[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA:
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-16
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-547 WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOE BARTON, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan NICK LAMPSON, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan MARK UDALL, Colorado
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota DAVID WU, Oregon
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Washington CHRIS BELL, Texas
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri ZOE LOFGREN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
ROB BISHOP, Utah DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas VACANCY
JO BONNER, Alabama
TOM FEENEY, Florida
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
------
Subcommittee on Research
NICK SMITH, Michigan, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota ZOE LOFGREN, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri BRAD SHERMAN, California
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania JIM MATHESON, Utah
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia RALPH M. HALL, Texas
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
PETER ROONEY Subcommittee Staff Director
DAN BYERS Professional Staff Member/Designee
JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members
JEREMY JOHNSON Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
June 12, 2003
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Nick Smith, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.. 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Minority
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Panel 1:
Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of
Representatives
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Panel 2:
Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 18
Written Statement............................................ 20
Biography.................................................... 23
Honorable Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator, U.S. Agency for
International Development
Oral Statement............................................... 23
Written Statement............................................ 27
Biography.................................................... 32
Discussion....................................................... 32
Panel 3:
Dr. Gordon Conway, President, Rockefeller Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 45
Biography.................................................... 46
Financial Disclosure......................................... 48
Dr. John Kilama, President, Global Bioscience Development
Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 51
Biography.................................................... 57
Financial Disclosure......................................... 60
Dr. Robert B. Horsch, Vice President, Product and Technology
Cooperation for Monsanto
Oral Statement............................................... 61
Written Statement............................................ 62
Biography.................................................... 69
Financial Disclosure......................................... 71
Discussion....................................................... 72
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation....... 82
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Thembeitshe Joseph (TJ) Buthelezi................... 84
An African Agricultural Biotechnology Portfolio.................. 86
U.S. Universities Working with USAID on Agriculture in Africa.... 87
PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA: CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Nick Smith
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Plant Biotechnology Research
and Development in Africa:
Challenges and Opportunities
thursday, june 12, 2003
10:15 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. PURPOSE
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, the House Science Committee will hold a
hearing to examine plant biotechnology research and development
activities relevant to African food crops and the challenges and
opportunities involved in these activities.
2. WITNESSES
Panel I
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert is Speaker of the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Panel II
Dr. Rita R. Colwell is Director of the National Science Foundation
(NSF). Before joining the Foundation, Dr. Colwell served as President
of the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute and Professor of
Microbiology at the University Maryland. She was also a member of the
National Science Board from 1984 to 1990.
The Honorable Andrew Natsios is Administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID), the lead U.S. government agency for
economic and humanitarian assistance. In addition to his duties as
administrator of USAID, Natsios serves as the President's Special
Coordinator for International Disaster Assistance and Special
Humanitarian Coordinator for the Sudan. Before assuming the lead
position at USAID, Natsios served the agency as director of the Office
of Foreign Disaster Assistance and assistant administrator for the
Bureau for Food and Humanitarian Assistance.
Panel III
Dr. Gordon Conway is President of the Rockefeller Foundation, a New
York-based charity dedicated to improving food security around the
world. Dr. Conway's previous positions include Vice-Chancellor of the
University of Sussex (England) and Director of the sustainable
agriculture program of the International Institute for Environment and
Development in London. He has authored Unwelcome Harvest: Agriculture
and Pollution (1991) and The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All in
the 21st Century (1999).
Dr. John Kilama is President of the Global Bioscience Development
Institute, a firm providing training and consulting to policy-makers in
developing countries on biotechnology regulation, intellectual property
rights, and international trade development. His background is in
pharmaceutical and agricultural biotechnology and agrochemistry.
Previously, Dr. Kilama worked at the DuPont Company, specializing in
developing chemicals for crop protection and establishing
collaborations between DuPont and institutions in developing countries.
Dr. Robert B. Horsch is Vice President of Product and Technology
Cooperation for Monsanto Corporation. He led the company's plant tissue
culture and transformation efforts, contributing to the development of
the Bollgard, YieldGard, and Roundup Ready traits in broad use today.
Dr. Horsch received the Presidential Medal of Technology in 1999 for
his contributions to the development of agricultural biotechnology. He
is a member of the Private Sector Committee of the Consultative Group
for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the United Nations
Millennium Project Task Force on Hunger.
3. OVERARCHING QUESTIONS
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
LWhat is the status of plant biotechnology research
efforts in Africa, what research opportunities are the most
promising, and what barriers to progress exist in this area?
LWhat is the scope and structure of U.S. support for
plant biotechnology research and development in Africa? What
activities are private organizations such as the Rockefeller
Foundation and the Monsanto Corporation supporting?
LHow are agencies such as the National Science
Foundation (NSF), U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) working
together to coordinate research programs and promote the
dissemination of accurate scientific information on plant
biotechnology? How are they coordinating with each other, with
industry, and with non-governmental organizations to better
meet overall goals of reducing hunger and fostering
agricultural sustainability?
4. BRIEF OVERVIEW
LGenetically modified (GM) crops, which involve the
transfer of genes from one organism to another, were first
introduced in the United States in the mid-1990s. They have
expanded rapidly but in a limited number of countries. In 2002,
they were planted on 140 million acres in 16 countries. The
primary crops grown are insect-resistant cotton and corn, and
herbicide-tolerant soybeans.
LPlant biotechnology holds tremendous promise to
contribute to improved food security in sub-Saharan Africa,
where 190 million people are undernourished. It is estimated
that even a one percent increase in agricultural productivity
in Africa could bring six million people out of poverty.
LHowever, for a variety of complex reasons, including
trade concerns, the lack of an adequate regulatory structure
and resources, and the fact that much of the biotech research
and development has focused on crops that are not suitable for
African crop systems, most countries in Africa have not yet
benefited from biotech crops. To date, adoption has primarily
been limited to South Africa and Kenya.
LThe U.S. government, through agencies such as USAID,
NSF, and USDA, supports several research, development, and
outreach programs related to plant biotechnology in Africa.
Last December, President Bush signed into law the National
Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368),
which authorized NSF to establish a grant program for Plant
Biotechnology Partnerships for the Developing World.
LNon-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private
industry, led by the Rockefeller Foundation and Monsanto,
respectively, are also active supporters of advancing plant
biotechnology in Africa. The Rockefeller Foundation recently
announced a new initiative with USAID and several agriculture
companies, the African Agricultural Technology Foundation,
which will work to arrange intellectual property agreements to
encourage more biotech research on crops suitable to Africa.
5. BACKGROUND
Status of Plant Biotechnology Outside of Africa
The first GM crops became commercially available in the United
States in the mid-1990s. In less than a decade, their adoption has been
extremely rapid, and the area of U.S. crop land planted with GM crops
has grown from just two million acres in 1995 to 100 million in 2002.
This includes 69, 68, and 26 percent of the cotton, soybean, and corn
acreage in America, respectively. Today, 12 varieties of various crops
are approved for commercial production in the U.S. Most of these
varieties offer one of two primary types of improved traits over their
traditional predecessors: insect resistance or herbicide tolerance.
Worldwide, a total of 140 million acres of GM crops were planted in
2002 (a 12 percent increase over 2001) in 15 nations in addition to the
U.S., including (in approximate order of decreasing acreage) Argentina,
Canada, China, Bulgaria, Colombia, Germany, Honduras, India, Mexico,
Romania, South Africa, Spain and Uruguay.
Status of Plant Biotechnology in Africa
Many people believe that modern biotechnology holds great promise
to provide Africa with the means to achieve the food security that the
Green Revolution (the dramatic increase in agricultural productivity
during the 1960s) did not supply. Recent studies have estimated that a
one percent increase in agricultural productivity could reduce poverty
by six million people in Africa. One of the most promising tools on the
horizon to realize these productivity increases is plant biotechnology.
However, for a variety of complex reasons, including trade concerns and
the lack of an adequate regulatory structure, a shortage of resources,
and the lack of available crop varieties suitable to African climate
and cropping systems, adoption of transgenic crops in Africa has been
very limited.
The nation of South Africa, with relatively strong government
support, more resources and a stronger regulatory structure (and less
reliance on Europe as a trading partner), has by far led the continent
in development and adoption of biotech crops. Four types of GM crops
are approved for commercial use in the country: insect-resistant
cotton, herbicide-tolerant soybeans, and two kinds (white and yellow)
of insect resistant maize. South African farmers have generally
embraced these biotech crops, and their use has expanded rapidly.
Almost 200,000 hectares were planted with GM crops in the 2001/2002
summer season. A survey of small farmers in the Makhatini flats of
Kwazulu Natal in South Africa showed farmers that planted transgenic
cotton experienced increased yields of 33 percent, saved an average of
six pesticide sprays per year, and had a 27 percent increase in net
income.
South Africa also has the strongest plant biotechnology research
effort in Africa. The government has developed and approved a National
Biotechnology Strategy for the country to stimulate growth and
investment in this sector, and has also passed a national biosafety
framework to establish acceptable standards for research and risk
assessment related to biotechnology (including pharmaceuticals).
Biotech research efforts are focused on development of transgenic
grains (maize, sorghum, millet, and barley) and fruits (citrus, mango,
and banana).
Kenya also has a significant biotechnology research program through
the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), which works in
coordination with USAID, private industry, and non-governmental
organizations. This program has developed draft biosafety regulations
and guidelines for the growing biotechnology industry, and has also
successfully developed new varieties of crops important to Kenyan
farmers. One example is a new variety of sweet potato which is
resistant to the feathery mottle virus that used to destroy 60 percent
of the crop each year. The new variety not only increased yields, but
it also dramatically reduced input costs by reducing the amount of
pesticides farmers need to use. (Kenyan farmers typically used to spend
30 percent of production costs on pest control.) KARI also successfully
developed transgenic banana varieties through its research program. In
1997, farmers began planting the bananas in a farm community about 75
km north of Nairobi. By 2000, average yields in the community had risen
from 10 tons per hectare to 40-50 tons per hectare.
Safety Concerns and Trade of Biotech Crops
Notwithstanding the potentially large benefits of plant
biotechnology for Africa, risks and uncertainties do exist related to
the safety of transgenic crops. While earlier fears that GM foods are
not safe for consumption have largely been eased (70 percent of food in
U.S. supermarkets contains genetically modified material), questions
still remain about the long-term impact of transgenic crops on
biodiversity and the environment. The most notable of these questions
are how and how often transgenic genes to ``jump'' to other species and
whether these genes have a significant negative impact on ecosystems
and/or human health.
The debate over these safety risks has sparked worldwide
controversy. The European Union (EU) has cited these concerns as its
reason for not processing new applications of GM crops for importation.
The U.S. has argued that the moratorium on new applications is not
based on sound science, and on May 13, 2003, initiated a World Trade
Organization (WTO) challenge to the EU position. The U.S. has also
argued that, because of their dependency on Europe as a trading
partner, the EU position has caused many African nations to shun plant
biotechnology.
U.S. Support of Plant Biotechnology in Africa
LNational Science Foundation (NSF)
NSF has long been at the forefront of research aimed at better
understanding the molecular, genetic, and biochemical nature of plants.
Developments based on this research have driven progress in plant
biotechnology--and thus are of tremendous interest to the agricultural
community. In keeping with the agency's mission of basic research and
expansion of knowledge, NSF-funded research in this area has focused
primarily on improving understanding of the fundamental biology and
genomic composition of plants.
