid of a small grant from the Rockefeller
Foundation and the agreement of the French government's public research
organization ORSTOM (now known as IRD) an ORSTOM scientist joined my
group at Washington University and we initiated a research project on
rice tungro virus disease. This project expanded to include developing
efficient methods for transgenic rice, and methods for tissue culture
and transformation in cassava, also known as manioc. In 1991 the
project was relocated with me to The Scripps Research Institute.
Through the increased support of ORSTOM, the Rockefeller Foundation and
a modest amount of support from USAID provided via a project at
Michigan State University we built a strong research group: it was
designated the ``International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural
Biotechnology'' (ILTAB). ILTAB was relocated to the Danforth Center
early in 1999. Between 1991 and today, ILTAB has trained more that 130
scientists from 19 countries, including from Africa, Asia, and Latin
America; more than 70% have returned to their home institutions and
maintain contact with the Center. Trainees have participated in
research programs that are directly related to the research needs of
their home institutions.
Research at ILTAB has produced a number of successes, including:
DNA diagnostic tools to detect plant geminiviruses.
Worldwide database for geminiviruses and potyviruses.
Convenient techniques for developing transgenic rice plants.
Transgenic varieties of rice that are tolerant to rice
tungro disease.
Transgenic varieties of rice that are resistant to bacterial
blight.
First transgenic cassava plants.
Transgenic varieties of cassava that exhibit resistant to
African cassava mosaic virus and east African cassava mosaic
virus.
Collaborations with scientists from around the world on
research projects on crops such as sweet potato, yams, banana,
tomato, sugar cane.
These projects have been successful because of support, largely
from the French government and the Rockefeller Foundation, and because
of excellent colleagues in other countries. For example, greenhouse and
field studies being conducted in China and other countries in Asia are
made possible because regulatory approval for tests has been given by
local governmental agencies, most of which have adapted U.S. guidelines
and superimposed local scientific oversight. In other countries
regulations are not yet in place and testing cannot be conducted. Many
countries in Asia and Africa simply do not have the scientific
infrastructure in place to judge the safety issues that have come to be
associated with the use of biotechnology in food production. We, the
U.S., have not kept apace with the rapid growth of science and
technology. We have not looked ahead to address the issues of
acceptance of transgenic crops and foods derived therefrom, or to the
acceptance of biotechnology in general. We, the scientific community,
stand ready to participate in whatever manner we can to provide the
scientific expertise and technologies that are relevant to improve food
production, nutrition, and food safety to those from developing, poor
countries. We are anxious to provide training environments, to conduct
research on tropical crops, to participate in electronic communications
that can build bridges and transfer much needed information. In short,
we want to be relevant to agriculture outside of the U.S. as well as
within the U.S. What is in short supply, however, are the funds that
can make this happen. We need the commitment from our government to
provide the training, and modest infrastructure, that allows scientists
to create knowledge to feed themselves bread, rather than sending only
wheat from which to make bread. What we must do is create the
atmosphere of collaboration in science, as opposed to colonialization
in science, and work together to further the production of sufficient
food of high nutritional content to meet the needs of those that
request our help. Only when such needs are met will they be prepared to
face their health needs. Only then will vaccines be successful, and
anti-HIV drugs and other pharmaceutical treatments reach their full
potential. Make no mistake about it; food and nutrition are absolute
keys to health, productivity, and social stability. It is not too late
for the U.S. to recognize the issues, to chart the way to
collaboration, and to be the world leader to implement meaningful
solutions.
Thank you for your attention and your dedication.
Senator Hagel. Dr. Beachy, thank you.
Mr. Halweil--is it ``HAL-well'' or ``HALL-weil''?
STATEMENT OF BRIAN HALWEIL, STAFF RESEARCHER, WORLDWATCH
INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Halweil. ``HALL-wile.''
Senator Hagel. Well, please proceed, Mr. Halweil.
Mr. Halweil. Thank you, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Chairman. Good
afternoon and good afternoon, Senator Lugar and other members
of the subcommittee. Thank you very much for this opportunity
to testify on the role of biotechnology in combating poverty
and hunger in developing nations, a subject that I consider
central to the broader debate on the use of agricultural
biotechnology.
In searching for a biotech fix for hunger, we are pursuing
an agricultural will-'o-the-wisp, a seemingly attractive-
sounding goal that is simply not well connected to the products
which the biotech industry has brought to market. Instead of
looking to as yet unproven and nonexistent biotech
breakthroughs, we should be looking at the extremely full body
of research that shows quite clearly those policies and
agricultural interventions that will help to reduce poverty and
eliminate hunger.
There are four points that I wish to make in my
presentation. First, the dominant causes of hunger around the
world are not technological in nature. They are rooted in basic
socioeconomic realities. Development economists have
persuasively argued that poverty, rather than food shortages,
is frequently the underlying cause of hunger, and that point
has already been made here today.
In a report released on World Food Day last year, the
United Nations showed that nearly 80 percent of all
malnourished children in the developing world live in countries
with food surpluses. In other words, people often go hungry
even where food is readily available. Poverty limits people's
access to food or to the land, credit, and other resources
needed to produce it. Poverty also means poor access to health
care, education, and a clean living environment, which
increases the likelihood of hunger. Medical conditions like
diarrhea, for example, which is usually the result of an
unclean water supply, prevent a child from absorbing available
nutrients.
Poverty often strikes hardest among women, the nutritional
gatekeepers in many families and the primary food producers in
the Third World. Yet, because women have little or no access to
land ownership, credit, agricultural training, and social
privileges in general, their ability to provide adequate
nutrition for their families is handicapped. A 1999 study of
malnutrition in 63 developing countries by the International
Food Policy Research Institute, the World Bank's agricultural
policy arm, found that improvements in social factors--health
environment, women's education, and women's status--accounted
for nearly three-quarters of the reduction in malnutrition in
these countries since 1970.
This is not to say that technology, including
biotechnology, plays no role in the alleviation of
malnutrition. But there are clearly more immediate forces
keeping people poor and keeping people hungry.
My second point: The global biotechnology industry has
funneled the vast majority of its investment into a limited
range of products, for which there are large, secured markets
within the capital-intensive farms of the first world, products
which are of little relevance to the needs of the world's
hungry. Despite tremendous growth, 99 percent of the global
area planted to genetically engineered crops is still found in
just three nations: the United States, Argentina, and Canada.
And 72 percent is in the United States alone.
The transgenic crops that currently dominate the global
acreage are those that have been engineered to resist spraying
of herbicides, those that have been engineered to turn out the
B.t. insecticide, or crops that have been engineered to do
both. In 1999, herbicide-resistant crops were planted on 71
percent of the global transgenic area, B.t. crops were sown on
22 percent, while crops with both these traits were planted on
the remaining 7 percent.
These crops offer large-scale industrial farmers reduced
production costs or increased ease of crop management, which
explains the exceptionally rapid adoption of transgenics in a
few nations. But there is a basic disconnect between these
sorts of research priorities and the alleged beneficiaries of
genetically engineered crops, the world's hungry. Compare, for
example, the $4 million that has been spent on developing a
beta-carotene-enhanced rice for use in vitamin A-deficient
populations with the $500 million spent on developing Roundup
Ready soybeans, the dominant variety of herbicide-resistant
crops.
In addition, a joint report released yesterday, which has
been referenced here today, by the National Academy of Sciences
and seven other academies around the world concluded that
transgenic plants are not being used in many parts of the
developing world where the needs are greatest.
There are other concerns associated with the technological
landscape that is controlled almost exclusively by the private
sector and defined by patent protection. Patents and similar
legal mechanisms are giving a declining number of large firms
substantial control over crop genetics, with worrisome
implications for seed saving, farm incomes, and food security.
And although Monsanto and AstraZeneca recently announced that
they would not commercialize the so-called Terminator
technology or other seed sterilization technologies, the
biotech industry collectively owns at least three dozen patents
that control either seed germination or other essential life
functions.
Without addressing inequitable land distribution,
differential access to credit, and any other socioeconomic
realities in the developing world, the consequences of
introducing even the most promising biotechnology are likely to
be less than desirable, and this is the lesson that we have
learned from the Green Revolution.
Third, if we are interested in eradicating hunger and
poverty in the developing world, there are approaches other
than investment in biotechnology that are better understood,
less risky, and which may ultimately prove more cost effective.
As mentioned earlier, land reform, improved access to
reproductive health services, and improved educational
opportunities for women are among those policies that have had
a sizable impact on reducing poverty and hunger in the past and
are likely to do so in the future. These same policies, I might
add, are also the most effective ways to reduce birth rates and
slow population growth, a problem that has been addressed many
times here today.
Investments in agriculture are clearly key to boosting
incomes and ultimately reducing malnutrition, and this is
particularly true in the poorest regions of the world--sub-
Saharan Africa and South Asia, where the majority of the people
still make their living from agriculture and where the
economies are still heavily dependent on agriculture. But many
agricultural researchers in the developing world, including
Pedro Sanchez, the director general of the International Center
for Research in Agro-Forestry, one of the World Bank's CGIAR
centers, in Nairobi, argues that the most investments are not
in improved seeds, but rather improved natural resource
management, including soil and water conservation, crop
rotations, and nitrogen-fixing crops.
Pedro notes that until these resource management issues are
addressed, farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America cannot
take full advantage of any potential offered by improved seeds,
whether they were improved through genetic engineering or
traditional crop breeding.
In my testimony I have assembled a short list of
agricultural interventions in the developing world that focus
on improved resource management and that have all resulted in
yield increases of 100 to 300 percent. These sorts of yield
increases are considerably higher than any present results with
biotech seeds and these interventions, in contrast to biotech
interventions, depend on resources and know-how that is already
available to resource-poor farmers. I offer these examples to
demonstrate that there are alternatives to biotechnology for
combating poverty and hunger.
My final point: As an ecologist by training, I would like
to make a brief statement about the ecological risks of
genetically engineered crops. Once genetically engineered crops
are planted in close proximity to sexually compatible wild
relatives, the spread of genes from one plant to the other
through cross-pollination is inevitable. This sort of gene
spread has already been reported for transgenic canola in
Europe and Canada. Must of the research needed to assess the
potential impacts of such cross-pollination has simply not been
done, so it is not entirely clear what will happen when a wild
plant acquires the ability to produce the B.t. toxin or to do
any number of things that transgenic crops are being designed
to do.
But whatever the short- or long-term impacts, one thing is
clear: Because developing nations are home to the majority of
the world's plant and crop biodiversity and because crops in
the developing world often exist in close proximity to wild
relatives, the risk of cross-pollination is greatest there.
Mr. Chairman, taking a global perspective in my research, I
have come across several publications on the subject of
biotechnology and hunger from colleagues working in the
developing world and I respectfully request that, in addition
to my own testimony, two of these documents be submitted as
part of the hearing record to complement my own brief
statements.
Senator Hagel. They will be included.
Mr. Halweil. I would also like to bring to the attention of
the committee members a forum sponsored by Representative Tony
Hall on June 29 of this year entitled ``Can Biotechnology Help
Fight World Hunger,'' and I have a program from that forum if
you would also like that included in the hearing records.
Senator Hagel. That will be included as well.
Mr. Halweil. Thank you very much for this opportunity to
testify. I would be happy to entertain any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Halweil with attachments
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Halweil
the role of biotechnology in combating poverty and hunger in developing
nations
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and other members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Brian Halweil, and I am a staff researcher at the
Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch is an independent, nonprofit
environmental research organization based here in Washington, DC. Our
mission is to foster a sustainable society in which human needs are met
in ways that do not threaten the health of the natural environment or
future generations. To this end, Worldwatch conducts interdisciplinary
research on emerging global issues, the results of which are published
and disseminated to decision-makers and the media.
At the Institute, I work primarily on issues related to food and
agriculture, including the topics of malnutrition and biotechnology.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the role of biotechnology
in combating poverty and hunger in developing nations--a subject that I
consider central to the broader debate on the use of agricultural
biotechnology.
In searching for a biotech fix for hunger, we are pursuing an
agricultural will-o'-the-wisp, a seemingly attractive sounding goal
that is simply not well connected to the products which the biotech
industry has brought to market. Instead of looking to as yet unproven
and nonexistent biotech breakthroughs, we should be looking at the
extremely full body of research that shows quite clearly those policies
and agricultural interventions that will help to reduce poverty and
eliminate hunger.
There are four basic points that I wish to make in my presentation.
First, the dominant causes of poverty and hunger around the world are
not technological in nature, but rooted in basic socioeconomic
realities. This is not to say that technology--including
biotechnology--plays no role in the alleviation of malnutrition, but
there is no technology that can override the immediate forces keeping
people poor and hungry.
Second, the global biotechnology industry has funneled the vast
majority of its investment into a limited range of products for which
there are large, secured markets within the capital-intensive
production systems of the First World--products which are of little
relevance to the needs of the world's hungry.
Third, if we are interested in eradicating hunger and poverty in
the developing world, there are approaches other than investment in
biotechnology that are better understood, less risky, and which may
ultimately prove more effective.