One area of particular focus for NSF has been study of the plant
Arabidopsis thaliana, which is a relative of plants such as broccoli
and cauliflower. A model organism for plant biology studies,
Arabidopsis has been researched by scientists for many years, and an
effort to sequence the entire Arabidopsis genome--analogous in many
ways to the Human Genome Project--was completed in December 2000. That
effort, part of NSF's Plant Genome Research Program, involved the work
of a consortium of scientists from six different countries. NSF led the
effort for the United States with support from USDA and the Department
of Energy (DOE).
While having the complete DNA sequence of an organism is an
important step in understanding how that organism functions, just
knowing the sequence of all of an organism's genes is not enough to
gain a full understanding of the organism. Central to scientists'
efforts to better understand plants is a clearer understanding of what
individual genes in the organism actually do--information that cannot
be derived from DNA sequences alone. NSF recently launched a research
program to determine the functions of all 25,000 Arabidopsis genes--the
``2010 Project,'' which began in FY 2001. Better understanding the
specific roles of various plant genes and how they contribute to the
overall function of the plant provides the foundation for all aspects
of plant biotechnology.
Building on NSF programs to answer these fundamental questions,
Representatives Smith (MI) and Johnson (TX) authored legislation in the
107th Congress, H.R. 2051, establishing new research programs at the
National Science Foundation, including one that directs NSF to award
grants for research partnerships focused on the developing world. This
legislation was passed by the House, and later included in the NSF
authorization bill that was signed by the President last December (P.L.
107-368). This committee expects the program to be developed and
implemented through NSF's Plant Genome Research Subactivity in the
Biological Sciences Directorate. This Subactivity received $75 million
in funding in fiscal year (FY) 2003, and the FY 2004 request for the
program was also $75 million.
LUnited States Agency for International Development
(USAID)
USAID's agriculture strategy aims to stimulate economic growth and
food security by increasing agricultural productivity. To that end,
USAID has been involved in agricultural biotechnology for more than a
decade as a way to reduce hunger and to combat malnutrition. To realize
the promise of biotechnology, USAID supports research, informs
decision-makers, helps countries formulate regulations, and funds
public outreach to promote the safe use of biotechnology in developing
countries.
Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA)
As part of that effort, USAID formally launched IEHA, a multi-year
effort to cut hunger in African in half by 2015, at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in 2002. IEHA seeks to accomplish that goal by
decreasing Africa's dependence on food aid by $2.6 billion, laying the
foundation for sustainable economic growth, rapidly increasing
agricultural productivity and building African-led partnerships to
address the problems of famine and poverty.
Adapting technology to local needs is a substantial component of
the IEHA. Specifically, the IEHA partners, which include the U.S.,
Canada, the EU, Germany, Mali, Mozambique and Uganda and other
organizations and societies, have created a continent-wide Technology
Access Fund to make new crop technologies, including biotechnology,
available to all African farmers. IEHA also has developed the
Technology Applications for Rural Growth and Economic Transformation
program to adapt and disseminate technologies that can improve African
agriculture through crop and livestock management and other activities.
The initiative also has launched two regional and five country-specific
integrated biotechnology systems development programs to create a new
partnership to expand the use of biotechnology applications in Africa.
Moreover, IEHA is helping to further these and other biotechnology
efforts by creating and linking International Agriculture Research
Centers with 10 U.S. and African universities and research centers,
thereby increasing investment on research aimed at ways to fight
drought, disease and pests and facilitating exchanges.
To launch IEHA, the President requested and received an increase of
25 percent in the USAID annual budget to support agricultural
development efforts in Africa. This effort builds on existing programs
on the continent and, as a result, USAID funding has grown from $113
million in FY 2001, to $137 million in FY 2002, to $164 in FY 2003 in
sub-Saharan Africa. For FY 2004, the President has requested $159
million, of which approximately 30 percent, or $55-$60 million, is
expected to be allocated for technology, including biotechnology.
LRockefeller Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation is a New York-based global charity
established in 1913 with the stated commitment to ``enrich and sustain
the lives and livelihoods of poor and excluded people throughout the
world.'' Rockefeller's activities focus on four thematic lines of work:
Creativity and Culture, Food Security, Health Equity, and Working
Communities.
With regard to Food Security, the Rockefeller Foundation has a goal
to cut global poverty and hunger in half by 2013. This effort includes
a variety of research and other grant-making activities, some of which
focus on plant biotechnology.
The African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), a new
initiative led by the Rockefeller Foundation was announced in early
2003 in collaboration with USAID and agriculture companies Monsanto,
Syngenta, Dow, and DuPont. One of the goals of the AATF is to find
solutions to the complex intellectual property arrangements that often
hamper plant biotech research and development in Africa. In addition to
certain patent rights, the companies will donate seed varieties,
laboratory expertise, and other aid to African scientists working to
battle plant diseases, insects, and drought. The AATF will have a $2.5
million operating budget that includes $1 million from the Rockefeller
Foundation and $550,000 from USAID.
6. WITNESS QUESTIONS
Panel I
No questions for Speaker Hastert.
Panel II
The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in
their testimony:
Questions for Dr. Rita R. Colwell
LWhat is the status of implementation of the Plant
Biotechnology Partnerships for the Developing World program
authorized by Section 8(c) of last year's NSF authorization
legislation (P.L. 107-368)? How can NSF leverage the activities
of this program with those of other government agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and private industry to maximize
the success of these efforts?
LHow does NSF coordinate support of these research
activities with other federal agencies involved in this effort,
such as the U.S. Agency for International Development and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture?
LWhat other fundamental research on plant genomics
specifically related to food crops grown in Africa does the NSF
Plant Genome Research Program support? What countries and
cropping systems does this research focus on and why? What
areas of plant biotechnology research carried out in Africa
hold the most promise to improve food security and foster
sustainable agriculture in Africa?
Questions for Mr. Andrew Natsios
LWhat is the current scope and structure of the U.S.
Agency for International Development's (USAID) support for
plant biotechnology research carried out in Africa (including
specific budget information)? In addition to research, what
other activities aimed at advancing development and adoption of
plant biotechnology in Africa does USAID support? How does
USAID coordinate these activities with other federal agencies
involved in this effort, such as the National Science
Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture?
LWhat areas of plant biotechnology research hold the
most promise to improve food security and foster sustainable
agriculture in Africa? What are the primary impediments to
advancing this research and development, and how can these
barriers be lifted?
LDescribe the Administration's recently announced
Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA). How are scientific
and technological solutions to hunger such as plant
biotechnology are integrated into the IEHA plan? Please also
describe USAID's new Collaborative Agricultural Biotechnology
Initiative (CABIO) and how it is related to IEHA. What
countries and cropping systems are these initiatives focusing
on?
LWhat are the objectives and status of the recently
announced African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF)
partnership between USAID, the Rockefeller Foundation,
Monsanto, Dupont/Pioneer, Dow Agrosciences, Syngenta, and
Aventis? What is USAID's role and level of support in this
initiative?
Panel III
Questions for Dr. Gordon Conway
LWhat is the status of plant biotechnology research
and development carried out in Africa? What successes have been
achieved and what areas of research hold the most promise to
improve the lives of Africans in the future? What are the
primary impediments to advancing the use of biotechnology as a
tool to combat hunger and foster sustainable agriculture in
Africa?
LPlease describe the objectives and status of the
African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF). What is the
Rockefeller Foundation's role in this partnership with the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID) and private
industry? What countries and cropping systems is the initiative
focusing on and why?
LWhat can the Federal Government, specifically the
National Science Foundation, U.S. Agency for International
Development, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, do to
improve coordination of plant biotechnology research carried
out in Africa? What countries and cropping systems should we be
focusing on to maximize the use of available resources? How can
these agencies best leverage their efforts with those of
private industry, universities (U.S. and African), African
governments, and non-governmental organizations?
Questions for Dr. John Kilama
LWhat is the status of plant biotechnology research
and development carried out in Africa? What successes have been
achieved, and what areas of research hold the most promise to
improve the lives of Africans in the future?
LWhat are the primary impediments to advancing the use
of biotechnology as a tool to combat hunger and foster
sustainable agriculture in Africa, and how can these barriers
be lifted? To what extent do you believe the European Union's
trade policy toward genetically modified crops has stalled
plant biotechnology research in Africa?
LWhat can the Federal Government, specifically the
National Science Foundation, U.S. Agency for International
Development, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, do to
improve coordination of plant biotechnology research carried
out in Africa? What countries and cropping systems should we be
focusing on to maximize the use of available resources? How can
these agencies best leverage their efforts with those of
private industry, universities (U.S. and African), African
governments, and non-governmental organizations?
Questions for Dr. Robert B. Horsch
LWhat is the status of plant biotechnology research
and development carried out in Africa? What successes have been
achieved and what areas of research hold the most promise to
improve the lives of Africans in the future?
LHow is Monsanto working with non-governmental
organizations such as the Rockefeller Foundation to advance the
development and adoption of new crop varieties that will
benefit the people of Africa? How does Monsanto balance its
need to continue developing new and profitable products with
its desire to share intellectual property with developing
nations that could benefit from such property but do not have
the means to purchase it?
LWhat are the primary impediments to advancing the use
of biotechnology as a tool to combat hunger and foster
sustainable agriculture in Africa, and how can these barriers
be lifted? To what extent do you believe the European Union's
trade policy toward genetically modified crops has stalled
plant biotechnology research in Africa?
LWhat can the Federal Government, specifically the
National Science Foundation, U.S. Agency for International
Development, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, do to
improve coordination of plant biotechnology research carried
out in Africa? What countries and cropping systems should we be
focusing on to maximize the use of available resources? How can
these agencies best leverage their efforts with those of
private industry, universities (U.S. and African), African
governments, and non-governmental organizations?
Panel 1
Chairman Smith. The Subcommittee on Research will come to
order. Our first witness will be the Speaker of the House,
Dennis Hastert. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for sharing
your comments and enthusiasm on biotechnology. Mr. Johnson
would like to make a comment acknowledging his service under
you in your State.
Mr. Johnson. It is just my honor as Vice Chair of the
Committee, and as a former colleague, and as a member of the
delegation to welcome the Speaker of the House to our presence,
and really welcome your testimony, and appreciate your being
here.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Speaker, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE J. DENNIS HASTERT, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Speaker Hastert. Thank you. When Mr. Johnson talks about a
former colleague, we were actually former colleagues in the
Illinois General Assembly together, so now we are colleagues,
and I am not announcing retirement or anything. I just wanted
to make that perfectly clear.
Mr. Johnson. I am not either.
Speaker Hastert. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Chairman of
the Full Committee, thank you for your graciousness in allowing
me to testify today on something I think is very important. You
know, I think back--before I get into a formal presentation--I
think back 15-16 years ago when I first came to Congress, and
in that period of years, I served on the Commerce Committee,
and you are always looking at the food safety issues. And
constantly, we are talking about, you know, less fertilizer so
we didn't contaminate our water supply, and we talked about let
us use less herbicides so that we didn't have these
contaminants, and less insecticides so that we could preserve
not only the fauna that we have but the wildlife and those
types of things. And you know, how can we make this ecology
that we have better and safer and still carry on the essential
process of agriculture that we have in this country.
And one of the ways and solutions--I remember visiting
Northern Illinois University where they were growing corn and
making it resistant to fungus. And I thought it was amazing how
you could just change those pieces of matter around, the genes
in the corn, and produce something that is completely new, that
could withstand a great deal, whether it might be drought, or
different types of fungus attacks, or insecticide attacks, or
corn borer, whatever it may be.