Fourth, because developing nations are home to the majority of the
world's plant biodiversity, and because crops in the developing world
often exist in close proximity to wild relatives, the risk of cross-
pollination between genetically engineered crops and wild relatives is
greatest there.
Development economists, including Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen, have
persuasively argued that poverty--rather than food shortages--is
frequently the underlying cause of hunger. In a report released on
World Food Day last year, the United Nations showed that nearly 80
percent of all malnourished children in the developing world in the
early 1990s lived in countries that boasted food surpluses. In other
words, people often go hungry even where food is readily available.
The more important feature common to these hungry countries is
pervasive poverty, which limits people's access to food in the market
or to land, credit, and other resources needed to produce food. Poverty
also means poor access to non-food services, including health care,
education, and a clean living environment, which increases the
likelihood of hunger. Medical conditions like diarrhea, for instance,
which is usually the result of an unclean water supply, prevent a child
from absorbing available nutrients.
Poverty often strikes hardest among women, the nutritional
gatekeepers in many families. The United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization estimates that more than half of the world's food is
raised by women, and in rural areas of Africa, Latin America, and Asia,
the figure soars to 80 percent. Yet, because women have little or no
access to land ownership, credit, agricultural training, education, and
social privileges in general, their ability to provide adequate
nutrition for their families is handicapped.
Eradicating hunger requires elimination of its root causes,
including gender discrimination and desperate poverty which prevents
access to food or the resources to produce it. A 1999 study of
malnutrition in 63 countries by the International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI), the World Bank's agricultural policy arm, found that
improvements in social factors--health environment, women's education,
and women's status--accounted for nearly three quarters of the
reduction in malnutrition in these countries since 1970. (This study
noted that increased food availability was an important fourth factor,
responsible for roughly one quarter of the reduction in malnutrition in
these countries.)
This having been said, consider where the majority of investment in
agricultural biotechnology is going. The global area planted to
genetically engineered crops has grown 23-fold since 1996, the first
year of large-scale commercialization. Global area now stands at 39.9
million hectares compared to 1.7 million hectares in 1996. Despite this
tremendous growth, 99 percent of the current area is found in just
three nations--the United States, Argentina, and Canada; 72 percent is
in the United States alone.
Dozens of crops--from apples to lettuce to wheat--have been
genetically modified and are near commercialization, though only
transgenic varieties of soybean, corn, cotton, canola, squash, and
papaya are currently grown commercially. Of these seven crops, soybeans
and corn account for 54 percent and 28 percent of the global transgenic
area, respectively, while cotton and canola share most of the remainder
with nearly 9 percent each.
The transgenic crops currently being grown around the world have
been engineered either to resist spraying of herbicides (herbicide-
resistant crops), to churn out the insecticide produced by the soil
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (Bt-crops), or to do both. In
1999, herbicide-resistant varieties of soy, corn, cotton, and canola
were planted on 71 percent of the global transgenic area, while Bt-corn
and Bt-cotton were sown on 22 percent. Corn and cotton varieties that
both produce Bt and resist herbicides were planted on the remaining 7
percent. These traits offer large-scale industrial farmers reduced
production costs or increased ease of crop management by lowering the
need to scout for pests, cutting labor costs, allowing a shift to
cheaper chemicals, and generally simplifying pest control--which
explains the exceptionally rapid adoption of transgenics in a few
nations.
For the foreseeable future, these are the sorts of crops and traits
that will dominate the global area planted to genetically engineered
crops. There is very little connection between these applications and
the needs of the world's hungry--modified soy and corn are mainly used
in livestock production and processed foods; modified canola is pressed
into oil and used in processed foods; and cotton is used for its fiber
and oil. Herbicide-resistant crops, for example, are not helpful to
poor farmers who rely on manual labor to pull weeds because they
couldn't possibly afford herbicides. As a result, the immediate markets
for biotech in the developing world are not the subsistence farmers,
but the larger operations, which are often producing for export rather
than for local consumption. The adoption of genetically engineered
soybeans by Argentina's industrial export producers illustrates this
point well.
There is a basic disconnect between these research priorities and
the alleged beneficiaries of genetically engineered crops--the world's
hungry. Compare, for example, the $4 million that has been spent on
developing a Beta-carotene enhanced rice for use in Vitamin A deficient
populations with the $500 million spent on developing Roundup-Ready
soybeans, the dominant herbicide-resistant variety. This $500 million
spent on developing Roundup-Ready soybeans also compares with the $400
million annual budget of the Consultative Group for International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a consortium of international research
centers that form the world's largest public-sector breeding effort. In
addition, a joint report released yesterday by the National Academy of
Sciences and seven other academies around the world concluded that
transgenic plants are not being used in many parts of the developing
world where the needs are greatest.
There are other concerns associated with a technological landscape
that is controlled almost exclusively by the private sector and defined
by patent protection. Patents and similar legal mechanisms are giving a
declining number of large private firms substantial control over crop
genetics and farmers, with worrisome implications for seed saving, farm
incomes, and food security. Although Monsanto and AstraZeneca recently
announced that they would not commercialize the so-called
``Terminator'' technology or other seed sterilization technologies, the
biotech industry collectively owns at least three dozen patents that
control either seed germination or other essential plant processes.
This privatization of germplasm is already putting public sector
agricultural research at a disadvantage, and might ultimately prove
life-threatening to the majority of small farmers in Africa, Latin
America, and Asia who depend on saved seed from year to year.
In addition to this financial obstacle, there is a biological
obstacle that may limit the potential of biotech to combat poverty and
hunger. The crop traits that would be most useful to subsistence
farmers tend to be very complex. The kinds of products that would make
sense in a subsistence context include crop varieties responsive to low
levels of soil fertility, crops tolerant of saline or drought
conditions and other stresses of marginal lands, improved varieties
that are not dependent on agrochemical inputs for increased yields,
varieties that are compatible with small, diverse, capital-poor farm
settings. In herbicide-resistant crops and Bt crops, the engineering
involves the insertion of a single gene. Most of the more complex
traits mentioned above are probably governed by many genes, and for the
present at least, that kind of complexity is beyond the technology's
reach.
The experience of the Green Revolution has shown that if the
introduction of agricultural technology is not sensitive to social and
economic inequalities, then it can actually exacerbate existing
inequalities, poverty and hunger, as the better off farmers grab the
majority of the technology's benefits. Today, the majority of the
world's hungry are those farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America who
were bypassed, or even marginalized, by the Green Revolution package of
seeds that were highly dependent on fertilizer and irrigation inputs.
Without addressing inequitable land distribution or differential access
to credit, for example, the consequences of introducing even the most
promising biotechnology are likely to be less than desirable.
I would like to point to some interventions other than
biotechnology that may prove more effective at reducing poverty and
hunger in the developing world. As mentioned earlier, land reform,
improved access to reproductive health services, and improved
educational opportunities for women are among those policies that have
had a sizable impact on reducing poverty and malnutrition in the past
and are likely to do so in the future. (These same policies are also
the most effective ways to reduce birth rates and slow population
growth.)
Investments in agriculture are key to boosting incomes and
ultimately reducing malnutrition. This is particularly true in the
poorest regions of the world, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where
the majority of people make their living from agriculture and where the
gross national products are still heavily dependent on agriculture.
Pedro Sanchez, the Director-General of the International Centre for
Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), one of the CGIAR centers based in
Nairobi, argues that ``Third World farmers don't need improved seeds,
but rather improved natural resource management, including soil and
water conversation, crop rotations, and nitrogen-fixing crops.''
Sanchez notes that until these resource management issues are
addressed, farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America will not be able
to take full advantage of any potential offered by improved seeds,
whether genetically engineered or traditionally bred.
Below, I have assembled a short list of agricultural interventions
in the developing world that focus on improved resource management and
that have all resulted in large yield increases. These interventions
are often characterized as ecological or agroecological, because they
depend on building or harnessing the ecological processes--including
crop diversity, nutrient cycling, plant and pest interactions,
competition, and symbiosis--occurring in the field rather than on
external chemical inputs.
A recent survey of agro ecological interventions in Latin
America revealed that yield increases of 100 to 300 percent are
not uncommon for a range of staple crops, including beans,
corn, rice, potato, and cassava.
A separate set of projects in Latin America that emphasized
locally adapted green manures and cover cropping have increased
maize yields from 1-1.5 tons/hectare to 3-4 tons/hectare.
More than 300,000 farmers in southern and western India
farming in dryland conditions, and now using a range of water
and soil management technologies, have tripled sorghum and
millet yields to some 2-2.5 tons/hectare.
Some 200,000 farmers across Kenya who as part of various
government and non-government soil and water conservation and
agroecology programs have more than doubled their maize yields
to about 2.5 to 3.3 tons/hectare. (Simultaneously, these Kenyan
farmers have substantially improved vegetable production
through the dry seasons, improving income generation and
household nutrition.)
These sorts of yield increases are considerably higher than any
present results with biotech seeds. And these interventions, in
contrast to biotech interventions, depend on resources and know-how
that is already available to resource-poor farmers, working in
ecologically sensitive areas. I offer these examples to demonstrate
that there are alternatives to biotechnology for combating poverty and
hunger in developing nations.
Finally, as a representative of an environmental research group and
as an ecologist by training, I would like to make a brief point about
the potential ecological risks of genetically engineered crops and how
that might affect poor and hungry populations in developing nations.
Once genetically engineered crops are planted in close proximity to
sexually compatible wild relatives, the spread of genes from one plant
to the other through cross-pollination is inevitable. This sort of gene
spread has already been reported for transgenic canola in Europe and
Canada. Much of the research needed to assess the potential impacts of
such cross-pollination has simply not been done, so it is not entirely
clear what the likely impact on an ecosystem will be when a wild plant
acquires the ability to churn out the Bt toxin or to resist an
herbicide or to do any number of things that transgenic crops are being
designed to do. Whatever the short- or long-term impacts, one thing is
clear: because developing nations are home to the majority of the
world's plant biodiversity, and because crops in the developing world
often exist in close proximity to wild relatives, the risk of cross-
pollination is greatest there. In other words, developing nations are
likely to bear the brunt of any ecological impact because of the
greater likelihood of gene spread.
Mr. Chairman, in taking a global perspective in my research, I have
come across publications on the subject of biotechnology and hunger
from colleagues working in the developing world. I respectfully request
that two of these documents be submitted as part of the hearing record
to complement my own brief statements. In addition, I would also like
to bring to the attention of the committee members a forum sponsored by
Representative Tony Hall on June 29th of this year entitled, ``Can
Biotechnology Help Fight World Hunger?'' I respectfully request that
the program for this event be submitted as part of the hearing record.
I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you again for this
opportunity to testify.
[Attachments.]
Can Biotechnology Help Fight World Hunger?
June 29, 2000
Date
Thursday, June 29, 2000
Time
9 a.m.-12 noon
Place
The Gold Room, 2168 Rayburn House Office Building, Capitol Hill
Program Introduction
9:00-9:30 Rev. David Beckmann, Moderator
Opening Remarks
(Each Member of Congress will speak for 5 minutes.)
Rep. Tony P. Hall
Sen. Richard G. Lugar
Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich
Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
9:30-10:20 Presenters
(Each presenter will speak for 10 minutes.)
Dr. Martina McGloughlin
Dr. Vandana Shiva
Dr. C.S. Prakash
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
10:20-10:30 Questions & Answers Session I
10:30-11:40 Challengers
(Challengers will speak for up to 3-4 minutes.)
Ms. Therese St. Peter
Dr. Michael Hansen
Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen
Mr. Arthur Getz
Dr. Peggy Lemaux
Mr. Michael Pollan
11:40-11:50 Questions & Answers Session II
11:50-12:00 Concluding Remarks
Rev. David Beckmann
Participants (listed in alphabetical order):
Rev. David Beckmann-President, Bread for the World
Mr. Arthur Getz--Specialist, World Resources Institute
Dr. Michael Hansen--Research Associate, Consumers Union's Consumer
Policy Institute
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho--Science Advisor, Third World Network
Dr. Peggy Lemaux--Professor, University of California at Berkeley
Dr. Martina McGloughlin--Professor, University of California at Davis
Dr. Per Pinstrup-Andersen--Director General, International Food Policy
Research Institute
Mr. Michael Pollan--Contributing Writer, The New York Times Magazine
Dr. C.S. Prakash--Professor, Tuskegee University
Dr. Vandana Shiva--Director, Research Foundation for Science,
Technology & Ecology
Ms. Therese St. Peter--Specialist, Zeneca Ag Products, Inc.
______
Potentials and Threats of the Genetic Engineering Technology: Quest for
an African Strategy at the Dawn of a New Millennium
Hans R. Herren
Director General, The International Centre of Insect Physiology and
Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
background
Do we need genetically engineered crops to feed the world? This
question is at the centre of several major controversies, ranging from
intellectual property rights to biodiversity conservation via social
and economic considerations. The major question really lies in what
choices are science, industry and governments proposing to the farmers
and the consumers? In Africa's special case, what solutions to food
security makes sense in this particular socio-economic and
environmental setting? The scepter of a new fiasco lies very near, as
the farmers are likely to be simply weaned from pesticides to be force
fed biotech seeds, in other words, taken off one treadmill and set on a
new one!
According to a Monsanto-initiated publicity campaign, which seeks
endorsement from African heads of state, the solutions to the elusive
developing world food security problem are to be found in genetically
engineered food crops. It claims the following: ``Biotechnology is one
of tomorrow's tools in our hands today. Slowing its acceptance is a
luxury our hungry world cannot afford.''
What is really meant is that these biotechnology \1\ products--in
this case seeds from genetically modified crops--will cater for the
needs of an increased global population. The public sector has also
joined the bandwagon, which reinforces my personal concern about the
dangers of such a limited approach to food security issues. The trend
towards a quasi-monopolization of funding in agricultural development
into a narrow set of technologies is dangerous and irresponsible. Also,
too many hopes and expectations are being entrusted in these
technologies, to the detriment of more conventional and proven
technologies and approaches that have been very successful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Biotechnology'' relates to the use of tissue culture for the
rapid multiplication of improved varieties, through cell culture or the
like. It also includes the use of naturally occurring microorganisms
such as Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), viruses, endophytes and others
which may have been selected for their activity against certain plant
pests and diseases, but which have not been genetically modified.
Biotechnology may also include vaccines against parasites or vectors of
animal and human diseases, diagnostic tests and gene marking tools for
classical breeding. ``Genetic engineering'' refers to the creation of
new plant types or transgenic varieties (tgvs) through genetic
manipulation of the organism's gene pool by introducing non-species-
specific genes, often from other taxa/phyla.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is only too obvious to concerned scientists, farmers and
citizens alike that we are about to repeat, step by step, the mistakes
of the insecticide era, even before it is behind us. I would even argue
that these new miracle technologies are mostly not necessary, let alone
desirable, to solve the world's food security problem. I am not denying
that in some instances they may be of use in increasing the qualities
of food crop varieties, but this aspect has relevance only once
abundance has been achieved. Africa needs a homegrown food security
research, capacity and institution building and implementation strategy
that is tuned to its economic and social constraints and is in harmony
with its diverse environment.
the problems and possible solutions
Despite the enormous investments to date, the progress in
developing new crop varieties and livestock breeds and clones, although
quite dramatic in scientific terms, has so far lagged behind
expectations and promises, particularly in the genetic engineering
sector. Transgenic crop varieties (tgvs) are already being used on
rather wide areas in the developed countries and are here to stay and
will certainly also be deployed by some farmers in Africa. We need,
therefore, to deal with at least two major issues which have been
neglected by the promoters of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
and unfortunately also by most donors: (i) the potentially negative
impact of widespread use of these GMOs on health, the environment, food
security and the economy, and (ii) the modalities of their utilization.
This is what I would call, ``the other side of the coin.''
When considering the many different products arising from
biotechnology and genetic engineering, of particular concern are the
newly developed transgenic varieties of common crops. We have here a
typical example of a technology (genetic engineering) that is ``looking
for an application,'' in other words, a stockholder/technology-driven
rather than a problem-driven approach. The fact that there are many
more efficient and sustainable, yet under-exploited, approaches readily
available or easily researchable seems not to amount to much in the
eyes of policymakers and many donor agencies.
A good example could be the cassava mealybug, if the problem were
to occur today. The solution of today's genetic engineers would be to
insert some mealybug resistance genes into the cassava plant. I doubt
that I would be able to sell the biological control approach today as I
did 20 years ago. Note that through biocontrol, the mealybug problem
has been eliminated once and for all. This environmentally ``soft''
biotech solution was applied over a period of 15 years, which included
research and implementation across all of Africa. The latest reported
cost-to-benefit ratio is 1:200. Hard to beat, even with the best tgvs!
But why this shift in interest away from natural, sustainable
solutions which re-emerged some 15 years ago, but which are now on the
way out? My explanation is that most of these solutions are not
considered marketable, by virtue of the very definition of the term
``sustainable.'' The agro-industry obviously has in mind its
shareholders, who are more interested in the short-term profitability
than in the long-term sustainability of any given production system,
even for their own food. Thus, if industry can sell a package that has
to be bought over and over again, perhaps at an increasing number and
cost per application, the better. This trend can be illustrated by the
packaging of herbicide-resistant seeds and complementary herbicide. The
latest development in this profit-to-use treadmill direction is the
``terminator'' gene, which will ensure that a given transgenic crop
variety will not germinate in the second season, forcing the farmer to
buy new seeds every season. On the one hand this may assure better
quality seeds, but on the other, what does it do for the sustainability
of the African farming system, for the evolution of land races, and for
the economics of the small farm and the ever poorer rural and urban
populations.
Most of the genetic material now being exploited by the agro-
industry came from those very land races that this same industry is now
likely to bring to extinction with its plans to widely disseminate
tgvs. It may be true that there are seed specimens of land races in
freezers, which may serve as a potential gene source for some years to
come, but can we tolerate mortgaging the food security of future
generations without raising the red flag? The turf battles between the
seed/agro-chemical giants and the intellectual property rights
proponents are making it clear that sharing nature's wealth for the
benefit of the poor is not around the corner. When it comes to
utilization, conservation and equitable sharing of genetic resources,
Dr. M.S. Swaminathan stresses that, ``What's important is not to clog
the channel of cooperation, but to keep alive the very principle of
evolution of agriculture of the past 10,000 years.''
The narrow genetic base of the tgvs is another factor that speaks
against them. Given the wide variety of agro-ecologies found in the
tropics, Africa in particular, there is therefore a need for a broad
range of ecologically suited varieties. Sufficient evidence already
exists of past crop failures due to genetic uniformity to be worried:
five in the last 25 years. It seems that here, also, there is a problem
in learning from past experience.
The use of new, high yielding and possibly pest- and disease-
resistant tgvs will bring with it the need to invest in extra inputs,
as shown during the Green Revolution in Asia. With or without the tgvs,
there will be a need for extra inputs, but the seed costs alone for
high-yielding varieties--and more so for the transformed ones--is
likely to be above the means of most African farmers. As it is, most
Third World farmers can scarcely afford the regular hybrid or improved
open-pollinated seeds.
It is well documented that yield can be increased two- or three-
fold in most of sub-Saharan Africa and other tropical areas through
increased use of fertilizers (both organic and inorganic), weed
control, IPM and utilization of already developed and available
varieties, in other words, many of the ``soft,'' or ``old,''
biotechnologies. The black bean example in Mexico is proof that
sustainable agriculture can also be productive.
You may say that we need to prime the pump, and get the farmers out
of the vicious circle. Yes, that could have been done 25 years ago, if
it were feasible. The problem is the lack of policies and will, at
government level, to put agriculture at the top of the agenda. Tgvs
will not change that. The tgv concept is based on the profit motive of
seed and agrochemical companies, not on the welfare of farmers and
consumers and the need to develop a sustainable and self-reliant
production strategy. Tgvs will not feed the hungry, they will make them
poorer, if the Green Revolution is an indicator of what we can expect.
What Africa needs now is not tgvs, it is a progressive policy
environment, in which farmers are given the necessary credit
facilities, a tool box with manageable solutions to their agronomic
problems and access to markets. They must be given the chance to
purchase, through micro-credit schemes, the right inputs at reasonable
prices, and on time! Without micro-credit, no technology, either
traditional or biotech-based, can be introduced.
There is, however, little indication that governments in the South
are revising their budget allocations and giving agriculture in concert
with health the importance they merit. Agriculture and health need to
go hand in hand if there is to be any hope of achieving the growth in
productivity necessary to keep pace with population increase.
The solution lies not with tgvs, but in a different approach, an
approach which developing countries and their farmers alike can afford.
Such an approach would give priority to training farmers in the basics
of plant growth; nutrient uptake and application; organic fertilizer
production and application; pre- and post-harvest pest management; farm
management; and farmers' cooperative development, among others. It is
essential that a holistic approach to training in the farmers' field
schools (FFS) be implemented. Farmers' training and credit facilities
may indeed be the fastest way forward towards the goal of food
security. If an example is needed, the programme pioneered by Sasakawa-
Global 2000 may well fit, even though it is not yet perfect (it lacks
an integrated production approach).
The funds now being invested by the public sector in developing and
deploying new tgvs would go a long way towards educating farmers in the
application of presently available and under-utilised technologies, and
could fund research and development of truly sustainable and affordable
solutions to crop production. Some promising solutions to achieving
food security without incurring heavy financial burdens and the
uncertain negative ecological impact of tgvs have been identified by
the Conference of the Parties of the CBD. They lie in increasing our
knowledge of the dynamics of soil microorganisms, their roles in
fertility conservation and restoration, and of the impact of
pollinators on the yield of food and horticultural crops.
Africa in particular needs investment and technical know-how in the
production of natural, or soft-biotech, integrated pest management
(IPM) products such as pathogens, predators and parasitoids,
semiochemicals and botanicals. Many of these technologies are currently
available in China, India and Brazil, and should be transferred under
South-South cooperation schemes.
There is also a mounting body of research and evidence that shows
all is not well with the use of tgvs (see a few emerging issues in
Annex 1) when it comes to side effects and threats to biodiversity. I
have been lobbying over the last several years for increased research
support for environmental impact studies in Africa, but have found only
deaf ears! I am wondering what the donors expect from the small sums of
money (a few tens of millions of dollars) they now spend on research on
tgvs, compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by
industry! I am trying to promote the idea that public money, i.e.
taxpayers' money, should be spent on assessing the impact of tgvs on
the environment, on the wild relatives of genetically engineered crops,
on the general ecosystem functioning, as well as their effects on human
health. At present, these aspects are looked at only marginally or to
fulfil the regulatory process, but do not address the long-term
implications of tgv use, as ought to be the case. Such research would
also help the biotech industry, by providing solutions for a more
efficient deployment of tgvs, thus increasing the ``life span'' of such
products! For instance, it has already been shown that insects will
develop resistance to tgvs within a few generations, therefore negating
years of research. Also, the industry is misleading the farmers by
promoting insect resistance. It is noteworthy to explain, that the
resistance so far available covers only lepidoptera and coleoptera
pests, but not most sap sucking insects or mites, which are also major
pests. In short, although the farmer may have a Bt maize, she/he may
still have to spray against other pests. A famous plant breeder, Dr.
N.W. Simmonds, has called the genetic engineering of food crops ``a pie
in the sky'' or ``most spectacular con trick in crop improvement,'' and
is very critical of what he calls the collapse of decent science in the
face of biotechnology.
On the critical biosafety issue, who will develop the necessary
regulations, not so much from the developed nations' point of view, but
from the developing countries' vantage point? There may well be
differences between the two, given their different ecological, social
and economic environments. In many developing countries, steps are
being undertaken to formulate such regulations based on those already
available from developed countries. The costs for these activities in
terms of scarce human and financial resources is a matter for concern.
There are many other more important tasks at hand for African
scientists and other professionals than these ``imposed'' tasks, which
will primarily allow the agro-industry to get the legislation in place
to test and sell their goods--goods which are of doubtful priority,
unfinished as yet, and most certainly not affordable by the average
farmer. The more science is driven by intellectual property rights, the
more the issues being tackled will be the ones were profit can be made.
Dr. Ismail Serageldin mentions as example the pharmaceutical industry,
largely driven by private sector investments with proprietary science.
Despite the fact that malaria is the worlds most important disease,
there is hardly any investment in malaria control options (with
exception for the U.S. military). So we can well imagine the private
sector using the genetic material from the South, for yield improvement
mostly in the developed countries. The developing ones will hardly be
able to afford to pay for the technology, and furthermore, this
technology may not be ecologically adapted to their needs in the first
instance. In a continent with 40 to 45% of its population living in
absolute poverty, and in need for a job, industrialised agriculture is
not the solution. There are numerous example of very successful organic
agriculture in the North. This type of agriculture requires more labor,
and yields higher profits. Would that not be the better path to follow?
With the tightening of the rules on biotech activities in Europe,
Africa is now being targeted by many biotech companies for the testing
of tgvs under the pretense that Africa needs these solutions
immediately (the EC has plans to spend 206 million Ecus on 152 projects
related to biotechnology). The truth is that Africa can double, or
treble its production without any tgvs, but that Africa represents an
ideal, yet almost regulation free test ground.
Africa is the home (centre of origin) of several major food crops.
The wild relatives of these crops are now in danger of becoming bio-
contaminated with stray genes from their genetically modified
cultivated relatives. This scenario is real, and represent, next to the
loss or bio-contamination of land races, the most serious issue facing
the deployment of gtvs. In order to asses the potential threat, there
is a need to urgently undertake research one gene flow, of sorghum,
cowpeas, coffee, cucurbits etc. Unless such detailed studies are done
and the results made available, no field testing nor deployment of tgv
should be allowed. This research could yield on the one hand the data
to make informed decisions on the way to proceed, and on the other
provide the training ground for specialists to control tgv experiments.