So with that in mind, I just want to go back and say that
as a representative of the 14th District of Illinois, my
district currently covers portions--excuse me--of eight
counties, which includes four of the top twenty-five corn
producing counties and three of the top 50 soybean producing
counties in the Nation. The State of Illinois is the second
largest producing state of both corn and soybeans in the
country, and 40 percent of this production currently goes to
exports valued at approximately $2.7 billion per year.
U.S. agriculture ranks among the top U.S. industries in
export sales. In fact, the industry generated a $12 billion
trade surplus in 2001, helping mitigate the growing merchandise
trade deficit. It is important to realize, however, that 34
percent of all corn acres and 75 percent of all soybean acres
are genetically modified. And what exactly are we talking about
when we say genetically modified? The EU and other countries
would have you believe that this is a new and special type of
food, questionable for human consumption. In fact, since the
dawn of time, farmers and those who have used the sweat of
their brow to use the earth and the soil to sustain themselves
have been modifying plants to improve yields and to create new
varieties resistant to pests and diseases. And why would we
want to snuff out human ingenuity that benefits farmers and
consumers alike?
Such advancements have been achieved by taking plants with
desirable traits and crossbreeding them. In fact, almost all of
today's commercial crops are now distant cousins from the
plants that first appeared in this country. Biotechnology is
merely the next stage of development in this age old process.
And if you were a junior high student or in the early years of
high school and studying, basically, the basics of
reproduction, you always had the lessons of Mendel and how he
took certain flowers and crossbred them and came up with a
different variety. I mean, this has been going on for ages and
ages.
With respect to biotechnology research, both agricultural
and pharmaceutical, the U.S. has been an undisputed world
leader. In fact, in my district alone, two research facilities
that directly contribute to the efforts in assisting third
world countries through the development of drought resistant
varieties of agriculture products exist. Yet, over the last few
years, we have seen country after country implementing
protectionist trade policies under the cloak of food safety,
each one brought on by emotion, culture, or their own poor
industry or history with food safety regulation and technology.
Among others, China has developed new rules for the
approval and labeling of biotech products. An overwhelming
portion of the entire $1 billion U.S. soybean export crop is
genetically modified. Although implementation has been delayed,
such a labeling program would certainly result in higher food
costs for consumers and higher production costs for farmers.
And of course, most troubling, American farmers have been
subject to an indefensible 5-year moratorium imposed by the
European Union on agriculture biotechnology. This is non-tariff
barrier based simply on prejudice and misinformation, not sound
science. In fact, their own scientists agree that genetically
modified foods are safe.
Simply put, this type of non-tariff protectionism is
detrimental to the free movement of goods and services across
borders. We all know that free trade benefits all countries.
However, free trade will be rendered meaningless if it is short
circuited by non-tariff barriers that are based on fear and
conjecture, not science. In fact, there is general consensus
among the scientific community that genetically modified food
is no different from conventional food. What is different is
not the content of the food but the process by which it is
made. Even labeling genetically modified products would only
mislead consumers and create an atmosphere of fear.
I congratulate President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick for
meeting this resistance head on and putting American farmers
and sound science first by challenging the EU's illegal trade
ban on genetically modified foods before the WTO. And I applaud
Argentina and Canada for joining us in this critical effort to
support a technology that holds colossal benefits for producers
and consumers throughout the world. As part of this endeavor,
it is also important for the public to know that the U.S.
Government has safely regulated biotechnology since its
inception over 30 years ago. And with the rapid evolution of
plant biotechnology in the early 1980's, additional regulation
was added. Ask any American farmer about Government regulation,
and not one will tell you that they are under-regulated.
Biotechnology products are screened by at least one, and
often by as many as three Federal agencies. From conception to
commercial introduction, it can take up to 10 years to bring a
biotech variety to market. Throughout the process, the public
has ample opportunity for participation and comment and data on
which the regulatory decisions are based and readily available.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to let the rest of my comment go
to the record, but let me just say a couple of things. Some of
you had the opportunity to travel, and some of them was with
great pleasure to travel with me. A couple of years ago, we
went to South Africa, and on that trip we went out to a farm
just north of Johannesburg. And on that farm were native South
Africans growing crops. Side by side, the traditional maize or
corn that they would grow, and next to it, the maize or corn
that had been genetically modified. It was genetically modified
so it didn't--it was drought resistant. It was genetically
modified so it would resist the corn borer or the worms that
penetrate into the plant of the corn, and it used less
fertilizer. The plants stood side by side; the same soil, the
same farmer, the same environment. One plant was infested with
worms, it stood about three feet tall. The plant next to it had
a huge amount of grain compared to the first plant, it had no
worms, it stood about eight feet tall and, you know, it was a
product that people could have and, you know, they could
nourish themselves.
Today, when we see starvation, especially in some of our
African countries, we see people who are artificially putting
barriers or threats to us being able to move good healthy food
products into those countries. In my view, that borders on
genocide. It is wrong, it shouldn't happen, and we need to use
our science, we need to use our technology, and we need to
fight those folks who are trying to stop this good, healthy,
nourishing food from going to countries that need it.
I thank you in this committee for your passion to make sure
that we can deliver the best products not only to just the
American people, but all the people in this world, and holding
this hearing today to make sure that this could move forward.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, and all
members. I appreciate your indulgence and your kindness.
[The prepared statement of Speaker Hastert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Speaker J. Dennis Hastert
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee today to comment on the future of biotechnology research. I
appreciate your Committee's work on this important issue, and thank you
for holding this hearing.
As the Representative of the 14th District in Illinois, my district
currently covers portions of eight counties, including four of the top
25 corn-producing counties, and three of the top 50 soybean-producing
counties in the nation. The State of Illinois is the second largest
producing state of both corn and soybeans in the country. Forty percent
of this production currently goes to exports, valued at approximately
$2.7 billion per year.
U.S. agriculture ranks among the top U.S. industries in export
sales. In fact, the industry generated a $12 billion trade surplus in
2001, helping mitigate the growing merchandise trade deficit. It is
important to realize, however, that 34 percent of all corn acres and 75
percent of all soybean acres are genetically modified.
And what exactly are we talking about when we say ``genetically
modified?'' The EU and other countries would have you believe this is a
new and special type of food, questionable for human consumption. In
fact, since the dawn of time, farmers have been modifying plants to
improve yields and create new varieties resistant to pests and
diseases. Why would we want to snuff out human ingenuity that benefits
farmers and consumers alike?
Such advancements have been achieved by taking plants with
desirable traits and crossbreeding them. In fact, almost all of today's
commercial crops are now distant cousins from the plants that first
appeared in this country. Biotechnology is merely the next stage of
development in this age-old process.
With respect to biotechnology research, both agricultural and
pharmaceutical, the U.S. has been the undisputed world leader. In fact,
my district alone includes two research facilities that directly
contribute to the efforts in assisting third world countries through
the development of drought-resistant varieties of agricultural
products.
Yet, over the last few years we have seen country after country
implementing protectionist trade policies under the cloak of food
safety--each one brought on by emotion, culture, or their own poor
history with food safety regulation.
Among others, China has developed new rules for the approval and
labeling of biotech products. An overwhelming portion of the entire $1
billion U.S. soybean export crop is genetically modified. Although
implementation has been delayed, such a labeling program would
certainly result in higher food costs for consumers and higher
production costs for farmers.
And of course most troubling, American farmers have been subject to
an indefensible five-year moratorium imposed by the European Union on
agricultural biotechnology. This is a non-tariff barrier based simply
on prejudice and misinformation, not sound science. In fact, their own
scientists agree that genetically modified foods are safe.
Simply put, this type of non-tariff protectionism is detrimental to
the free movement of goods and services across borders. We all know
that free trade benefits all countries. However, free trade will be
rendered meaningless if it is short-circuited by non-tariff barriers
that are based on fear and conjecture--not science.
In fact, there is general consensus among the scientific community
that genetically modified food is no different from conventional food.
What's different is not the content of the food, but the process by
which it is made. Even labeling genetically modified products would
only mislead consumers and create an atmosphere of fear.
I congratulate President Bush and Ambassador Zoellick for meeting
this resistance head-on and putting American farmers and sound science
first by challenging the EU's illegal trade ban on genetically modified
foods before the WTO. And I applaud Argentina and Canada for joining us
in this critical effort to support a technology that holds colossal
benefits for producers and consumers throughout the world.
As part of this endeavor, it's also important for the public to
know that the U.S. government has safely regulated biotechnology since
its inception over 30 years ago. And with the rapid evolution of plant
biotechnology in the early 1980s, additional regulation was added. Ask
any American farmer about government regulation and not one will tell
you that they are under-regulated.
Biotechnology products are screened by at least one, and often by
as many as three, federal agencies. From conception to commercial
introduction, it can take up to 10 years to bring a biotech variety to
market. Throughout the process, the public has ample opportunity for
participation and comment, and data on which regulatory decisions are
based are readily available.
Nevertheless, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the
contrary, we should all be concerned that this irrational policy is
spreading. And, as a point of fact, the worldwide impact has been
staggering.
The current EU moratorium on genetically-modified products has
translated into an annual loss of over $300 million in corn exports for
U.S. farmers. More disturbing is the recent trend in Africa, where
several nations have rejected U.S. food aid because the shipments
contained biotech corn. This based solely on the fear that EU countries
will not accept their food exports if genetically modified seeds spread
to domestic crops.
Specifically, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique refused U.S. food aid
which consisted of biotech corn. Zimbabwe and Mozambique eventually
accepted the aid, but only after making costly arrangements to mill the
corn so African farmers could not try to grow it.
In addition, it was recently reported that Sudan denied the entry
of genetically-modified agricultural products as aid in relief camps.
According to USAID, this will bring harm to around 97 percent of
children living in relief camps--this is simply unconscionable.
Furthermore, the Ugandan Government has refused to take advantage
of biotech bananas because of fears that the EU will retaliate and
refuse to buy their exports.
Consequently, U.S. farmers are already beginning to plant more non-
biotech seeds. This trend will increase farmers' cost of production as
well as increase the damage from harmful insects. In fact, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has recently approved a corn technology
that will allow the commercialization of the first corn designed to
control rootworm--a pest that costs U.S. farmers approximately $1
billion in lost revenue per year. It is absurd to think that farmers
would not be able to take advantage of this technology.
Clearly, the long-term impact of these policies could be disastrous
for U.S. farmers and research efforts in terms of competitiveness and
the ability to provide food for the world's population. Addressing
world hunger is particularly critical when approximately 800 million
people are malnourished in the developing world, and another 100
million go hungry each day. Biotechnology is the answer to this
pressing problem. Farmers can produce better yields through drought-
tolerant varieties, which are rich in nutrients and more resistant to
insects and weeds, while those in need reap the benefits.
Halting or even slowing down the development of this technology
could have dire consequences for countries where populations are
growing rapidly and all arable land is already under cultivation.
One would think that the European Union, and any country that has
adopted similar protectionist policies, would embrace a technology with
such promising advantages. Sadly, they have not. It has become clear,
that only official WTO action will send a convincing message to the
world that prohibitive policies on biotechnology, which are not based
on sound science, are illegal.
Hopefully, the WTO will act quickly to resolve the Administration's
case on behalf of American farmers and ongoing research efforts.
There's no doubt that the U.S. and American agriculture go into this
battle with the facts on our side. We simply cannot allow the free
trade of our agricultural products to be restricted by these unfair and
unjust policies. After all, the price of inaction is one we can no
longer afford to pay.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Speaker, again, thank you very much. In
fact, we included testimony from a farmer from South Africa,
T.J. Buthelezi, that had the same experience that you
described, so tremendous potential. Thank you very much, for
what I think your presence here does today is add momentum to
the fact that we have got to continue to move ahead on
something that can tremendously help the world, especially,
developing countries, and expand trade. So again, thank you
very much.