The testing of tgvs, without proper information on potential for
unwanted gene flow, is yet the biggest threat to biodiversity, and in
particular the diversity of our food crop relatives, from which our
children will need new genes to overcome new pest and disease problems,
as we did do it ourselves. Are we right in denying them this right by
not acting quickly and seriously?
There is a need to change the tone of the dialogue, and to start
demanding that the public sector continues to invest in research for
the South. That the South also starts to invest seriously in
agricultural, health and environmental research. Africa cannot afford
to follow the bandwagon of the biotech lobby of the North if it want's
to survive and develop a strong, ecologically and environmentally sound
and sustainable food security system, that includes agriculture, health
and the environment, and which it can afford. Africa wil double its
population over the next 25 years, so there is no room for complacency,
or mis-directed investments. Hunger is caused by poverty, and therefore
any research and training programme must tackle this issue in tandem
with the other three elements in sustainable development. Food
security, health and environmental (water) issues are interconnected
and need a holistic problem solving approach. New partnerships, serious
and problem solving partnerships, need to be established and funded to
bring about the solutions required to overcome the urgent problems of
today and the ones looming in the years ahead.
conclusions
In summary, I do not see the likelihood of tgvs making a major
impact on food security in Africa within the next 15 to 20 years, or
until such time as the general economic climate has improved, supported
by new agricultural policies. However, there will still remain the
questions of economic and environmental viability of the technology.
Looking at the investment pattern by industry and the public sector,
the chance that we are going to end up with the same mess as with the
current pesticide treadmill is just around the corner. We shall have
learned nothing since Rachel Carson's The Silent Spring was published
over 30 years ago. What a shame!
In a recent article concerning the biosafety protocol for the
management of threats posed by living modified organisms, UNEP's
Director General, Dr. Klaus Topfer writes: ``We need a bio-safety
regime that does not hinder biotechnology innovations, but also one
that can prevent misuse, escapes and accidents that could have
irreversible consequences.''
I fully agree, and this statement reflects my thinking and confirms
my concerns. I hope my message will reach the decision-makers who can
influence the allocation of public, and also private sector, funds to
the ``other side of the coin'' and to the sustainable soft
biotechnologies, this to assure that the poor also can grow crops and
buy food.
As for Africa, the quest for a new strategy to assure food security
at continental, regional, national and household levels at the dawn of
the new millennium is and should be a matter of priority. If I can make
a few suggestions on what is required, I would sum up as follows:
1. Africa needs new investment policies and means for
research, capacity and institution building and development in
the areas of agriculture, health and the environment as a
matter of priority, in particular as they relate to
alternatives to the high development and input cost
technologies offered by developed countries industry.
2. The research in conventional, and advanced, technologies
should focus on the needs, realistic financial means and the
technical absorption capacities of the farmers and rural
populations of the research outputs. It also needs to be
flexible and adapted to the very diverse ecological conditions,
and therefore requirements for site specific solutions.
3. Africa needs positive economic and social development,
fostered through social and political reforms. Agriculture
should be the area of first priority when it comes to
investment, as it provide employment, generates income, and
stimulate non-farm activities.
4. Africa needs to consider its available resources as a
starting point for technological improvements, not only the
available technologies from the developed countries.
5. Trade and fiscal policies and decisions need to be shifted
from benefiting Governments to benefiting the agricultural
sector, as it is agriculture which is the engine of sustainable
development.
6. African Governments need to invest or support and promote
private investments in farmers training via specialised schools
and in-microcredit schemes.
Annex
``genetically engineered crops may threaten beneficial insects''
Three recent studies point to troubling and unexpected effects of
genetically engineered insect-resistant crops on beneficial insects.
These studies highlight the need for testing of impacts on non-target
species before genetically engineered crops are approved for widescale
use.
Scientists from the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology
and Agriculture in Zurich, conducted two studies that looked at the
effects of Bt toxin \1\ on green lacewing insects. In nature, these
insects feed on the (major) pest targeted by Bt corn, the European corn
borer. Lacewings, which are known for their appetite for aphids and
other soft bodied insects, play an important role in maintaining the
equilibrium of insect populations. They are also important for organic
farming pest control strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is a naturally occurring soil
bacterium used as a biological pesticide that can be cloned and
inserted into a crop plant. The plant then produces its own toxin in
most if not all, parts of the plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In one study, recently published in the Journal of Environmental
Entomology, researchers found that the mortality rate of lacewing
larvae increased significantly after eating Bt-toxin similar to that
found in genetically engineered corn produced by Novartis Green
lacewing larvae fed with Bt-toxin from transgenic organisms showed a
significantly higher rate of mortality (57%) than a control group of
insects (30%). The larvae were fed purified Bt-toxin produced by
genetically engineered E. coli bacteria. The bacteria produce toxin
similar to that found in Novartis corn.
An earlier study produced even more disturbing results--
demonstrating the potential indirect impacts of Bt crops on beneficial
insects. Researchers compared the mortality and developmental rate of
two groups of lacewings--one that had been fed European corn borers
reared on engineered Bt corn and another reared on corn borers fed non-
Bt corn (the control group). The experiments revealed that green
lacewings fed corn borers that had eaten Bt corn had a higher death
rate and delayed development compared to the control group.
More than 60% of the lacewings fed Bt-corn-reared corn borers died
compared with fewer than 40% of the control group. The researchers
suggest that the higher mortality is directly associated with [Bt]-
related factors. Among surviving lacewings, those feeding on Bt-corn-
reared corn borers required an average of three more days to reach
adulthood than the control group.
In a third study, Scottish Crop Research Institute scientists found
that ladybird beetles fed aphids reared on transgenic potatoes
experienced reproductive problems and failed to live as long as
ladybirds fed aphids from ordinary potatoes (the control group). The
potatoes were engineered to produce insecticidal lectins--proteins from
the snowdrop plant that bind to the surface of insect cells causing
them to clump and stop functioning.
The researchers found that egg production of female ladybirds fed
transgenic-potato-reared aphids was reduced by more than one-third,
compared with the control group. Nearly three times as many fertilized
eggs from fed engineered-potato-reared aphids died before hatching
compared with fertilized eggs from the control group. In addition,
female ladybirds fed aphids from transgenic plants lived only half as
long as females from the control group.
None of these studies have been extended to field situations so it
is far from clear whether these laboratory results reflect what might
happen outdoors. However, if field results show similar effects, wide-
scale use of some transgenic plants could diminish populations of
beneficial insects or render some herbicides useless to control weeds.
Sources: ``New Evidence on Bt-Corn Disputes Companies Claims of
Safety''. Greenpeace Press Release. August 21, 1998. The Gene Exchange,
Summer 1998.
Other references read and used in this paper:
Lori Ann Thrupp, 1997. Linking Biodiversity and Agriculture:
Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Food Security. WRI, Issue
and Ideas.
Ismail Serageldin, 1998. Interview ``Can we Feed our World?'',
Newsweek, August 24, 1998.
Indur M. Goklany, 1998. Saving Habitat and Conserving Biodiversity
on a Crowded planet. BioScience Vol. 48 No. 11, 941-953.
Merlinda D. Ingco, Donald O. Mitchell and Alex F. McCalla, 1996.
Global Food Supply prospects. World Bank Technical Paper No. 353.
N. W. Simmonds, 1997. Pie in the Sky. Planter 73, 615-616, 619-623,
1997.
G. Edward Schuh, 1998. Acriculture as an engine of economic
development. Paper presented at the World Food Prize Symposium in 1998.
______
[Sustainable Science Audit #1]
The ``Golden Rice''
an exercise in how not to do science
Evaluating science and technology for sustainability and social
accountability
(Institute of Science in Society)
ISIS Mission Statement
To promote science responsible to civil society and the public good,
independent of commercial and other special interests, or of government
control.
Science is intrinsically honest, open and pluralistic, and
disagreements must be openly and democratically debated.
Science should be unbiased and accessible to all, regardless
of gender, age, race, religion or caste.
To ensure public participation in decision-making, accurate
information should be promptly accessible to the public in
unbiased and uncensored forms.
To develop a science that can help make the world sustainable,
equitable and life-enhancing for all its inhabitants.
Science should be based on a holistic, ecological perspective
that takes proper account of the complexity, diversity and
interdependence of all nature.
It is consonant with the holistic perspectives of diverse
indigenous sciences across the world.
It is in accordance with the precautionary principle: when
there is reason to suspect threats of serious, irreversible
damage, lack of scientific evidence or consensus must not be
used to postpone preventative action.
To integrate science in society and promote its highest moral values.
Science should contribute to the physical and spiritual well-
being of all societies.
It must promote equity, justice, democracy and freedom from
oppression for all.
ISIS believes science as much as scientists should be socially and
ecologically accountable, and has launched a sustainable science audit
project jointly with the Third World Network. This is the first in the
series.
executive summary--june 2000
The ``golden rice''--a GM rice engineered to produce pro-Vitamin
A--is being offered to the Third World as cure for widespread vitamin A
deficiency.
The audit uncovers fundamental deficiencies in all aspects, from
the scientific/social rationale to the science and technology involved.
It is being promoted in order to salvage a morally as well as
financially bankrupt agricultural biotech industry.
The scientific/social rationalization for the project exposes a
reductionist self-serving scientific paradigm that fails to see the
world beyond its own narrow confines. The ``golden rice'' is a useless
application. Some 70 patents have already been filed on the GM genes
and constructs used in making the ``golden rice.'' It is a drain on
public resources and a major obstruction to the implementation of
sustainable agriculture that can provide the real solutions to world
hunger and malnutrition.
``Golden rice'' is not a ``second generation'' GM crop as has been
claimed. It involves standard first generation technology, and carries
some of the worst features in terms of hazards to health and
biodiversity. Rockefeller Foundation, the major funder of the project
by far has withdrawn support from it. The project should be abandoned
altogether.
Key Words: ``Golden rice,'' vitamin A deficiency, Green Revolution,
sustainable science, GM technology, gene patents, GM constructs.
a gift-horse for the poor
A report in Financial Times \1\ states that the creators of
``golden rice'' have struck ``a ground-breaking deal'' with corporate
giant AstraZeneca to give Third World farmers free access to the grain
while allowing it to be commercially exploited in the developed world.
The company will oversee the production of stable GM line(s) and
patenting, and take the lines through field trials and commercial
approval. While farmers in developed countries will have to pay
royalties, those in the Third World earning less than US$10,000 will
not. But will Third World farmers be allowed to save the seeds for
replanting? It did not say.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Financial Times (London) May 16, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ``golden rice,'' not yet available, is already worth its
weight in diamonds. The project was funded from four sources of public
finance totaling US$100 million: the philanthropic Rockefeller
Foundation, whose mission is to support scientific research that
specifically benefit the poor, the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology, the European Community Biotech Program and the Swiss
Federal Office for Education and Science.
The announcement failed to mention that there are already 70 patent
claims on the genes, DNA sequences, and gene constructs used to make
the golden rice.\2\ Will the cost of paying royalties for the previous
70 patent claims be added to the cost of the golden rice? Which of the
royalties on the seventy-odd patents would the Third World farmers be
absolved from paying? Rockefeller Foundation, the major funder by far,
has reportedly abandoned the project to ``shift its agricultural
funding focus to support research that will have a more direct benefit
to subsistence farmers'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Revealed by authoritative sources within the Rockefeller
Foundation.
\3\ Normile D. 1999. Rice biotechnology: Rockefeller to end network
after 15 years of success. Science 286:1468-1469.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the scientific/social rationale is fallacious
Many have commented on the absurdity of offering ``golden rice'' as
the cure for vitamin A deficiency when there are plenty of alternative,
infinitely cheaper sources of vitamin A or pro-vitamin A, such as green
vegetables and unpolished rice, which would be rich in other essential
vitamins and minerals besides.\4\ To offer the poor and malnourished a
high-tech ``golden rice'' tied up in multiple patents, that has cost
US$100 million to produce and may cost as much to develop, is worse
than telling them to eat cake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Koechlin, F. (2000) The ``golden rice''--a big illusion? Third
World Resurgence #114/115, 33-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Golden rice'' was engineered to produce pro-vitamin A or beta-
carotene (the substance that makes carrots orange) in the endosperm,
i.e., the part of the rice grain that remains after it has been
polished.\5\ The scientific paper started with a review of the
literature to rationalize why such GM rice is needed and of benefit for
the Third World. The paper was accompanied by an unusually long news
feature entitled, ``The Green Revolution Strikes Gold,'' \6\ which
reinforced the rationalization for the project, explaining the
remarkable feat of technology involved and stated that the scientists
intend to make the ``golden rice'' ``freely available to the farmers
who need it most.'' The last sentence in this glowing report, however,
gave the game away: ``One can only hope that this application of plant
genetic engineering to ameliorate human misery without regard to short-
term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ye, X., Al-Babili, S., Kloti, A., Zhang, J., Lucca, P., Beyer,
P. and Potrykus, I. (2000). Engineering the provitamin A (beta-
carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm.