Speaker Hastert. Thank you. You are very kind. I appreciate
it.
Chairman Smith. We will proceed with the opening
statements, and I would call on Mrs. Johnson first and then I
will follow her.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses and I was
delighted to see the Speaker. I was on the trip with him when
we went to Africa a couple of years ago. I think that the
hearing on Plant Biotechnology Research and Development in
Africa: Challenges and Opportunities is a good topic and will
focus on how plant biotechnology research can aid in efforts to
combat hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The world population has topped six billion people and is
predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate
food supply for this booming population is going to be a major
challenge in the years to come. However, in recent years, Sub-
Saharan Africa is the only region where agricultural output has
fallen behind population growth. Food demand in this region has
been expanding at an annul rate of 3.1 percent since the mid-
1980's.
It is estimated that about 200 million people in Africa are
chronically hungry. At least 25 percent of the world's
undernourished people live in the region. Millions of Africans,
mostly children under the age of six years, die every year as a
result of hunger. Plant biotechnology research has the
potential to help Sub-Saharan Africa increase food security and
improve the quality and nutritional content of food.
Additionally, biotechnology can also improve the health of
citizens of developing countries by combating illness.
Substantial progress has been made in the developed world
on vaccines against life-threatening illnesses but,
unfortunately, infrastructure limitations often hinder the
effectiveness of traditional vaccination methods in some parts
of the developing world. For example, many vaccines must be
kept refrigerated until they are injected. Even if a health
clinic has electricity and is able to deliver effective
vaccines, the cost of multiple needles can hinder vaccination
efforts. Additionally, the improper use of hypodermic needles
can lead to HIV virus infection and the spread of the virus
that causes AIDS. Biotechnology offers the prospect of orally
delivering vaccines to immunize against life-threatening
illnesses through agricultural products in a safe and effective
manner.
During the 107th Congress, we successfully created a
competitive merit-based grant program at the National Science
Foundation to conduct basic genomic research on crops that can
be grown in developing countries. We believe that this program
can make an invaluable contribution in the fight against
hunger, malnutrition, and disease, by providing research grants
to U.S. institutions and scientists in developing countries to
address agricultural challenges. I hope we will learn more
today about how the program will accomplish these goals, and
also, whether or not we have launched this grant program.
It is our hope that trade disputes between the United
States, the European Union, and African countries do not
prevent this promising technology from benefiting ordinary
Africans facing ongoing food shortages due to agricultural
challenges such as pests, drought, and disease. With increased
investment in genetic engineering that targets specific food
production challenges, the region may achieve what is necessary
to build the basis for food security, reducing dependency on
food aid.
Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing, because I think it is a very important issue. In
addition, I would like to thank all of those in attendance for
appearing at what promises to be a very informative hearing.
And perhaps, Mr. Chairman, when we finish the hearings, we can
go look at some of the work. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses
today to this hearing on Plant Biotechnology Research and Development
in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities. This hearing will focus on how
plant biotechnology research can aid in efforts to combat hunger in
Sub-Saharan Africa.
The world population has topped six billion people and is predicted
to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for
this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years
to come.
However, in recent years Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region
where agricultural output has fallen behind population growth. Food
demand in this region has been expanding at an annual rate of 3.1
percent since the mid-1980s.
It is estimated that about 200 million people in Africa are
chronically hungry. At least 25 percent of the world's undernourished
people live in this region. Millions of Africans, mostly children under
the age of six years, die every year as a result of hunger.
Plant biotechnology research has the potential to help Sub-Saharan
Africa increase food security and improve the quality and nutritional
content of food. Additionally, biotechnology can also improve the
health of citizens of developing countries by combating illness.
Substantial progress has been made in the developed world on vaccines
against life-threatening illnesses, but, unfortunately, infrastructure
limitations often hinder the effectiveness of traditional vaccination
methods in some parts of the developing world. For example, many
vaccines must be kept refrigerated until they are injected. Even if a
health clinic has electricity and is able to deliver effective
vaccines, the cost of multiple needles can hinder vaccination efforts.
Additionally, the improper use of hypodermic needles can spread HIV,
the virus that causes AIDS. Biotechnology offers the prospect of orally
delivering vaccines to immunize against life-threatening illnesses
through agricultural products in a safe and effective manner.
During the 107th Congress, we successfully created a competitive,
merit-based grant program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) to
conduct basic genomic research on crops that can be grown in developing
countries. We believe that this program can make invaluable
contributions in the fight against hunger, malnutrition and disease by
providing research grants to U.S. institutions and scientists in
developing countries to address agricultural challenges.
It is our hope that trade disputes between the United States, the
European Union, and African countries do not prevent this promising
technology from benefiting ordinary Africans facing ongoing food
shortages due to agricultural challenges such as pests, drought, and
disease. With increased investment in genetic engineering that targets
specific food production challenges, the region may achieve what is
necessary to build the basis for food security: reducing dependency on
food aid.
Chairman Smith. A good time to bring that up with the
Chairman of the Committee here, who will, I am sure, be
delighted to approve our Code L to do that. Mr. Chairman, would
you like to make a comment?
Chairman Boehlert. No. I am just anxious to get on with the
hearing. It is a very important subject, and we have some very
distinguished witnesses, and we have been delayed somewhat, as
to the Speaker's schedule, but I was so happy to see him here.
I was privileged to accompany him on that trip and I saw and I
marveled at the same things he saw and marveled at, and the
potential is just unlimited. So the more good science we can
introduce to the subject, the better off we are all going to
be, and we are going to hear from some of the best, so let us
get on with the hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Well, I have to make a short opening
statement, Mr. Chairman, but I want to welcome everybody to
this hearing. I think it is exceptionally important. I,
especially, compliment Representative Johnson, the Ranking
Member of this committee, for her bill 2912 that was
incorporated into the National Science Foundation bill that
opens, really, the door for helping people in the world that
need that help, and part of this hearing will be to review how
we progress on that particular help.
The Subcommittee is here to discuss these issues of
biotechnology, their potential, their safety. Specifically, we
will discuss this morning the status of plant biotechnology
research and development in Africa, examine why most of Africa
has not benefited from biotech crops today, and try to
determine what factors may be limiting the research efforts in
Africa. We will also review how the Federal Government, through
USAID, NSF, USDA, other agencies, can improve coordination with
each other and with non-Government entities, and ultimately,
improve communication of accurate scientific information on the
potential and safety of plant biotechnology. This will
accelerate progress toward development and adoption of new
beneficial crop varieties in Africa and other developing
countries and throughout the world. I am also particularly
interested in learning how NSF will be participating in this
effort and how they will be implementing the plant genome
centers and partnerships dealing with these developing
countries.
It is estimated that most of the people in Africa are
undernourished, over 190 million people in that continent.
Since 1990, per capita incomes there have actually been
decreasing. If something isn't done, if action isn't taken,
then we are going to be facing an even greater calamity than
what can be avoided. The potential of biotechnology is only
limited by the creativity of the science community in
developing the kind of plant nutrition, developing the kind of
products that can grow in the soil and the climate that
heretofore haven't been able to produce adequate supplies of
food. There is no question that we have made some inroads.
There is no question that Administrator Natsios, and AID more
probably than ever before in AID's history, has moved ahead in
exploring agriculture as a fundamental need, as a starting
point that needs to be accomplished if we are going to
contribute significantly to aiding these countries that
especially need our help.
Without objection, the rest of my statement will be entered
into the record, but I want to say through plant biotechnology
research, scientists are developing a genetically modified
banana that is resistant to a Black Sigatoka disease that is
now spreading throughout the world. Our product that is going
to resist that disease and produce a banana where you don't
have to have the expense of these fungicides is, in effect, in
the refrigerator ready to go, and there is an unwillingness in
Africa to move ahead, and in other countries producing this
banana, because of fear that Europe might shut off their
exports. It seems to me that if we can just start doing some of
the projects to help these people, if we can help convince
Europe on the safety of these products, then we are going to
have the ability to move ahead helping these countries. And
with that, without objection, the rest of my statement will be
entered into the record.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Nick Smith
Good morning and welcome to this hearing of the Subcommittee on
Research. Today the Subcommittee meets to discuss an issue of great
interest to Ranking Member Johnson and I--advancing plant biotechnology
research and development to help the world's poorest continent take
advantage of a powerful tool in the battle against poverty and hunger.
Specifically, we will discuss this morning the status of plant
biotechnology R&D in Africa, examine why most of Africa has not
benefited from biotech crops to date, and try to determine what factors
may be limiting research efforts. We will also review how the Federal
Government, through USAID, NSF, USDA, and other agencies, can improve
coordination--with each other and with non-government entities--and
ultimately improve communication of accurate scientific information on
the potential and safety of plant biotechnology. This will accelerate
progress toward development and adoption of new beneficial crop
varieties for the countries of Africa. I am also particularly
interested in learning how NSF will be participating in this effort,
and how they will be implementing the Plant Genome Centers and
Partnerships with the Developing World programs that we established in
the new NSF authorization law, which to date has been unclear.
It is estimated that 190 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa are
undernourished. Since 1990, per capita incomes there have actually been
decreasing. If action is not taken, conditions are expected to worsen
even more. We work hard to provide adequate food aid to the people of
Africa, but this only provides short-term relief. In the long term,
increasing agricultural productivity is the best way to help Africa
achieve food security. Even modest successes in this effort could have
a tremendous impact on the people of Africa, with a one percent
productivity increase estimated to bring six million African men, women
and children out of poverty.
Our best hope to realize those productivity increases is by
harnessing the powerful tool of plant biotechnology. Plant
biotechnology has the potential to create new varieties of crops that
can tolerate drought and infertile soils, resist pests and disease, and
provide other unique characteristics such as enhanced nutrient content.
In some parts of Africa, farmers have already benefited from GM
crops. We received written testimony for this hearing from T.J.
Buthelezi, a cotton farmer in South Africa, whose crop yields doubled
and pesticide applications decreased by more than 80 percent after he
began planting biotech ``Bt'' cotton. Now, 90 percent of the farmers in
Mr. Buthelezi's region are using Bt cotton. Similarly, researchers in
Kenya are completing development of a virus resistant sweet potato
capable of withstanding a disease that traditionally destroys 60
percent of the crop in a normal year. Soon, Kenyan farmers will also be
able to benefit from the reduced input costs and increased yields
offered by many biotech crops.
Contrary to what much of the organized opposition to plant
biotechnology has argued, the farmers have overwhelmingly welcomed this
new technology. As Mr. Buthelezi noted in his written testimony, ``We
were not pushed to this improved seed, but we were attracted by the
benefits.. . .Countries in Africa should be encouraged to use these
improved crops because farmers will improve yields and make more money
to improve their lives. That is what all farmers want.''
Another example of the potential impact of biotech crops is in
Uganda, where the Black Sigatoka fungus currently devastates banana
yields by as much as 70 percent. Farmers are spending over 25 percent
of their input costs on fungicides alone. But through plant
biotechnology research, scientists are developing a GM banana that is
resistant to the disease, and would reduce the need for fungicide
applications while also dramatically increasing yields. I am concerned,
however, that European trade pressures may be slowing the development
of this new banana variety into commercial application, and I would
like to discuss this more today.
Indeed, many exciting opportunities are beginning to open up for
the people of Africa. Unfortunately, the success stories in South
Africa and Kenya have been the exception rather than the rule. It is
important that other nations are equipped with the level of resources,
expertise, and infrastructure needed to take advantage of these
opportunities with the same degree of success that South Africa has.