Science 287, 303-305.
\6\ Guerinot, M.L. (2000). The Green Revolution strikes gold.
Science 287, 241-243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What were the reasons for the scientists to embark on the project?
It is important to know, as these reasons may have been used to
persuade funders to support the project in the first place, and funders
ought to bear as much of the responsibility.
The first reason given is that the aleurone layer (in unpolished
rice) is usually removed by milling as it turns rancid on storage,
especially in tropical areas; and the remaining endosperm lacks pro-
vitamin A. The researchers are tacitly admitting that at least some
varieties of unpolished rice will have pro-vitamin A. The reason rice
is milled is to prolong storage for export, and to suit the tastes of
the developed world. So why not give the poor access to unpolished
rice? A proportion of every rice harvest could be kept unpolished and
either given freely to the poor, or sold at the cheapest prices. But
the scientists have not considered that possibility. Unpolished rice is
fact part of the traditional Asian diet until the Green Revolution when
aggressive marketing of white polished rice created a stigma of
unpolished rice. However, most rural communities still consume
unpolished rice and now that consumers have become aware of its
nutritional value, unpolished rice is becoming sought after.
``Predominant rice consumption,'' the researchers claim, promotes
vitamin A deficiency, a serious health problem in at least 26
countries, including highly populated areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin
America. Some 124 million children worldwide are estimated to be
vitamin A deficient. (Actually, the latest figures quoted in a press
release from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is 250
million preschool children.\7\) The scientists seem to be unaware that
people do not eat plain rice out of choice. The poor do not get enough
to eat and are undernourished as well as malnourished. The Food and
Agricultural Organization (FAO) started a project in 1985 to deal with
vitamin A deficiency using a combination of food fortification, food
supplements and general improvements in diets by encouraging people to
grow and eat a variety of green leafy vegetables. One main discovery is
that the absorption of pro-vitamin A depends on the overall nutritional
status, which in turn depends on the diversity of the food consumed.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ IRRI press release 22 May, ``Human health and food that feeds
half the world.''
\8\ See Koechlin, 2000 (note 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Predominant rice consumption'' is most likely to be accompanied
by other dietary deficiencies. A recent study by the Global
Environmental Change Programme \9\ concludes that predominant
consumption of Green Revolution crops is responsible for iron
deficiency in an estimated 1.5 billion, or a quarter of the world's
population. The worst affected areas are in rice-growing regions in
Asia and South-East Asia where the Green Revolution had been most
successful in increasing crop yield.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Geoffrey Lean, Independent, April 23, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research institutions such as IRRI have played the key role in
introducing Green Revolution crops to the Third World. IRRI was founded
in 1959 under an agreement forged by the Rockefeller and Ford
Foundations with the Philippine government, and its lease for operation
expires in 2003. At its recent 40th anniversary celebration, hundreds
of Filipino rice farmers protested against IRRI for introducing GM
crops, blaming IRRI, among other things, for promoting the Green
Revolution and causing massive loss of biological diversity in rice
paddies throughout Asia.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Press release 4 April, Los Banos, Philippines, MASIPAG/Farmer-
Scientist Partnership for Development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that vitamin A deficiency is accompanied by
deficiencies in iron, iodine and a host of micronutrients, all of which
comes from the substitution of a traditionally varied diet with one
based on monoculture crops of the Green Revolution. The real cure is to
re-introduce agricultural biodiversity in the many forms of sustainable
agriculture already being practiced successfully by tens of millions of
farmers all over the world.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Altieri, M., Rosset, P. and Trupp, L.A. (1998). The
Potential of Agroecology to Combat Hunger in the Developing World,
Institute for Food and Development Policy Report, Oakland, California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the scientists know, clinical deficiency can be dealt with by
prescription of vitamin A pills, which are affordable and immediately
available. ``Oral delivery of vitamin A is problematic,'' they state.
Judging from the reference cited \12\ they may be referring to the
well-known harmful effects of vitamin A overdose. But why would high
levels of pro-vitamin A rice in a staple food that people generally
consume in the largest amounts in a meal not also cause problems
connected with overdose? In particular, vitamin A poisoning has been
known to result from excessive beta-carotene intake in food.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Walter, P., Brubacher, G., and Stahelin, H. eds. (1989).
Elevated Dosages of Vitamins: Benefits and Hazards, Hans Huber,
Toronto, Canada
\13\ Nagai, K., Hosaka, H., Kubo, S., Nakabayashi, T., Amagasaki,
Y. and Nakamura, N. (1999). Vitamin A toxicity secondary to excessive
intake of yellow-green vegetables, liver and layer. J. Hepatol 31,142-
148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, why is it necessary to genetic engineer rice? ``Because no
rice cultivars produce [pro-vitamin A] in the endosperm, recombinant
technologies rather than conventional breeding are required.'' This is
the conclusion to the whole fallacious reasoning process. It amounts to
this: rice is polished, which removes pro-vitamin. A, therefore a
hundred million dollars (much of it tax-payers' money) are needed to
put pro-vitamin A into polished rice. A more likely explanation is that
the geneticists are looking for funding to do their research, and have
constructed, as best they could, a series of rationalizations for why
they should be supported. Neither the scientists nor the funders have
looked further beyond the technology to people's needs and aspirations,
or to what the real solutions are.
the science and technology is standard first generation
It took ten years to engineer beta-carotene into polished rice
because rice naturally does not have the metabolic pathway to make it
in the endosperm, perhaps for good biological reasons. Immature rice
endosperm makes the early precursor, geranylgeranyl-diphosphate (GGPP).
In order to turn GGPP into beta-carotene, four metabolic reactions are
needed, each catalyzed by a different enzyme. Enzyme 1, phytoene
synthase converts GGPP to phytoene, which is colorless. Enzymes 2 and
3, phytoene desaturase and xi-carotene desaturase, each catalyzes the
introduction of two double-bonds into the phytoene molecule to make
lycopene, which is red in colour. Finally, Enzyme 4, lycopene beta-
cyclase turns lycopene into beta-carotene. Hereafter, the enzymes will
be referred to by numbers only. Thus, a total of four enzymes have to
be engineered into the rice in such a way that the enzymes are
expressed in the endosperm. Some very complicated artificial gene
constructs have to be made. The gene constructs are made in units
called expression cassettes (see Box 1).
In order to select for the plant cells that have taken up the
foreign genes and gene-constructs, ``golden rice'' makes use of a
standard antibiotic resistance gene coding for hygromycin resistance,
also equipped with its own promoter and terminator. All these
expression cassettes have to be introduced into the rice plant cells.
One simplification available is that the reactions catalyzed by two of
the enzymes, 2 and 3, could be done by a single bacterial enzyme, let's
call it enzyme 2-3, so a total of four expression cassettes have to be
introduced, one for each of three enzymes and the fourth for the
antibiotic resistance marker.
BOX 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``gene expression cassette''--a unit of transgenic construct
The gene for each enzyme never goes in alone. It has to be accompanied
by a special piece of genetic material (DNA), the promoter, which
signals the cell to turn the gene on, i.e., to transcribe the DNA gene
sequence into RNA. At the end of the gene, there has to be another
signal, a terminator, to mark the RNA so it can be translated into
protein. To target the protein to the endosperm, an extra bit of DNA, a
transit sequence, is required. The resulting expression cassette for
each gene is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
promoter -- transit sequence -- gene -- terminator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Typically, each bit of the construct: promoter, transit sequence, gene
and terminator is from a different source. Several expression cassettes
are usually linked in series, or ``stacked'' in the final construct.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike natural genetic material which consists of stable
combinations of genes that have co-existed for billions of years,
artificial constructs consist of combinations that have never existed,
not in billions of years of evolution. Artificial gene-constructs are
well-known to be structurally unstable, which means they tend to break
and join up incorrectly, and with other bits of genetic material,
resulting in new unpredictable combinations. This process of breaking
and joining of genetic material is referred to as recombination. The
more complicated the construct, the more it tends to break and
rearrange or form new combinations. The instability of the construct
means that it is seldom inserted into the plant genome in its intended
form. The inserts are generally rearranged, with parts deleted, or
repeated.
In order to make many copies of the construct and to facilitate
entry into plant cells, the construct is spliced into an artificial
vector, which is generally made from genetic parasites that live inside
cells. The artificial vector also enables the construct to be
efficiently smuggled into the plant cell and to jump into the genome of
the plant cell. The vector used in the case of the ``golden rice'' is
the one most widely used since the beginning of plant genetic
engineering. It is derived from the ``T-DNA,'' part of the tumor-
inducing (Ti) plasmid (a genetic parasite) of the soil bacterium,
Agrobacterium. The Ti plasmid naturally invades plant cells, inserting
the T-DNA into the plant cell genome, and causing the cell to develop
into a plant tumor or gall. The artificial gene construct is spliced in
between the left and right borders of the T-DNA vector. The borders of
the T-DNA are ``hotspots'' for recombination, i.e., they have a
pronounced tendency to break and join up, which is ultimately why the
vector can invade the plant's genome and carry its hitch-hiker gene
construct along with it.
Three different constructs were made. The first consists of the
expression cassettes of enzyme 1 from daffodils and enzyme 2-3 from the
plant bacterial pathogen, Erwinia uredovora, together with the
expression cassette of an antibiotic resistance marker gene that codes
for hygromycin resistance. Another antibiotic resistance gene (coding
for kanamycin resistance) is also present, albeit lacking a promoter.
Hygromycin and kanamycin are both aminoglycoside antibiotics that
inhibit protein synthesis. The resistance genes originate from bacteria
and generally have specificities for more than one aminoglycoside
antibiotic. This first construct is the most complicated, but it still
does not have all the required enzymes. Enzyme 1 and the hygromycin
resistance gene are both equipped with a promoter from the cauliflower
mosaic virus (CaMV), which is especially hazardous (see below).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Ho, M. W., Ryan, A. and Cummins, J. (1999). The
cauliflower mosaic viral promoter--a recipe for disaster? Microbial
Ecology in Health and Disease 11, 194-197; Ho, M. W., Ryan, A. and
Cummins, J. (2000). Hazards of transgenic plants containing the
cauliflower mosaic viral promoter. Microbial Ecology in Health and
Disease (in press).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second construct consists of the expression cassettes of enzyme
1 and enzyme 2-3 as in the first, but without any antibiotic resistance
marker genes. The third construct consists of the expression cassette
of enzyme 4, again from daffodil, stacked with the hygromycin-
resistance marker-gene cassette. The strategy of separating the genes
for the enzymes and antibiotic resistance marker into two different
constructs is that it overcomes some of the problems of structural
instability: the more cassettes stacked, the more unstable is the
construct.
Each construct was spliced into a T-DNA vector, and two
transformation experiments were carried out. In the first experiment,
800 immature rice embryos were inoculated with the vector containing
the first construct, and hygromycin was used to select for resistant
plants that have taken up the vector, resulting in 50 GM plants. In the
second experiment, 500 immature embryos were inoculated with a mixture
of the vectors containing the second and third construct respectively.
Selection with hygromycin gave rise to 60 GM plants that have taken up
the third construct, but only twelve of these had taken up the second
construct as well. The transformation process is well-known to be
random, as there is no way to target the foreign genes to precise
locations in the genome. There could be more than one site of insertion
in a single cell. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the actual inserts
are likely to be rearranged, or subject to deletions or
repetitions.\15\ Hence each transformed cell will have its own
distinctive pattern of insert(s), and each GM plant, which comes from
the single transformed cell, will differ from all the rest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Reviewed by Pawlowski, W. P. and Somers, D. A. (1996).
Transgene inheritance in plants genetically engineered by
microprojectile bombardment. Molecular Biotechnology 6, 17-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the GM plants from the first experiment will not have the
full complement of enzymes required to make beta-carotene, and should
give red endosperm from the lycopene present. Only the GM plants from
the second experiment which have taken up both vectors would possess
all the enzymes needed, and give orange-colored endosperm.
uncontrollable technology and unpredictable outcomes raise questions on
safety
Unexpectedly, transgenic plants from both transformation
experiments gave orange polished grains. Chemical analyses confirmed
that only beta-carotene, in varying amounts, was found in all lines,
but no lycopene. This suggests that enzyme 4 may be present in rice
endosperm normally, or it could be induced by lycopene, to turn all of
the lycopene into beta-carotene. Lutein and zeaxanthin, two other
products derived from lycopene, were also identified in varying amounts
besides beta-carotene. All of these were absent from non-GM rice.
In addition, many other uncharacterized, unidentified products were
found, which differ from one line to another. What is the nutritional
value of the other products? Are any of the known and unknown products
harmful? Without thorough chemical analyses and toxicity tests, it is
impossible to tell. This highlights the unpredictable, uncontrollable
nature of the technology.
Molecular analyses of the GM inserts were not done in any detail.