Now, perhaps more than any other time, the people of Africa are at
a very important crossroads. One on hand, they face the ominous
prospect of rapid population growth and continued agricultural
productivity declines leading to increased poverty and starvation in
the next decade. One the other, however, with the help of new tools
such as plant biotechnology, they have the potential to dramatically
increase agricultural productivity and consequently achieve food
security. More than a political debate, this is a debate about the very
lives and future of African people. To do our part to ensure the
balance shifts toward increased food security, we must be proactively
engaged in this issue.
This will require an effective coordinated effort by federal
agencies such as NSF and USAID, as well as non-governmental entities
such as those we have before us this morning. It will also require that
we ensure our policy approach to plant biotechnology minimizes the
influence of politics and maximizes the influence of sound science,
with full consideration given to the benefits, costs, and risks
associated with the technology. This should be the case in all aspects
of plant biotech policy--trade, research, regulation--we must demand
sound science drives decision-making.
I hope this morning's hearing will contribute positively to that
effort.
Panel 2
Chairman Smith. And if Director Colwell and Administrator
Natsios will come to the witness table? Let me just say that
Rita Colwell, who is Director of the National Science
Foundation, is an exceptional leader in science. We have--under
her leadership and guidance, we have moved ahead greatly over
the last several years, so we appreciate you, Dr. Colwell,
being in your job and giving it the effort that it takes to
make it a success. And the Honorable Administrator Natsios,
thank you for being here this morning. You have excited me
personally in some of your testimony before Congress in terms
of the kind of spirit and enthusiasm that it is going to take
to make biotechnology a reality in the rest of the world. So
with that, Dr. Colwell, first, we will call on you, and then
Mr. Natsios.
STATEMENT OF DR. RITA R. COLWELL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION
Dr. Colwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Johnson, and Members of the Committee. I very much appreciate
the opportunity to testify today on this very important topic,
Plant Biotechnology and Research in Africa, but I want to say
in aside, this is a very special day. To have the Honorable
Speaker of the House testify on behalf of fundamental research,
I have to tell you, I am a very happy scientist.
I would also add for the record that a few weeks ago I
visited the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, on the
occasion of the University commencement where I received an
honorary degree. While I was there, I did, indeed, tour the
fields where the crop research is being done, and the basic
research is excellent and a major contribution to plant
genomics.
So let me now return to my testimony and tell you that for
the past 50 years, the National Science Foundation, NSF, has
been engaged with the global scientific community through
collaborative partnerships. And in recent years, we have
witnessed what I would call a very dramatic growth in the
connectivity of the world's scientific and engineering
community. It offers enormous opportunities and challenges. Of
particular importance to the Foundation and to me personally
are NSF's partnerships with scientists and engineers in the
developing world. My own research career has built, really,
very strongly on collaborative interactions and work with
scientists in Bangladesh and India.
The National Science Foundation's approach to collaborative
work in the developing world has built on our principles of
quality, merit review, and the integration of research and
education. We are able to support the movement of students and
researchers who travel to Africa and participate in seminars
and research in Africa. These American researchers function as
collaborators, and in some cases, their trainers. We estimate
that NSF has spent approximately $63 million in the past four
years on research with and about Sub-Saharan Africa.
Now, based on the experiences of NSF with international
collaborations and the importance of these efforts, we want to
and will do more. NSF, under the auspices of the National
Science and Technology Council's Interagency Working Group on
Plant Genomes, has initiated discussions with AID, USAID, and
also with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Energy, to support research collaborations between scientists
from U.S. academic institutions and developing countries in
plant biotechnology. Although we are still early in the stages
of these efforts, NSF is moving in the direction that is
provided for in our recently enacted reauthorization and many
of NSF's ongoing programs in plant genome research are going to
be very important--in fact, instrumental--in meeting the
Committee's interest in these areas.
We currently support workshops, collaborative efforts
throughout the developing world, but we want to expand these
efforts and establish stronger partnerships which address some
of the capacity needs in the developing world, and we will need
to continue to partner with other agencies that are able to
provide significant funds to institutions in the developing
world. Now, as you know, at NSF we focus resources on funding
U.S. scientists and institutions, but we also establish
partnerships with other agencies, including USAID, and thereby,
will be able to develop programs that address critical research
topics, engage the U.S. scientific and engineering community,
and build collaborative projects with developing country
scientists, and contribute to capacity building in the
developing world.
Let me speak for a moment about how the interagency
coordination takes place. The National Plant Genome Initiative
was established in 1998, and I know you, Mr. Chairman, are a
very strong supporter of the initiative. It is a coordinated
National Plant Genome Research Program. Under the auspices of
the NSTC, it includes representatives from the Department of
Agriculture, Department of Energy, National Institutes of
Health, National Science Foundation, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and the Office of Management and Budget.
USAID joined in 2002. Simply stated, the National Plant Genome
Initiative has transformed plant research in the United States.
It has resulted in a new generation of scientists entering the
field and it has changed the way research is conducted in plant
biology. During the past five years, U.S. researchers and their
international partners have formed research teams for wheat,
rice, bananas, and cereal crops to coordinate research on crops
that are grown in Africa and worldwide.
Now, many assert, just as the Speaker has done, that
science and technology can help bring food stability to regions
like the Horn of Africa which has suffered from a terrible
drought that has affected 15 million people. In July 2002, the
Nobel laureate, the father of the Green Revolution, Dr. Norman
Borlaug, said that he believes the world has the technology
that is either available now or very well advanced in the
research pipeline to feed on a sustainable basis a population
of 10 billion people. Revolutionary advances in plant genomics
can accelerate the process of knowledge transfer for the
benefit of developing countries. A genomic based revolution in
world agriculture, equaling a success of the Green Revolution
that doubled the yield of cereal crops, is a real possibility,
and it could, indeed, alleviate the suffering of millions of
people.
So let me conclude my brief remarks by saying that NSF and
the NSF supported research community are poised to work with
scientists in developing countries to realize the full
potential of plant genomics on a global scale. We are
enthusiastic about participating in this extremely important
endeavor. We will bring our resources to bear. We are already
working with our sister agencies through the established and
very successful National Plant Genome Initiative. And I am
going to close by again quoting Dr. Borlaug. ``It took some
10,000 years to expand food production to the current level of
about five billion gross tons per year. Within 25 to 35 years,
or 30 years, we will have to nearly double the current
production again. This cannot be done unless farmers across the
world have access to current high-yielding crop production
methods, as well as new biotechnological breakthroughs that can
increase the yields, the dependability, and the nutritional
quality of our basic food crops.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support and for this
opportunity to testify. And I really want to express our
appreciation for your continued very strong support of NSF. I
will be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Colwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rita R. Colwell
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the Committee,
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on this important topic--
Plant Biotechnology and Research in Africa. Since its creation the
National Science Foundation has recognized the central role
international partnership plays in achieving America's research and
development objectives. For over fifty years we have been engaged with
the global scientific community through collaborative partnerships. In
recent years we have witnessed a dramatic growth in the connectivity of
the world's scientific and engineering community--which offers enormous
opportunities and challenges.
Of particular importance to the Foundation and to me personally are
NSF's partnerships with scientists and engineers in the developing
world. In the developing world there are scientific challenges and
scientific expertise that are important to the U.S. Our partnership
with the developing world holds the potential for growth in many areas.
My own research career has built strongly on collaborative work with
scientists in Bangladesh. Traditionally, NSF has worked with developing
countries through its own programs and in the past, through
partnerships with USAID.
The Foundation's approach to collaborative work in the developing
world has built on our principles of quality, merit review, and the
integration of research and education. Our potential lies in our
ability to mobilize and support the U.S. scientific and engineering
community. We are able to support the movement of students and
researchers who travel to Africa and participate in seminars and
research. These American researchers function as collaborators and in
some cases, trainers. American students who travel to Africa expand
their own training, share their evolving expertise and contribute to
research advances. In the past four fiscal years, we estimate that NSF
has expended approximately $63 million on research with and about sub-
Saharan Africa.
In the past strong partnerships across institutions and countries
have resulted in important progress. The successful sequencing of the
rice genome was the result of collaboration and investment by several
partners--the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID (through its contributions
to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research), NSF,
USDA, DOE and the funding agencies of many of our international
partners. The current efforts in rice functional genomics are
coordinated by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the
Philippines. Additionally, we have partnered with USAID, to work on the
important topic of biodiversity in the developing world.
Based on these experiences and the importance of these efforts we
want and plan to do more. We have heightened our activity with our
interagency partnerships, and are currently having discussions with
both USAID and the World Bank. The interagency process for coordination
of efforts is underway. We will continue to seek to develop
partnerships that bring to bear the resources of the development
agencies for capacity building that will mobilize and support the best
scientists and engineers in the U.S. and its international partners.
Efforts to Establish a Plant Biotechnology Partnership for the
Developing World
Recognizing the readiness of the research community and the
scientific opportunities available, NSF, through the auspices of the
National Science and Technology Council's Interagency Working Group on
Plant Genomes, has initiated discussions with USAID, the Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) to support
research collaborations between scientists from U.S. academic
institutions and developing countries in plant biotechnology.
The key interest is in greater engagement with developing countries
in plant biotechnology research. We agree that plant genome research
provides an ideal opportunity to work together toward this goal. A
joint activity under discussion will link U.S. researchers with
partners from developing countries to address developing country needs
with the most current and appropriate technologies available, and to
establish long-term relationships between participating scientists. It
is important that exchange of ideas and people are reciprocal, and
should be built on equal partnerships between the U.S. and scientists
of developing nations.
Although we are still early in the stages of these efforts, NSF is
moving in the direction provided for in the National Science Foundation
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368), and many of NSF's ongoing programs in plant
genome research will prove instrumental in meeting the Committee's
interests in these areas.
Currently NSF's Office of International Science and Engineering is
exploring how we can build on our existing investments and develop
innovative programs with developing world scientists. We currently
support workshops and collaborative efforts throughout the developing
world. However, to expand these efforts and establish stronger
partnerships which address some of the capacity needs in the developing
world, we will need to continue to partner with other agencies that are
able to provide significant funds to institutions in the developing
world. As you know we must focus NSF resources on funding U.S.
scientists and institutions. However, through partnerships with other
agencies, such as USAID, we will be able to develop programs that
address critical research topics, engage the U.S. scientific and
engineering community, build collaborative projects with developing
country scientists and contribute to capacity building in the
developing world.
Coordination of Plant Biotechnology Research Activities
The National Plant Genome Initiative (NPGI) was established in 1998
as a coordinated national plant genome research program by the
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Plant Genomes, under the auspices of
the National Science and Technology Council, with representatives from
the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Energy (DOE),
National Institute of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF),
Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). USAID joined the IWG in 2002.
Under the NPGI, genomics has transformed plant research in the
United States. It has changed the way research is conducted in plant
biology; it has attracted a new generation of scientists into the
field; and it has contributed new information and knowledge to science.
The NPGI has built a foundation on which the scientific community can
advance research, not only in plant genomics but also in diverse
disciplines ranging from fundamental biological sciences to
biotechnology.
Recognizing that science is global, the NPGI actively encourages
international partnerships. During the past five years, U.S.
researchers and their international partners have formed the Cereal
Genome Initiative, the International Genome Research Organization for
Wheat; the International Rice Functional Genomics Consortium; and the
Global Musa (banana and plantain) Genomic Consortium, to conduct and
coordinate research on crops grown in Africa and worldwide.
One of the scientific thrusts of the NPGI five-year plan is
``Translational Plant Genomics.'' As functions are assigned to genes in
a few key model plant species, this information can be used to explore
basic plant biology and to develop technologies to enhance the yields
of crops of economic value. These technologies will be especially
valuable for addressing issues associated with crops grown in
developing countries.
NSF's Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP) and Plant Biotechnology in
Africa
A regional drought in the Horn of Africa has created a food crisis
affecting 15 million people in Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia. As a
result, chronic child malnutrition is dangerously high and is creeping
higher. In addition, substantial seed shortages exist that may inhibit
recovery even if the rains materialize.
While the issue is a complex one, many assert that science and
technology can help bring food stability to regions like the Horn of
Africa. In July 2002, the Nobel laureate and ``father'' of the ``Green
Revolution,'' Dr. Norman Borlaug, said he believes the world has the
technology--either available now or well advanced in the research
pipeline--to feed on a sustainable basis a population of 10 billion
people.
To achieve this goal, U.S. and international organizations, such as
USAID, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR), and the Rockefeller Foundation have been working to bring the
latest scientific knowledge to the developing world.
NSF's Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP) can play a pivotal role
by bringing together scientists from the U.S. and developing countries,
and by developing long-term partnerships. The PGRP supports research on
many of the crops grown in Africa as well as on plant traits that are
important to agriculture in Africa.
Cereal crops grown in Africa include rice (African varieties) grown
in Western Africa, wheat and barley in Northern Africa, Maize in sub-
Saharan Africa, sorghum which originated in Africa, and millet in the
Sahelian Zone of Africa. In addition to grains for food, Africans
utilize straws (stalks) of cereal plants for animal feed, building
materials or fuels. Food legumes grown in Africa include chickpea,
cowpea, beans, lentil, pigeonpea and soybean: Oil crops include coconut
and groundnut. Other important crops grown in Africa are coffee,
spices, cassava, potato, sweet potato, yam, banana and plantain.
NSF also supports plant biotechnology research that holds
significant promise to improve food security and foster sustainable
agriculture in Africa. Examples include: the interactions between
Striga (the number one weed pest in Africa) and host plants; tolerance
to environmental stresses such as drought and salinity; insect
resistance; and resistance to fungal and viral diseases.
Research supported under the PGRP can contribute to identifying
valuable genetic resources in native germplasm and marker-assisted
breeding of African crops. More importantly, new and unexpected ways to
improve plants or to use native plants will occur over time.
Clearly, the NSF-supported researchers are poised to work with
scientists in developing countries to collaborate on translational
plant genomics, which will contribute to sustainable food security in
developing countries.
Revolutionary advances in plant genomics can accelerate the process
of knowledge transfer for the benefit of developing countries. A
genomic-based revolution in world agriculture, equaling the success of
the Green Revolution that doubled the yield of cereal crops, is a real
possibility, and could help alleviate the suffering of millions of
people.
Concluding Remarks
Mr. Chairman, NSF's ongoing efforts in these areas are consistent
with the recommendations contained in the National Science Board's 2001
report, ``Toward a More Effective Role for the U.S. Government in
International Science and Engineering'' which observed that:
L``. . .NSF can contribute significantly to the improvement of
scientific capabilities in a number of developing countries
through its support of global- and regional-scale research, and
by promoting increased interaction among U.S. scientists and
engineers and those in developing countries.''
The Board went on to recommend that:
L``NSF should take a more active role in facilitating
cooperation in international S&E and higher education. It
should work closely with other federal technical agencies and
multilateral scientific organizations that have S&E interests
in the developing countries, and with domestic and
international development assistance organizations in seeking
out opportunities, identifying goals and targets, and
developing cooperative projects in partnerships.''
NSF and the NSF-supported research community are poised to expand
our work with scientists in developing countries in realizing the
potential of plant genomics to its fullest on a global scale. We are
excited to participate in this extremely important endeavor and will
bring our resources to bear. We are already working with our sister
agencies through the established and successful National Plant Genome
Initiative. I would like to close by again quoting Dr. Borlaug:
L``It took some 10,000 years to expand food production to the
current level of about five billion gross tons per year. Within
25-30 years, we will have to nearly double current production
again. This cannot be done unless farmers across the world have
access to current high-yielding crop-production methods as well
as new biotechnological breakthroughs that can increase the
yields, dependability and nutritional quality of our basic food
crops.''
Thank you Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to testify, and for
your continued strong support of NSF. I would be happy to respond to
any questions you might have.
Biography for Dr. Rita Rossi Colwell
Dr. Rita R. Colwell became the 11th Director of the National
Science Foundation on August 4, 1998. Since taking office, Dr. Colwell
has spearheaded the agency's emphases in K-12 science and mathematics
education, graduate science and engineering education/training and the
increased participation of women and minorities in science and
engineering.
Her policy approach has enabled the agency to strengthen its core
activities, as well as establish support for major initiatives,
including Nanotechnology, Biocomplexity, Information Technology,
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences and the 21st Century
Workforce. In her capacity as NSF Director, she serves as Co-chair of
the Committee on Science of the National Science and Technology
Council.
Before coming to NSF, Dr. Colwell was President of the University
of Maryland Biotechnology Institute, 1991-1998, and she remains
Professor of Microbiology and Biotechnology (on leave) at the
University Maryland. She was also a member of the National Science
Board (NSF's governing body) from 1984 to 1990.
Dr. Colwell has held many advisory positions in the U.S.
Government, non-profit science policy organizations, and private
foundations, as well as in the international scientific research
community. She is a nationally respected scientist and educator, and
has authored or co-authored 16 books and more than 600 scientific
publications. She produced the award-winning film, Invisible Seas, and
has served on editorial boards of numerous scientific journals.
She is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Medal of
Distinction from Columbia University, the Gold Medal of Charles
University, Prague, and the University of California, Los Angeles, and
the Alumna Summa Laude Dignata from the University of Washington,
Seattle.
Dr. Colwell has also been awarded 26 honorary degrees from
institutions of higher education, including her Alma Mater, Purdue
University. Dr. Colwell is an honorary member of the microbiological
societies of the UK, France, Israel, Bangladesh, and the U.S. and has
held several honorary professorships, including the University of
Queensland, Australia. A geological site in Antarctica, Colwell Massif,
has been named in recognition of her work in the polar regions.
Dr. Colwell has previously served as Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the American Academy of Microbiology and also as President
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
Washington Academy of Sciences, the American Society for Microbiology,
the Sigma Xi National Science Honorary Society, and the International
Union of Microbiological Societies. Dr. Colwell is a member of the
National Academy of Sciences.
Born in Beverly, Massachusetts, Dr. Colwell holds a B.S. in
Bacteriology and an M.S. in Genetics, from Purdue University, and a
Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of Washington.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Madam Director. Mr.
Administrator.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW S. NATSIOS, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Natsios. Thank you very much, Congressman Smith and
members of the Committee. I want to thank you for inviting us
today to testify on this extraordinarily important subject, a
subject that I am deeply concerned about. I am an Africanist.
While I have responsibility for the whole world, developing
world, I spent a good deal of my time in Africa, and so I am
very familiar with the statistics that Congresswoman Johnson
from Texas mentioned earlier, that 1/3 of Africans are
chronically food insecure.
The only way we can change this bleak situation in Africa
is to invest more in agricultural development. Beginning in
1987, we began cutting our agriculture budget in AID. We had a
budget of $1.3 billion in 1986. When I arrived in AID in 2002--
I am sorry, 2001--our budget had declined to $243 million. So
there was a $1 billion cut in agricultural development in AID
over that period of time. And the whole constituency had
deteriorated for agriculture, but there has been a terrible
consequence for that, and that is that the only area of the
world in which productivity is declining in agricultural
production is Africa. The only way we are going to reverse this
bleak situation is: (1) To put more money into agricultural
development; (2) To invest some of that in biotechnology and
biotechnology research in Africa to develop seed varieties
appropriate to the agriclimatic conditions in Africa.
Biotechnology is not going to solve all of the problems
because poverty and hunger are a complex phenomena, but
biotechnology can be an important part of a broader solution to
increase productivity. Seventy percent of Africans depend on
agriculture for their livelihood, 70 percent. And that is true,
actually, worldwide, 70 percent of the poorest people in the
world live in rural areas and they are farmers and herders. If
we do not invest in agricultural development, we will not deal
with the problem of global poverty.
Let me just give you four statistics that are very
disturbing. Yields of basic food grains in Africa per hectare
are 1/5 of those in China, 1/5. Fertilizer use in Africa is
eight kilograms per hectare, 8. In Latin America it is 60
kilograms per hectare, in Asia it is 100 kilograms per hectare.
Only four percent of Africa's farmland is irrigated, while in
the Middle East it is 29 percent and in Asia it is 34 percent.
The Green Revolution has only begun to touch Africa in the last
decade. In Asia and Latin America, between 60 and 80 percent of
the crop area is planted with modern improved varieties of
different, either fruits or vegetables or grains. In Africa,
the percentage is only 20 to 30 percent. The results are stark.
Per capita agricultural activity has declined over the last
four decades where everywhere else in the world it has
increased.
New research published last month in Science Magazine has
shown that the Green Revolution is finally reaching Africa, and
it is interestingly enough in the three countries in Africa we
put a lot of money in agricultural production: Angola,
Mozambique, and Uganda. That is where the biggest productivity
increases have been shown based on improved seed technologies.
We believe that if this Green Revolution can be accelerated, it
can address the problem of chronic malnutrition and food
insecurity.
I want to go through some of the charges made against
biotechnology by some of the groups that have been leading the
charge against it, particularly, in Europe. The first argument
is that biotechnology in Africa is taking investment away from
other interventions. In fact, we are only spending about $25
million on biotech out of our $300 million agriculture budget.
We would like to increase that and we intend to over time as
the research capacity improves. But biotechnology, if you talk
to African scientists, African agriculture ministers, they
believe this, in fact, holds one of the many solutions they
need to catch up.
The second is that accepting biotechnology crops will make
African farmers dependent on multinational companies, and this
is sort of part of the anti-globalization hysteria that we
hear, that we have seen in some of the multilateral institution
meetings. Well, we are actually working right now with African
universities and national research programs to develop African
solutions to African problems. I opened in January of last year
a new biotechnology research center at the Ministry of
Agriculture in Egypt that was jointly financed by the Egyptian
Government and by USAID, the U.S. Government, and the State
Department. The Minister of Agriculture was close to tears. He
had been trying for 20 years--he is an agricultural scientist--
to get this center open. Finally, his dream was achieved and
they are now beginning to develop varieties that would be
appropriate for the agriclimatic soil conditions of Egypt.
So we have begun this process already. We have also
invested heavily in the capacity of South-African universities
to develop material, genetic material, that is appropriate for
South African and other African climates. Farmers in Africa
will be their own judge of what is commercially viable for them
in terms of biotech seeds. If it gives them a good return, they
are going to buy it; if it doesn't, it is not going to. And if
we start developing seed varieties that are in the public
domain, which, in fact, is what we are doing in many of these
countries, it is not a matter of multinational corporations. So
this is really an illusion and I think it is a rhetorical
excess to argue that multi-nationalism in terms of the
international economy is going to somehow make Africa
dependent. Latin American countries like Argentina, Asian
countries like India and China, are already investing in this,
and the Philippines, for example, another country that is
investing in this technology now.