Nevertheless, judging from the evidence presented, there are the usual
signs of deletions, rearrangements and multiple repeats of the
constructs inserted due to structural instability of the constructs and
the tendency for recombination. There is no guarantee that any of the
plants will give stable progeny in successive generations. The
instability of GM lines is well-known,\16\ and is a continuing problem
for the industry. Inserted genes can lose their activities or become
lost altogether in subsequent generations. There is nothing in ``golden
rice'' to distinguish it from standard first generation GM plants with
all the well-known defects and hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Reviewed by Pawlowski and Somers, 1996 (see note 15) and
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``golden rice'' is no technical improvement and more unsafe
``Golden rice'' exhibits all the undesirable, hazardous
characteristics of existing GM plants, and in added measure on account
of the increased complexity of the constructs and the sources of
genetic material used.\17\ The hazards are highlighted below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Ho, M. W. (1998, 1999). Genetic Engineering Dream or
Nightmare? Third World Network, Gateway, Gill & Macmillan, Penang and
Dublin; Ho et al, 1999, 2000 (note 6).
It is made with a combination of genes and genetic material
from viruses and bacteria, associated with diseases in plants,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and from other non-food species.
The gene constructs are new, and have never existed in
billions of years of evolution.
Unpredictable by-products have been generated due to random
gene insertion and functional interaction with host genes,
which will differ from one plant to another.
Over-expression of transgenes linked to viral promoters,
such as that from CaMV, exacerbates unintended metabolic
effects as well as instability (see below). There are at least
two CaMV promoters in each transgenic plant of the ``golden
rice,'' one of which is linked to the antibiotic resistance
marker gene.
The transgenic DNA is structurally unstable, leading to
instability of the GM plants in subsequent generations,
multiplying unintended, random effects.
Structural instability of transgenic DNA increases the
likelihood of horizontal gene transfer and recombination.
Instability of transgenic DNA is enhanced by the CaMV
promoter, which has a recombination hotspot,\18\ thereby
further increasing the potential for horizontal gene transfer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Kohli A, Griffiths S, Palacios N, Twyman RM, Vain P, Laurie
DA, Christou P. Molecular Characterization of Transforming Plasmid
Rearrangements in Transgenic Rice Reveals a Recombination Hotspot in
the CaMV 35S Promoter and Confirms the Predominance of Microhomology
Mediated Recombination. The Plant Journal 1999, 17: 591-601.
The CaMV promoter is promicuous in function and works
efficiently in all plants, in green algae, yeast and E.
coli.\19\ The spread of genes linked to this promoter by
ordinary cross-pollination or by horizontal gene transfer will
have enormous impacts on health and biodiversity. In
particular, the hygromycin resistance gene linked to it may be
able to function in bacteria associated with infectious
diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Kohli, et al, 1999 (note 17) also, Ho et al, 1999; 2000
(note 15).
Horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA from GM plants into
soil fungi and bacteria has been demonstrated in laboratory
experiments. Recent evidence suggests that it has also taken
place in a field-trial site for GM sugar-beets, in which
transgenic DNA persisted in the soil for at least two years
afterwards.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Gebhard, F. and Smalla, K. (1999). Monitoring field releases
of genetically modified sugar beets for persistence of transgenic plant
DNA and horizontal gene transfer. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 28, 261-
272.
Prof. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the University of Jena, has
just presented new evidence of horizontal gene transfer within
the gut of bee larvae.\21\ Pollen from GM rapeseed tolerant to
the herbicide glufosinate were fed to immature bee larvae. When
the microorganisms were isolated from the gut of the larvae and
examined for the presence of the gene conferring glufosinate
resistance, it was found in some of the bacteria as well yeast
cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See Barnett, A. (2000). GM genes ``jump species barrier.'' The
Observer, May 28.
All cells including those of human beings are now known to
take up genetic material.\22\ While natural (unmanipulated)
genetic material is simply broken down to supply energy,
invasive pieces of genetic material may jump into the genome to
mutate genes. Some insertions of foreign genetic material may
also be associated with cancer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Ho, M.W., Ryan, A., Cummins, J. and Traavik, T. (2000b).
Unregulated Hazards: ``Naked'' and ``Free'' Nucleic Acids, ISIS and TWN
Report, London and Penang.
Horizontal transfer of genes and constructs from the
``golden rice'' will spread transgenes, including antibiotic
resistance genes to bacterial pathogens, and also has the
potential to create new viruses and bacteria associated with
diseases.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Ho et al, 2000b (note 11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
In conclusion, the ``golden rice'' project was a useless
application, a drain on public finance and a threat to health and
biodiversity. It is being promoted in order to salvage a morally as
well as financially bankrupt agricultural biotech industry, and is
obstructing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can
truly improve the health and nutrition especially of the poor in the
Third World. This project should be terminated immediately before
further damage is done.
The ``golden rice'' possesses all the usual defects of first
generation transgenic plants plus multiple copies of the CaMV promoter
which we have strongly recommended withdrawing from use on the basis of
scientific evidence indicating this promoter to be especially
unsafe.\24\ A growing number of scientists (318 scientists from 39
countries to-date) are calling for a global moratorium on the
environmental releases of GMOs until and unless they can be shown to be
safe.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Ho et al, 1999, 2000b (note 9).
\25\ See
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
acknowledgement
I am grateful to Joe Cummins for helpful comments and for supplying
key references in preparing this audit.
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society and Dept. of Biological
Sciences, Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
Senator Hagel. Mr. Halweil, thank you.
Let me begin the questioning by asking each of our other
two witnesses to respond, if they would like, in any way they
would like, to what Mr. Halweil said. He brings up some
interesting points, asks some relevant questions, challenges
much of what we have heard here today. I would ask Ambassador
Young if he would like to respond to anything that he heard.
Ambassador Young. First, Africa is such an enormous
continent and almost everything we have tried works, and he is
probably right, where there is land reform there is improved
results where people are allowed to own their land. We have
done some things with cotton in South Africa that worked very,
very well.
We have done some land reform work under our AID, the
Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund. What we did in
that instance was actually take a plantation in South Africa
and turn it into an agribusiness and made the sharecroppers
shareholders, and improved the housing, the school, and also
built a processing plant on the land that people worked in. It
works and they are shipping food all over southern Africa.
So there are lots of inexpensive things that you can do.
Most of those are politically controlled. I think one of the
advantages of biotechnology is that it is largely in the hands
of the private sector, and if it works and pays for itself it
will continue, if it does not it will be abandoned. But that is
a market reality which is true in this country as it is abroad.
As soon as anybody in this country finds any negative
effect to any of these seed technologies, I am sure there will
not be any trouble calling in the FDA, the Congress, and
everybody else. But up to now I think that the efforts that are
applied to the African Continent, almost anywhere there is an
effort of almost any kind it has been successful.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Dr. Beachy.
Dr. Beachy. Yes, I have some differences of opinion from
the presenter. If you look at the effects of the work that the
Sassagawa Foundation has done in Tanzania and other places,
that worked to enable--what they did was make small loans to
small farmers, small shareholders. Those farmers used that
money to buy fertilizer, to buy better seeds, and they repaid
their loans very rapidly. Now, they used modern technology to
repay the loans, got better loans and bigger loans the next
year.
The Sassagawa Foundation approach has been very important.
It is small farmers being successful using a modern technology
and access to capital. So in part I do not disagree at all.
Poverty is the issue, accessibility to capital is the issue,
but to use it in the best way is to use it in combination with
technology.
The second is there was a criticism raised of large
corporations for not doing more. I really find that really
quite remarkable when you consider that we have the impact that
we have seen in the health industry for years not paying
attention to the Third World. We now have an agriculture
community that in less than 5 years after commercializing a
technology wants to take it to the Third World. I find that
really quite remarkable, that this can happen in such a short
period of time in food and agriculture, which we have not been
able to do in the biomedical side.
So I think, rather than criticizing the industry, we ought
to encourage the industry to do more of what they have already
started to do. So those are the two things I would like to make
those corrections on, because in fact there has been good
success started in the last couple of years in this direction.
Yes, poverty is the issue, but I do not believe that there is a
way that we can avoid the solutions to those without employing
the best of technology and the best of science when they are
applicable to the problem. And in the case of food and
nutrition and agriculture, science is relevant in addition to
bringing up the best of what is in those countries in terms of
their agriculture and knowledge of indigenous crops.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Staying on this issue for just a moment, Mr. Halweil, if I
recall what you said correctly, you made the point that poverty
rather than food shortage is the main cause of hunger. I guess
my question to you is how do you fix poverty? Do you not get
under poverty--to get people out of poverty through productive
capacity? How do you fix poverty? How do you eliminate poverty?
Mr. Halweil. The solutions to poverty are clearly going to
be very diverse and site-specific. There is no one policy, no
one intervention, that is likely to eliminate poverty. As you
noted, for people who are farmers, for entire nations that are
agriculturally based in terms of their economies, increases in
agricultural productivity are going to be essential to reducing
poverty. I am not arguing against that.
All I am saying is that the vast majority of the research
and applications that we have seen from biotechnology have not
been designed for the developing world. Perhaps that is obvious
if it is a technology controlled by the private sector. At the
same time, we know that there is an entire range of
agricultural technologies, some modern, some traditional, some
hybrids of the two, that are readily available, that, as Mr.
Young has noted, when they are supported and funded and
implemented they tend to work.
I think that the approach that I am advocating, that we do
not get distracted from the many other ways to improve
agricultural productivity and therefore reduce poverty, is more
of a prudent or conservative approach, given that we have not
seen any biotechnology creation yet that has a tremendous
amount of relevance on the large scale for the developing
world. Perhaps in several years we will and that is the hope, I
think, of everyone in this room. But the bottom line is there
are technologies, policies, interventions available now that
can meet those same goals.
Senator Hagel. Well, my time is up and I am going to hand
it over to Senator Lugar. We may have time to get back to you.
But I think that you are, in my opinion, off in a direction
that will cause more poverty, if we would pursue your line of
reasoning. But my time is up and thank you for your answer.
Senator Lugar.
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
just as a point of personal privilege mention that Ambassador
Young came before this committee in 1985, when he was U.N.
Ambassador. We had hearings from the onset then on all the
problems of the world. As I recall, Jeanne Kirkpatrick was here
that day and maybe others who served in that capacity.
I mention that because Ambassador Young in extraordinary
ways as a preacher, as a mayor, as Ambassador, doing what you
are doing now, has looked at this issue from many different
perspectives, and brings an unusual wisdom to it. I appreciated
your initial comment that Africa is so big that almost
everything works.
We spent most of the morning listening to Dick Holbrooke
and others talking about horrendous problems, monumental
difficulties on that continent. I would just say, the minutia
of efforts that is coming from this country, the world,
anybody, that can make any difference there is worrisome--you
simply have an appalling feeling of enormous suffering and
futility.
So I think that a keynote that I see from this hearing, is
that we should not talk past each other. Everybody at this
table is of goodwill and the question is how any of us make any
difference, even at the margin. In other words, to mention that
somehow most of the biotech is going on in the United States,
of course it is, most if it was discovered. Other people have
found parts of it, but we had the capital to go ahead with it.
Frequently people make the point to us, even when other
countries spy on us or take away our technology, they do not
have the capital to develop it. As a result, this makes our
country unique. You mentioned Australia and some other
countries, and they have capital as does Canada. And it is
poverty, poverty of capital. All the capital available in
Africa is very, very small.
The question is how to get the world interested in this in
any way or how to help some people in Africa develop more
capital. One reason is through biotech. Those people who have
had a chance to do some farming and make more money on what
they are doing may produce more crops. It may be very limited,
but nevertheless it is more for them. It can make a difference,
and, in my judgment without harm.
Believe me, Ambassador Young is right. The first one of
these seeds that is found to go amiss, the fire bells will
ring, the wrath of God will fall, and that will be the end of
that company and that seed. This is very serious business in
terms of all of our safety. But to go through all of the
pyrotechnics with absolutely no evidence is very sad.
Let me just say with regard to Dr. Beachy, I had the
privilege of going out to St. Louis and visiting the Monsanto
laboratories. They have replicated conditions of Africa in some
of their laboratories. They have got the heat and the humidity
and all of the devices that will indicate precisely what is
going to happen. It is remarkable. I have spliced a soybean
seed and understand how you do that and what it is likely to
mean on my farm.
I am one of these American farmers who would still say that
it is probably useful for us to have a better crop. Unlike
African farmers, we also have passed in the Senate crop
insurance and risk management. If I have no crop, I get some
money, because this is the way our wealth is distributed, so
that we help people. Other countries could do the same.
As you said, Ambassador, these big questions are political
ones. I referenced the Sudanese who are starving each other,
killing each other. Of course they are poor and some are kept
deliberately poor. That is a very big issue, but it is well
beyond biotech. I would say even in Sudan, where Dr. Frist
traveled, if he was able to get some seed to any of those
folks, that would be helpful to those particular people who
might eat. We have really got to fundamentally understand this.