The third argument is that biotechnology derived crops will
adversely affect the environment in Africa. In science, there
is no such thing as no risk with any new crop variety or any
new technology. The question, of course, is an economist's and
a scientist's question, what is the alternative? If the
alternative is improved varieties or hybrids, there are risks
with those as well. The question is, if we take the view that
all improvements in technology and science cause unacceptable
risks, then we will never make any scientific progress, and we,
in fact, will not address the major agricultural and
nutritional problems facing the continent.
Canada, Argentina, the U.S., the Philippines, India, and
South Africa have all shown that risks can be safely managed
and effective. There is a wonderful book by IFPRI
[International Food Policy Research Institute], which is a
think tank on food security that is a subsidiary of the UN. It
was run until recently by a Danish scientist, Per Pinstrup-
Andersen, a good friend of mine, and he wrote a wonderful book
with another Danish colleague. I point this out because they
are Europeans, let me just say, not Americans. They wrote a
wonderful book called Seeds of Contention about biotechnology,
and they go through the empirical evidence and the research,
and they conclude, one, Africans and other third world
countries need to make their own decisions. Obviously, all of
us agree with that. But the evidence is overwhelming that this
is an option that will help in many countries to deal with
these problems.
In China, we know that when biotech cotton was introduced,
farmers no longer had to buy atropine. You know what atropine
is for. For people who get poisoned, atropine is a way of
preventing the person from dying. Literally, Chinese farmers,
when they bought their pesticides, had to buy atropine because
their kids would get poisoned with it. They are savings
hundreds, if not thousands, of their own farmers lives now by
not having to use pesticide anymore when they are growing their
cotton crop; that is saving peoples' lives, and we have had
Chinese farmers and scientists publicly testify at
international meetings on this.
This is the next charge, growing biotechnology derived
crops will harm export of agricultural products to Europe. This
is the thing that is most disturbing to me. When we had one of
the most serious droughts in southern Africa in a very long
time, during the Johannesburg summit, some groups began
arguing--they were not African groups, I might add--that this
was dangerous to accept food aid from the United States because
our corn crop, one-third of our corn crop, is biotech corn, and
it has been for seven years. I went on TV all over Africa and
said the President eats it, all of our Members of Congress eat
it when they eat cereals, and the reality is that there hasn't
been any health problems, there haven't been any lawsuits, and
we are a litigious society, and it is in our food system. And
frankly, you have been eating it for seven years because you
have been getting food aid from us. I find it curious that this
issue was brought up after seven years of that food being
distributed, and everybody knew in senior ministries that we
had biotech corn in the United States and that was part of our
food basket we provided food aid. They decided to bring it up
in the middle of this conference, in the middle of a terrible
food emergency facing 25 million people.
Now, what was spread around Africa during that crisis is
this. In one country, a science and technology minister who
supported biotech privately told me in the Muslim areas of this
country, the rumors are being spread by these groups that we
had put pig genes into corn and that the corn we were providing
in food aid had pigs in it, which, of course, is sacrosanct in
terms of Islamic teaching. I said, none of our 52, or whatever
it is, corn varieties--I think seven of which we actually have
in our agricultural system--have any animal genes, let alone
pig genes. I have never heard of a pig gene being in any of our
research and certainly isn't in corn. Who told you this? And he
said, these groups are spreading this in the Muslim areas to
create a hysteria.
The second rumor, this is in another country that exports
vegetables, grains--not grains--vegetables, fruits, and nuts to
Europe, but no grains. Europe is not going to import corn from
Africa. They grow their own corn. They don't need corn from
Africa. What they do need are various fruits, and vegetables,
and nuts. They were told--the scientists were ignored in the
ministries--these groups are spreading rumors around that if
you plant the food aid that starving people would be getting--
by the way, I have never seen, and I have done famine work all
over the earth--people who are hungry do not take food aid and
plant it as seed. Do you know why? Because they are worried
they are not going to survive until the next harvest. They are
not going to plant it for food aid. We give them seed
separately to plant and it is usually from local varieties or
improved varieties. They don't use food aid for seed purposes,
but they were told if you plant it, the corn will cross
pollinate with your tomatoes, and your nuts, and your coffee,
and your tea, and none of us in Europe will import it because
of the damage it is going to do to your agricultural system.
Well, I said, I am not a scientist, but our scientists tell
me you cannot cross match through open pollination a corn that
is planted, even though it is unlikely that would happen, with
another variety. You can do it with another variety; you can't
do it with fruits, or vegetables, or corn. It is just
scientifically not going to happen. But once again, these
rumors are being spread around. So most of this stuff, this
material, this information that is being spread around, is
deliberately designed to cause panic. So let me just--the final
comment is that we are dumping surplus food that we won't eat
ourselves. That is the argument I heard of our food aid in the
developing world, because Americans won't eat it. That is
complete nonsense. We all know that is nonsense, and I
mentioned this argument repeatedly because of how fraudulent it
is. We are not dumping anything, in fact. We buy the same food
in the same markets in the same areas of the middle west for
our food aid as the food we all eat on our breakfast table.
So finally, I just want to say, we have a great opportunity
to reverse this by public education, to push these groups aside
that are misleading people so much. It is very troubling that
this is happening. It is an enormous opportunity. I will, in
the questions and answers, go into what we are doing and what
we are investing in now, but my time has run out. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Natsios follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew S. Natsios
Chairman Smith and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to
participate in this important discussion today on biotechnology
research and development in Africa.
The African Challenge
Hunger and poverty are widespread problems on the African
continent. In sub-Saharan Africa, one-third of the population, almost
200 million people, are food insecure--lacking enough food to lead
healthy productive lives. Half of the population in this region, about
300 million people, lives on less that $1 per day. If current trends
continue, by 2010 Africa would account for nearly two-thirds of the
undernourished people in the world. This vicious cycle of hunger and
poverty must be broken.
Agriculture offers the means to reverse the trends and stimulate
wider economic growth. Seventy percent of the people in sub-Saharan
African live in rural areas and are dependent on agriculture for their
livelihoods. But in almost every crucial measure, African agriculture
is lagging:
LGlobally, Africa suffers from the lowest productivity
of staple food crops. Yields of basic food grains in Africa are
one-fifth those of China.
LFertilizer use in Africa is 8 kilograms per hectare;
in Latin America it is over 60 kilograms per hectare, and in
Asia, over 100 kilograms per hectare.
LOnly 4 percent of Africa's farmland is irrigated; in
the Middle East and Asia, the figures are 29 percent and 34
percent, respectively.
LThe Green Revolution has only begun to touch Africa
in the last decade. In Asia and Latin America, between 60
percent and 80 percent of crop area is planted with modern
varieties; in Africa, the figure is in the 20 to 30 percent
range.
The results are stark: While per capita agricultural productivity
rose sharply in the last forty years in Asia and Latin America, it
actually declined in Africa. There is less food per person now than at
the time of independence, and in some countries, there is much less.
You see the results in the headlines--hunger, famine, poverty, disease,
and the social and political upheaval that accompany them.
But there is hope. Last month's issue of the journal Science
carried an article by Professor Robert Evenson of Yale University
showing that, in the last decade, improved crop varieties are finally
reaching African farmers. Progress has been slow because of the harsh
physical environment and the many crop pests and diseases in Africa. We
need to foster this new trend to increase productivity at the farm
level so that agriculture becomes an engine of growth and prosperity in
Africa. If this is done well, Africa will eventually be able to feed
its people.
The scientific resource base in Africa has suffered from years of
under-investment. We need to invest in science to increase productivity
in the basic food crops of Africa--corn, cassava, cowpeas, bananas, and
rice. New tools in agriculture, such as the application of modern
biotechnology, need to be brought to bear to address Africa's
agricultural problems. Biotechnology alone cannot solve the complex
problems of poverty and hunger; it is not a ``silver bullet.''
But it is a critical part of the solution, and cannot be ignored.
Why? Analysis from the International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) shows that by 2020, between 6 and 16 million more African
children will be malnourished if we do not turn the situation around.
What does this mean? Sadly, it means that if we do not act, poverty,
disease and death will increase in Africa. The World Health
Organization tells us that 56 percent of all child mortality is due to
underlying malnutrition that makes children vulnerable to disease and
infection.
But, if we can increase annual crop productivity growth from 1.5
percent to 2.5 percent, the opposite happens. In that case, 11 million
fewer children will be hungry, and millions less will die young from
diarrhea, malaria and other diseases. Knowing this, can anyone in good
conscience say that we should close off a whole new area of science
that can help us reach these and greater goals?
Unfortunately, some outside groups have actively spread
misinformation about biotechnology, trying to sow confusion and fear. I
would like to take a few minutes to describe to you some of the
falsehoods that have been spread by those who for unfathomable reasons
want to prevent the benefits of modern science from helping some of the
world's poorest farmers.
Frequent Criticisms Leveled at Biotechnology
Charge: Biotechnology is not what Africa needs, and investment in it is
taking away from other interventions.
In the wake of the International Food Policy Research Institute
studies, it is patently untrue to assert that Africa does not need
biotechnology. Africa needs agricultural growth, and economic studies
tell us that accelerated productivity growth due to biotechnology will
be crucial to reducing hunger and poverty. It is not true to say that
biotechnology takes away from our other investments; biotechnology
complements and enhances those investments. What is true is that other
donors should be doing far more, but because of political constraints,
they under-invest in biotechnology.
Charge: Accepting biotechnology crops will make African farmers
dependent on multinational companies.
USAID is working with African universities and national research
programs to develop African solutions to Africa's problems. In some
cases, they may choose to work with international partners as a means
of accessing important new technologies. Local companies may do the
same thing. These alliances are happening in Africa, India and
elsewhere. Farmers in Africa will be able to decide for themselves
whether biotech crops are in their economic interest. If biotech seeds
give them a good return, then and only then will they decide to
purchase the seeds.
Charge: Biotechnology-derived crops will adversely affect the
environment in Africa.
In science, there is no such thing as ``no risk'' with any new crop
variety of any other technology. But all experience to date, here in
the United States, Canada, Argentina, the Philippines, India and South
Africa, shows that potential risks can be managed in safe and effective
ways. The safety of biotech-derived crops needs to be examined by
applying science-based biosafety policies. USAID supports capacity
building in public institutions in Africa so that they can operate
good, effective regulatory systems. USAID is working with African
partners to understand and manage potential environmental issues such
as gene flow, for example.
While not downplaying risk, we also need to consider the
environmental and health benefits of biotechnology, for example, in
reducing use of dangerous pesticides. The New York Times has reported
that, in China, farmers who have adopted biotech cotton no longer need
to purchase atropine for themselves and their children. Their children
were literally being poisoned by pesticides. Now they can enjoy a safer
and cleaner environment.
Charge: Growing biotechnology-derived crops will harm export of
agricultural products to Europe.
There is no question that the lack of a functional, science-based
regulatory system and the irrational fear of biotechnology in the
European Union have affected development of biotechnology products in
Africa. The reality is that most biotechnology applications for small-
holder, food-insecure farmers in Africa are not likely to affect
commodities exported to Europe. Unfortunately, misinformation has added
to these concerns that somehow biotech genes will cross from one
species to another, from corn to fruit trees, or equally wild
assertions.
Charge: U.S. food aid containing biotech crops is a tool to dump
unwanted grain and force Africans into accepting biotechnology.
U.S. food aid makes the difference between life and death for
millions of people in Africa. Despite this, rumors have been spread
that pig genes are being cloned in crops destined for countries with
large Muslim populations. Even African senior government officials have
shared these concerns with me. The truth is that U.S. food aid is made
up of the same safe food we consume here and export to Canada, Japan
and dozens of other countries that purchase it. Furthermore, the food
is intended for consumption and would be poorly adapted and of little
interest to farmers if planted under Africa's environments.