I have become impatient with arguments that somehow,
because poverty is the big issue, because there are several
other things we could do--rearranging the conservation of a
country, intervening in their governments and jerking them
around and say, this is the way you do it. Of course things
might turn out better, but it just seems to me it is very
important, even with the modest efforts we are making, and they
are modest, to do what we can.
Having said all that, what are the prospects--Dr. Beachy--I
ask you this because you have been involved in this science,
you understand this, and obviously you are worried, as I am,
about the marketing of these ideas. But how in the world do we
turn this thing around from something that is perceived as
purely a production agriculture matter? And I think that is
important to American farmers and maybe Canadian farmers. It
could be important to African farmers, too, that they get
better yields, that they have safer food.
But how do we begin to talk to American consumers that the
products are better for them, quite apart from African
consumers or anybody else?
Dr. Beachy. I think industry has missed a tremendous
opportunity to let the consumer know what he or she has
benefited from. I take great offense when people say there is
no consumer benefit. That is as if our two million farmers were
not consumers, because they are the ones who are using less
chemical insecticides. They are the ones whose children become
ill. The people who pick the tomatoes are the ones who get sick
because they get residue on their clothes that come from the
tomatoes. Do not tell me that consumers do not benefit.
What we have not had is the consumer realizing that what
they have benefited is a cleaner environment with two million
less gallons of insecticide. We have a potato--there is a
potato variety that has been developed that does not require
any insecticide to grow and produce large amounts of good
potatoes. But no, the consumers have said, well, let us hold
off and wait and still continue with our 12 to 15 spray
applications per year to grow russet burbank potatoes.
The technology exists for eliminating pesticide
applications in potatoes. Ask me why it has not made it to the
market and I do not know the answer. I am a scientist only. All
I know is I was trained to get rid of chemical pesticides out
of food. That is what my Ph.D. at Michigan State was about.
At the same time, we are being told that these are not in
consumer interest. I think if the consumer knew the value of
the technology for the environment that would turn in some way,
some small degree, a percentage of people to realizing that
technology is relevant, not just the farmer to get the next 200
bushels per acre up from your 140, but also for the benefit of
the air and the water and the soil.
So I think there is a consumer benefit; it is being
described in a different way. There are other products that we
have seen coming out of companies that are farther along than I
think we realize, that will have nutritional benefit in
addition to the vitamin A, and maybe that will make a
difference.
But I think consumers are sensitive to the environmental
issues. I think the companies have not done a good job in
telling us what those benefits are, because they are real, they
are substantial, and they are long-lasting.
Senator Hagel. Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Halweil, you have said you do not know of any instance
where GMO's have helped farmers in underdeveloped areas. Are
you familiar with the planting of B.t. cotton in Ubay Province
in China?
Mr. Halweil. Sure.
Senator Bond. And what was the results of the use of the
B.t. genetically engineered cotton seeds in China?
Mr. Halweil. I think there were roughly 300,000 hectares of
B.t. cotton planted in that province in China and the results
for those farmers were largely the same as the results for
American cotton growers, the other population of farmers that
are planting B.t. cotton. You had some reductions, not total
reductions, marginal reductions, in the pesticides sprayed for
that complex of pests that was mentioned before, though it had
no effect on other pesticides sprayed on cotton.
To the extent that there was a saving in terms of
production costs from that reduced spraying, that went into the
farmer's pocket. But you have to subtract out of that the
additional money that the B.t. cotton seed might have cost in
addition to what the traditional cotton varieties cost before.
Senator Bond. Well, my information, it increased the
farmers' revenue by $200 per hectare. It seems to me that that
reduces poverty. That keeps the farmer on the farm. That was
the information that we learned, that farmers who are starving
to death because they could not produce the cotton, because
they could not afford the pesticides, with the use of B.t.
cotton could make a living.
Let me just ask. You said apparently--I sense this bias
against corporations and I know that a lot of NGO's do not like
corporations or profits or commercialization. You said that the
people using genetically engineered seeds were the large
industrial farms, people like Pam and Charlie Kruse's farm. I
know these people. I live in the area where they work. They are
a husband and wife who farm and produce. Is there something
wrong with them producing crops more efficiently, with less
pesticides, cutting back on the use of pesticides? Is there
something wrong with the farms that we have in Missouri because
they are efficient?
Mr. Halweil. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
All I thought was that this hearing was on the subject of
biotechnology for combating hunger and poverty in developing
nations.
I would like to maybe followup on the second part of your
question on pesticide use in the environment.
Senator Bond. OK. I tell you what. I am running short of
time and I am sure that the chairman would be happy to have a
statement on it.
But I do want to followup in the little time I have
remaining to ask Dr. Beachy--Ambassador Young, I am sorry I do
not have a chance to ask you questions--if you would comment,
No. 1, on the fact on the donation by corporations of, say, the
information on mapping the genome of rice. I believe there has
been a major donation by a corporation who made profits by
selling to the farmers in Missouri to donate that technology to
developing countries.
I also think it might be helpful for you to comment on the
basis of the scientific regulatory scheme that we have in the
United States to assure that when there is a problem such as a
brazil nut gene included in a soybean which might cause an
allergic reaction to someone allergic to peanuts, that the
process stops that.
Finally, you might want to comment on Mr. Halweil's
assertion that there is a danger, ``the risky scheme'' I think
is the current terminology, of biotechnology in possibly
carryover transposing to other plants.
Dr. Beachy. In the short time that I have, those are each
good questions and comments you have made. One, major
corporations are getting involved in donating information in
addition to technology. Monsanto Company several weeks ago
donated the genetic map, the full genetic blueprint of rice
plants, of rice genome, for everyone in the world to have. This
is a multinational attempt to characterize all the genes in
rice.
With the aid of the donation that Monsanto made, they will
shorten by about 3 years the amount, the length of time it is
going to take to put all the genes in order and all the
sequences in order, much like the human genome mapping is going
on now.
We are very close, similarly, to a rabidopsis, which is our
model dicot plant, with rice being the model monocot for corn
and wheat and others. So there is a tremendous amount of effort
being made.
There is a second example of technology development or
donation. I believe it is the Novartis Company that has donated
some technology for their transformation technology to avoid
using some of the selectable markers for antibiotic resistance
and have donated another kind of technology for selection to
everybody in the academic as well as in any public sector
community.
The basis of regulation is one that I participated in back
in the eighties and was involved with the FDA in helping to
establish part of the regulatory process that they have used to
assure that foods are safe. That process has gone through a lot
of revisions over the years and it will continue to go through
more revisions as more data are gathered. But in fact it is an
incredible process that we have never before applied foods to.
You know, if somebody brings in a kiwi fruit from a new
country and says that this kiwi fruit is good to eat, how do I
know that? What is the regulatory process that tells me that
that kiwi fruit is safe? We go back to that country and say:
Has anyone gotten sick from it? How many have allergies?
In the case of the FDA and the regulatory process and
oversight of these foods, produced by a slightly different
technology, we now have in place an examination of foods that
has never before taken place. The decision tree is so filled
with cross-lines that the chance of something getting from here
down to here onto the marketplace is extremely minimal. And
they have looked at all the scientific evidence that is
presented before they make a decision that this gene trait that
is introduced into strawberries or corn or soybeans or wheat
now and in the future are well regulated and well designed and
well overseen.
The whole idea of risk management and how you do that has
come about because of, in response to, a technology that is
unique and perhaps it is necessary because it is unique. The
risk management oversight by the USDA and the EPA are based on
questions that are raised outside and then on the applications
of good solid science to make sure the risks are minimized or
eliminated.
I remind you, never before have we put any of our
agricultural products to the same examination and test. So we
have done so with these crops in a way that I think convinces
me, I know it convinces me, to say that the foods that are out
there now derived from these crops are safe and that the
plantings in the fields have little or no risk, certainly no
greater risk than any of the existing crops.
So it is the science that teaches me that, and I think if
we diverge from the applications of the principles of
evaluative science in the same way, if we diverse from that, I
think we put ourselves at tremendous risk not only on the
health side, but the environmental side as well. That is what
we have. That is what we have done in this country, asked
science to make our way for us.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Ashcroft.
Senator Ashcroft. Senator Hagel, thank you very much.
The senior Senator from Missouri's humility prevented him
from presenting an article he has written in Science magazine
from February of this year, and I would like to submit it for
its inclusion in the record, along with of course the item from
the Washington Post.
Senator Hagel. It will be included in the record, Senator.
[The article referred to follows:]
[From Science, Vol. 287, February 18, 2000]
science's compass--scientists orienting scientists
Politics, Misinformation, and Biotechnology
(By Christopher S. Bond \1\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The author is the senior Senator from Missouri in the U.S.
Senate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past half century, the number of people fed by a single U.S.
farmer has grown from 19 to 129. Despite this stunning advance,
intractable health and nutrition problems remain. The world's
population continues to grow even as available farmland shrinks.
Preventable illnesses and malnutrition still claim the lives of many
children in the developing world. As the new millennium gets under way,
policy-makers, health care professionals, scientists, and others are
searching for the tools to meet the increasing demands of a growing and
changing world. Chief among these tools is biotechnology. Leading
scientists have concluded that, although still in its infancy,
biotechnology has breathtaking possibilities for improving human health
and nutrition and that a satisfactory regulatory system is in place to
govern its development.
Despite this consensus, a vocal, aggressive--and in some cases,
lawless--group of advocacy organizations seeks to discredit and
eliminate biotechnology. At issue is the alleged risk that any
genetically modified plant may pose to the environment. However, the
issue of risk is by no means one-sided. Yes, we must understand whether
transgenic corn poses more risk to the Monarch butterfly than does the
existing practice of using synthetic chemicals. However, the greater
risk, in my view is that without a scientific basis, the naysayers may
succeed in their goal of subverting biotechnology and thus condemn the
world's children to unnecessary malnutrition, blindness, sickness, and
environmental degradation.
Although positive change is to the collective long-term benefit of
us all, it typically results in short-term difficulties, anxiety, and
fear for some. Opposition of the sort I witnessed at firsthand while at
the December 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle,
Washington, has been driven variously by trade-protectionist and
anticorporate sentiment, by competing food marketers such as the whole-
foods industry, and by scientifically unsubstantiated fears of change
and technology. Some of those who seek to undermine biotechnology are
not interested in seeking information or constructive dialogue. Some in
Europe have adopted a constrained trade policy that consists of
exporting little more than hysteria, which we can expect to energize
the professional political ambulance-chasers here in the United States.
Sadly, the actions of radicals such as those who recently vandalized
test plots in California and set fire to research offices at Michigan
State University are not harmless pranks; rather, such tactics lead to
diminished public understanding of the benefits versus the risks of
biotechnology.
Diminished understanding is key to obstructing biotechnology. In
discussions of fact, the scientific viewpoint will prevail. However,
public education will remain challenging. Given the nature of the
modern media, will scientists have to start dressing up as corncobs, as
some protestors have done, to get media attention? During the past 2
years, I have asked scientists to work with their local media
representatives and public officials to help them separate fact from
fiction. After the problems in Seattle, it is clear that much more must
be done. We must work diligently to ensure that consumers, who drive
food production, are adequately informed about the science supporting
the uses of biotechnology. Input from the scientific community is
vital, but we cannot count on the media to find scientists; scientists
must actively seek to influence the media. As we work to counteract the
naysayers, we should be encouraged that most Americans, and many others
in developed countries, embrace technological advances and are
generally receptive to the benefits that new technologies bring to
their lives.
A protocol for an international agreement regarding trade of
genetically engineered products has just been released. Although full
understanding of the implications of the agreement will not precede its
implementation, we can all hope that it will serve to better inform all
citizens and depoliticize the process in favor of science-based
decision-making.
The development of this technology is not recreational. Through
biotechnology, scientists are attempting to solve the real-world
problems of sickness, hunger, and resource depletion. The hysteria and
unworkable propositions advanced by those who can afford to take their
next meal for granted have little currency among those who are hungry.
It will be up to the policy-makers, advocates for the needy,
scientists, the media, and others to ensure that reason, not hype,
prevails.
Senator Ashcroft. Dr. Beachy and Ambassador Young and
members of the panel, thank you for your efforts and thank you
for coming. Particularly, Dr. Beachy and Ambassador Young, I
want to thank you for your efforts on sustainable agriculture
and economic development. And I am pleased to have a Missourian
here representing the Danforth Center and testifying before
this committee, so I am grateful.
Ambassador Young, I appreciate the many years of experience
you have and that you bring before the committee as one
actively involved in the betterment of developing nations, most
notably on the Continent of Africa, but around the world.
Both of you have been kind to send me letters of
endorsement for Senate bill 2106, Advancing Global
Opportunities for Biotechnology in Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to submit for the record additional letters of
support from the dean of agriculture for the University of
Missouri, from the president of Michigan State University from
the director of Harvard Center for International Development.
If you would receive those and include them in the record, I
would be grateful.
Senator Hagel. They will be included, Senator.
[The letters referred to follows:]
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center,
7425 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 3100,
St. Louis, MO, March 15, 2000.
The Honorable John Ashcroft
Hart Senate Office Building,
Room 316,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ashcroft:
I am writing to offer my full support of Senate Bill 2106 and to
thank you for introducing it. This bill would provide technical support
to train Scientists from developing countries in the areas of
agricultural biotechnology and biosafety. It is obvious that many of
our potential partners in developing countries have much to gain from
the application of new technologies in agriculture, including
biotechnology. It is clear, however, that many countries lack the
scientific skills and policy expertise to evaluate safety of new
products. This bill would make it possible to provide training for
those countries to allow them to better evaluate the products of
American agriculture and to begin to develop their own intellectual
strengths in this important area of science.
S. 2106 would help to facilitate the training of postdoctoral
researchers and students at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center.
The Danforth Center has a highly successful research and training
program called the International Laboratory for Tropical Agricultural
Biotechnology (ILTAB). We expect that S. 2106 would help to support
trainees at ILTAB and the Danforth Center, making it possible for us to
reach more scientists from around the world who will play an important
role in the research, development and biosafety of agricultural
products in their home countries.
I urge your continued support of this bill and look forward to
visiting with you in the future so that we might discuss the Danforth
Center and ILTAB at greater length.
Sincerely,
Roger N. Beachy, Ph.D., President.
______
GoodWorks International, LLC,
Atlanta, GA, March 15, 2000.
Honorable John Ashcroft
Senate Hart Office Building,
Room 316,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ashcroft:
It is with great pleasure that I write to you in support of S. 2106
which supports capacity building for agricultural biotechnology
applications in Africa and other emerging markets.
As you may be aware, I have been involved in outreach to Africa in
support of biotechnology for some time now, realizing the great
potential for biotechnology to help solve problems of starvation,
illness and environmental degradation in some of the world's poorest
areas. I remain committed to biotechnology as an important tool for
agricultural development, which will allow African nations to feed
their growing populations through sustainable practices in the years
ahead. Innovations such as Vitamin A-enriched maize will help protect
future generations of Africa's children from debilitating illnesses
such as river blindness, and could even work as a nutritional
supplement in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Similarly, the development of
virus-resistant sweet potato and cassava will increase yields for these
important food security crops which are widely consumed in the
developing world. These are only a few examples of how technologies
developed in the U.S. can address the needs of a growing global
population.
Later this year, I hope to visit KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, where
small farmers in the Makathini Flats area are successfully growing
genetically enhanced cotton. I understand that field trials have been
so successful that the number of small growers in the Makathini area
using the genetically enhanced seed has grown from 60 during the 1998-
99 season to more than 600 in 1999-2000. This example of
biotechnology's potential in Africa is particularly appealing to me in
that small family growers make up the vast majority of producers on the
continent, and any advantage to their productivity has an immediate
impact on their quality of life. I believe this type of positive impact
is what we want to achieve through foreign aid and scientific exchange
with Africa and other emerging markets.
But for biotechnology to take root in Africa, the U.S. and other
countries promoting agricultural biotechnology must make significant
investments in education and training abroad. This became apparent to
me over the last year through my work on the Biosafety Protocol to the
Convention on Biological Diversity. The ``Like Minded Group'' of
developing country delegates to the Protocol negotiations, led by a
bloc of African nations, took a strong stance against biotechnology.
The reason for their position was due, in large part, to propaganda and
misinformation distributed by environmental groups that promoted
irrational fears among many delegates. In the absence of scientific
knowledge and understanding about biotechnology, these fears threatened
to close the door on the trade of genetically enhanced goods. The type
of programs, supported by S. 2106, which will promote the sharing of
technologies and expertise with the developing world will be extremely
effective in building a basis for acceptance and support of
biotechnology in critical areas of the world. This is vitally important
in our struggle to help African nations achieve sustainable
agricultural practices that provide food security for their people.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please call of me if I
may be of assistance in promoting this important piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Andrew Young.
______
Office of the President,
Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, March 16, 2000.
The Honorable John Ashcroft
Hart Senate Office Building,
Room 316,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ashcroft:
I am writing you in support of Senate bill 2106, the Advancing the
Global Opportunities for Biotechnology in Agriculture Act of 2000.
Today, there are more than 840 million poople--a number exceeding
the combined population of Europe, U.S., Canada and Japan--who do not
have enough to eat. Every minute, some 30 people die of hunger in the
developing world and half of these are infants and children. More than
170 million preschool children are undernourished. More than a half-
million children go blind each year from lack of vitamin A, and iron
deficiencies are responsible for anemia among many millions of women
and children, making them vulnerable to a host of diseases.
Millions of farmers worldwide eke out livelihoods under poor and
risky growing conditions while suffering from poverty, hunger and poor
health. Food production will likely have to double to feed an
additional two billion people by 2025.
To prevent a crsis, the world community must simultaneously
confront the issues of poverty, food insecurity, environmental
degradation, and erosion of genetic resources. The power of science,
while not sufficient by itself, can assist in benefiting the world's
poor. One area of science is biotechnology. Biotechnology can shorten
the time and cut the costs required to develop new crop varieties.
Biotechnology tools can introduce genes that counter soil toxicity,
resist insect pests, and increase nutrient content in crops.
The U.S. is the world leader in agricultural biotechnology.
However, very little of this research effort has been directed at
developing country agriculture. This is because the private sector,
which has invested most in this new technology, does not see a viable
market for their products in these underdeveloped markets. In addition,
public sector efforts to use biotechnology on behalf of poor farmers
and consumers have been uncoordinated and under-funded. Despite this,
there are a number of exciting results awaiting widespread testing and
dissemination, including:
Genetically modified rice to provide more iron and vitamin A.
Genetically modified rice that provides protection against
submersion in India.
Use of cotton in China with resistance to insects.
For most people in developing countries, a better standard of
living depends on increasing productivity in agriculture. Modern
biotechnology research, together with appropriate policies, better
infrastructure and traditional research methods, can bring benefits to
millions of poor farmers and consumers.
The U.S. Agency for Internatioal Development (USAID) has been
bringing biotechnology to developing countries via a program managed at
Michigan State University (MSU) and involving scientists from other
universities such as Cornell, University of Texas (Dallas) and Ohio
State University. The Agricultural Biotechnology Support Program (ABSP)
takes an integrated approach, providing developing countries with an
opportunity to work in collaboration with public and private sectors in
the U.S. on important agricultural problems to developing countries.
This ``ownership'' of the technology provides an important impetus to
develop regulatory systems that will permit the use of technology
developed, in part, ``at home.'' ABSP provides technical assistance in
the development of regulatory systems by using expert consultants from
the U.S. public, private and government sector, and trains scientists,
lawyers and policy makers in the drafting of regulations and in the
implementation of science-based regulatory reviews.
While this program is unquestionably successfully where it has
operated, with functional regulatory systems in Indonesia, Kenya and
Egypt, the program has been limited by low-levels of funding. S. 2106
will help address this discrepancy, provide additional opportunities to
promote biotechnology abroad, and will also provide a mandate for more
coordination between the U.S. University community and the U.S.
regulatory agencies.
I urge the Committee on Foreign Relations to support S. 2106 in
order to increase the benefits of this technology to those who need it
most, to provide a framework for enhanced collaboration between the
U.S. research and business community with partners in developing
countries, and to promote increased and open trade in improved
agricultural goods and services.
Sincerely,
Peter McPherson, President.
______
Center for International Development at Harvard
University,
79 John F. Kennedy Street,
Cambridge, MA, April 25, 2000.
Honorable John Ashcroft
U.S. Senate,
316 Senate Hart Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ashcroft,
We are writing in connection with the Senate Bill 2106 on
``Advancing the Global Opportunities for Biotechnology in Agriculture
Act of 2000.'' Agricultural biotechnology offers great potential to
address many of the argricultural, nutritional, and health problems of
developing countries, especially in Africa. Efforts to promote the use
of biotechnology in developing countries are currently being undermined
by inadequate international assistance to support scientific and
technical cooperation, biotechnology education and diplomatic outreach.
We therefore wish to support the Senate Bill 2106.
We consider this bill to be a starting point in a more substantive
effort that will bring the scientific and technological leadership of
the United States to bear on global agricultural, nutritional health
and environmental challenges.
Yours sincerely,
Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Director.
Dr. Calestous Juma, Program Director,
Science, Technology and Innovation.
Senator Ashcroft. I would like to call upon either
Ambassador Young or Dr. Beachy to comment on how you feel that
Senate bill 2106 can help developing countries in terms of
making the kinds of decisions necessary for them to bring their
situations into a setting where individuals are more survivable
and more sustainable.
Ambassador Young. If I might start, simply to say that I
know it is incredible, but I view Africa as a place of
tremendous opportunity. All that you say about the problems and
the dangers is probably true, but I also know of literally
hundreds of billions of dollars that are being invested in a
variety of operations on the African Continent that very
shortly are going to make Africa a center of attention.
One of the things that they are going to have very shortly
is some of the resources to deal--that will enable them to deal
with the specific on the ground agricultural problems. I think
to have the scientists already trained, to have them working to
do, to think about the government policies--we are going to
remove the land mines from Angola and from Mozambique, and that
is wonderful arable land. But right now there is nobody that
could tell you what to do with it.
I hope that Dr. Beachy, with the help of your bill, will be
training the scientists and agronomists that will be ready when
Africa is ready to respond to these kinds of problems in their
own way.
Dr. Beachy. I guess the easiest way to answer your
question, Senator, is to say that--is to remind us that we
trained a number of people from Africa in ILTAB, our
International Laboratory. We have received in the last 6 weeks
or 8 weeks 12 applications with full CV's from scientists, from
trainees, from Africa, from at least five different countries,
who want to come to learn more about the technologies, who want
to make themselves knowledgeable, who want to know about
biosafety, who want to know about what the role these plants
can play in sustainable agriculture.
We cannot fund them. Any of the resources that are made
available we want to compete for, because I think that there is
an absolute need. How do we respond and how do we do it the
best and who is the best place to do it, I think that question
comes after the bill is passed. But I hope that bill is awarded
and I hope that it is this year, because the needs are now.
We have talked about, the needs are not--the needs were
yesterday and every day that we delay is I think a miscarriage
to humanity and the places of need.
Senator Ashcroft. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank these
individuals for coming. I have one other item I would relate,
and this relates to the Pontifical Academy for Life and its
pronouncements on biotechnology. Bishop Elio Isgreccia, Vice
President of the Pontifical Academy for Life and Director of
the Institute of Bioethics and the Sacred Heart, University of
Rome, explained: ``There are no specific indications from the
magisterium of the church on biotechnology. Because of this, I
have stopped all those who demand the condemnation of these
products.'' I think he further says: ``Following research in
the biotechnology field could resolve enormous problems, as for
example the adaptation of agriculture to arid land, thus
conquering hunger. The biotechnological products must
contribute to man's wellbeing, giving guarantees in the face of
possible risks. Therefore, what is needed is honesty.''
With that, I cease that quotation, but I think that
reinforces and underscores the testimony of Secretary Sandalow
and what we all know, is that we want to be involved in
science-based evaluations and we want those with whom we deal
to be involved in science-based evaluations. That is the
underlying thrust of our assistance to these other countries,
to allow them to make intelligent judgments based on facts and
science.
So it is with that, I thank the members of the panel and I
thank you very much for convening this hearing. I think it has
been most productive.
Senator Hagel. Senator, thank you.
Gentlemen, let me ask your indulgence for just a couple of
minutes. Mr. Halweil, you kind of got left out of the last 10,
15 minutes. I would offer you a couple of minutes if you would
like to just summarize a couple of points. We will give you 2
or 3 minutes if you would be interested. I just want to make
this as fair as we can, and you did not get some last
questions, so you have got 2 or 3 minutes.
Mr. Halweil. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity. What I think I will take my time to do is answer
the question which you asked me, which I think I answered very
briefly, which is what I would do if I was in control to
eliminate poverty, what I think would eliminate poverty and
what I think this committee could do to eliminate poverty.
The Committee on Foreign Relations has not always been so
friendly to funding for international reproductive health care
assistance. I think that is one place in which the committee
can make a serious dent in poverty. There is very good evidence
that access to reproductive health care is often the important
first step in diverting attention from dealing with very large
families to investing in those children that families already
have. In that sense, family planning, access to family
planning, is an important step in reducing poverty.
I also think that, although many of the issues mentioned
here today were described as solely political conflicts, the
role in creating hunger, poverty's role in creating hunger,
land distribution, that it is also a political issue to hope
that some time in the future in some lab there will be research
results, there will be research that results in a biotechnology
that is cheap enough to mass disseminate to the world's poor
and hungry populations.
So I would encourage the committee and this Subcommittee on
International Economic Policy to look at what we have called
political issues, including phenomena like population growth,
and see what inroads we might make into those sorts of issues.
Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Halweil, thank you.
Ambassador Young, thank you. You are one of the preeminent
public servants of our time, public-private. You continue to
contribute to the betterment of mankind and we are grateful.
Thank you, sir.
Doctor, much success. We are grateful to you for what you
have done and will continue to do.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
-