Potential of Biotechnology in realizing Agricultural Productivity in
Africa
Africa presents the highest potential for realizing major benefits
from biotechnology precisely because it lags behind the rest of the
world in using agricultural inputs. Low yields due to pests, diseases,
drought and even poor soils can be boosted by application of readily
available tools of biotechnology, and bring significant economic
benefits to small-scale farmers.
This has been demonstrated to be the case in the adoption of
biotechnology-derived corn and cotton among small-holder farmers in
South Africa, the only country to adopt these crops in Africa. In the
Makatini Flats in South Africa, seventy percent of the cotton grown is
``Bt cotton,'' containing a pest-resistant gene derived from the
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Small-scale cotton farmers in
this region, primarily women, typically farming just a few acres, have
captured significant economic benefits due to increased yields,
decreased pesticide usage and overall saving in farm labor. Yield
increases have been greater than 30 percent. These increases combined
with decreased input and labor costs have resulted in income increases
of approximately 30 percent. Similarly, farmers growing insect-
resistant yellow and white corn in South Africa are starting to see
increased economic benefits, and the acreage of these biotechnology
derived crops is rising.
To realize the potential of biotechnology we will need to foster
international partnerships to enable African scientists to apply
biotechnology in the near term, while building their human and
institutional capacity in the longer term. Some African political
leaders recognize the role of science and technology in improving
African agriculture. President Obasanjo of Nigeria has publicly
endorsed biotechnology and criticized the efforts of those seeking to
prevent its benefit from coming to Africa. South Africa has moved even
farther forward, approving new crop varieties just recently. It is
encouraging to see Africa's two largest economies embracing these new
technologies. We can hope their example is emulated elsewhere.
USAID's Biotechnology Effort
USAID has been, and continues to be, a leader in taking on these
challenges to ensure that Africa is part of this new scientific
revolution. In the last three years, we have more than tripled our
support for biotechnology through the launching of the Collaborative
Agricultural Biotechnology Initiative (CABIO).
The CABIO Initiative is one component of our overall agricultural
strategy for stimulating economic growth and food security in
developing countries. It brings to bear the tools of modern
biotechnology to increase agricultural productivity and improve
environmental sustainability and nutrition. We conduct research and
analysis to develop technology and policy, we build human and
institutional capacity, and we broadly engage our partner countries in
every aspect of the program. The CABIO Initiative builds upon USAID's
12 years of experience in biotechnology, carrying forward lessons
learned while adapting to changes in the economic and regulatory
realities.
In Africa, the activities of the CABIO Initiative are directly
linked to President Bush's Initiative to End Hunger in Africa (IEHA).
This initiative calls for a partnership with African leaders and
governments to work together to invest in a small-holder-oriented
agricultural growth strategy. Science and technology, including our
support for biotechnology, is one of the two major thrusts of IEHA,
with markets and trade being the other.
USAID's biotechnology approach in Africa has two goals:
Lto link Africans to the international research
community to develop biotechnology for the benefit of small
African farmers; and
Lto build African leadership and decision-making, vis-
a-vis using biotechnology domestically, to ensure that Africa
drives its own future.
To achieve these goals USAID has supported a number of important
African organizations to develop strategies in biotechnology in leading
countries like Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and South Africa. We also
support networks of agricultural research institutions that can expand
the impact of research beyond one country. These include the sub-
regional organizations, Association for Strengthening Research in East
and Central Africa, and the West and Central African Council for
Agricultural Research and Development. USAID is also supporting the
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), an emerging voice for
African agriculture, which is linked to the implementation of the
African-led New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD).
Partnerships and Alliances
As we move forward in realizing the potential of this technology
for Africa, we recognize that we will have greater impact through
strategic partnerships and alliances between our development resources
and with those engaged in the cutting-edge science. Our key partners in
this effort are public and private sector institutions, in the United
States, in African countries and international organizations.
U.S. universities and industry lead the world in biotechnology
research. USAID is partnering with these institutions to develop crops
resistant to diseases and pests. A number of U.S. universities partner
with USAID in developing technologies to address agricultural
constraints in Africa and in policy development and outreach activities
in biotechnology. These include Cornell University, University of
California at Davis, Tuskegee University, Michigan State University,
and Purdue University. We also work closely with centers of excellence,
the Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis being a prime example.
Since the earliest programs in Africa, the Agency has leveraged the
tremendous investments and technical expertise of the private sector
through partnerships aimed at developing technology for small farmers.
Beginning with a partnership with Monsanto Company to develop virus-
resistant sweet potatoes for Kenya in 1990, we have continued
engagement with the private sector. We have an on-going partnership
with Syngenta Company to develop insect-resistant potatoes for Africa.
Biotechnology also opens up new avenues to fight old problems. The
World Health Organization tells us that between 100 million and 140
million children in the developing world suffer from vitamin A
deficiency. Each year, between one-quarter and one-half million of
these children go blind, and many more die as a result of greater
susceptibility to infection. In a partnership involving Monsanto
Company, Iowa State University, the University of Illinois, and two
Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
centers, USAID is supporting the development of vitamin A enhanced corn
for Africa. In India, we are developing vitamin A mustard oil. It will
also have potential to save lives in some parts of Africa.
It is clear that projects such as these require the best science
available. USAID is, of course, first and foremost a development
agency. Although we are expanding our scientific staff and
capabilities, we recognize that to capture the cutting edge of science,
for example, to use crop genomics to produce more drought tolerant
varieties, we will need to partner with the scientific resources of
agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National
Science Foundation. Similarly, the private sector is a major source of
cutting-edge technology. We have found that those in the private sector
are more than ready to see their skills applied to the needs of poor
people. All of these alliances can lead to breakthroughs that can
ultimately benefit farmers here at home, as well as in Africa and the
rest of the developing world.
We are also partnering with others outside the U.S. Government,
such as the international agricultural research centers (IARCs)
sponsored by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research. These centers provide a vital link in our efforts to
integrate biotechnology into programs to develop improved, higher-
yielding and more stress-tolerant crop varieties. Some of the
technologies we are supporting include virus-resistant cassava, fungal-
resistant bananas, ``golden maize,'' drought-tolerant wheat, insect-
resistant cowpea, and many others. The CGAIR centers serve as a bridge
between universities and other advanced institutions in the United
States and international nongovernmental organizations and other
partners working with millions of farm families in Africa and elsewhere
in the developing world. Increasingly, USAID is designing its
investments to strengthen linkages between our U.S. partners and the
research and development programs of the CGAIR centers, increasing the
effectiveness of all partners in applying science and also in making
sure that innovative technologies reach the farmer.
We are also working closely with the Rockefeller Foundation to
establish the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF). The
Foundation is a new and unique public-private partnership designed to
assist small-holder farmers in Africa to gain access to existing
agricultural technologies, including biotechnology, with the goal of
relieving food insecurity and alleviating poverty. USAID contributes
$500,000 a year of core support to the AATF. AATF complements and links
with additional USAID funding through our African partners. I am sure
Gordon Conway will discuss the AATF in more detail.
Summary and Conclusions
I would like to conclude by underscoring the importance of African
leadership and partnerships with African countries and institutions.
The region faces the greatest needs, and provides a compelling case for
harnessing all tools in the fight against hunger and poverty. These are
not just biotechnology tools, but they include biotechnology, and these
tools can help us realize a new Africa where food security and
prosperity predominate, and where hunger and famine are things of the
past.
USAID's programs in biotechnology reinforce the ability of Africans
to make their own decisions. Everything we do in biotechnology is done
collaboratively--from problem identification and priority setting to
aiding the development of policies designed to establish risk
assessment programs and protect intellectual property. Our programs are
demand-driven. Our African partners want and need the strategic uses of
biotechnology in agricultural research and development. USAID is
committed, with your help and support, to ensuring that the scientific
revolution in agriculture bypasses no one, least of all poor farm
families in Africa.
A small farmer in South Africa is already living this vision of
Africa. On his 10 acres, T.J. Buthelezi grows biotech cotton and gets
four times the yield he used to. For the first time, he says, ``I'm
making money!'' He and his wife have been able to decide how to spend
and invest their newfound income, instead of struggling just at the
subsistence level. His example is not unique. Farmers are finding that
biotech crops can give them money for school fees, medicines and other
necessities that just a few years ago were luxuries.
I am glad to tell you that this hopeful outlook is Africa's own
vision. Two weeks ago, the Forum on Agricultural Research in Africa,
charged with the agenda of the New Program for Africa's Development, or
NEPAD, held a meeting in Dakar. I would like to read you one of the six
priorities that are contained in the Dakar Declaration:
L`` [the participants]. . .declare their commitment to. .
.building Africa's human and physical capability in
biotechnology to be able to engage with global public and
private sector partners to capture the advances needed to
sustainably intensify African agriculture.. . .''
That need is urgent. This year the Horn of Africa is in the middle
of a serious food security crisis caused, in part, by drought and low
agricultural productivity. The United States alone has provided more
than $350 million of food aid to address urgent food needs in the
region. In order to break the cycle of crisis in the Horn of Africa and
other vulnerable regions around the world, donors must make available
and countries must utilize all resources, including biotechnology, to
improve their ability to meet their food needs. Through biotechnology,
improved drought and pest resistant seeds have been developed that
mitigate the effects of adverse weather and insects on food production.
Through U.S. leadership in investments in science and technology, the
international community can help Africa strengthen its agriculture and
ensure that the specter of famine is someday just a memory.
USAID is ready and eager to work with your committee, with others
in Congress, and within the Executive Branch in making our common
vision, shared between the United States and Africa, of an Africa
without starvation and famine, a reality in our lifetime.
Thank you.
Biography for Andrew S. Natsios
Andrew S. Natsios was sworn in on May 1, 2001, as Administrator of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). For more than 40
years, USAID has been the lead U.S. government agency providing
economic and humanitarian assistance to transitioning and developing
countries.
President Bush has also appointed him Special Coordinator for
International Disaster Assistance and Special Humanitarian Coordinator
for the Sudan.
Natsios has served previously at USAID, first as director of the
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance from 1989 to 1991 and then as
assistant administrator for the Bureau for Food and Humanitarian
Assistance (now the Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian
Assistance) from 1991 to January 1993.
Before assuming his new position, Natsios was Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority from April
2000 to March 2001, and had responsibility for managing the Big Dig,
the largest public works project in U.S. history. Before that, he was
Secretary for Administration and Finance for the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts from March 1999 to April 2000. From 1993 to 1998, Natsios
was Vice President of World Vision U.S. From 1987 to 1989, he was
Executive Director of the Northeast Public Power Association in
Milford, Massachusetts.
Natsios served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives from
1975 to 1987 and was named legislator of the year by the Massachusetts
Municipal Association (1978), the Massachusetts Association of School
Committees (1986), and Citizens for Limited Taxation (1986). He also
was Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican State Committee for seven
years.
Natsios is a graduate of Georgetown University and Harvard
University's Kennedy School of Government where he received a Master's
degree in public administration.
Natsios is the author of numerous articles on foreign policy and
humanitarian emergencies, as well as the author of two books: U.S.
Foreign Policy and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Center for
Strategic and International Studies, 1997), and The Great North Korean
Famine (U.S. Institute of Peace, 2001).
After serving 23 years in the U.S. Army Reserves, Natsios retired
in 1995 with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He is a veteran of the
Gulf War.
A native of Holliston, Massachusetts, Natsios and his wife,
Elizabeth, have three children, Emily, Alexander, and Philip.
Discussion
Chairman Smith. That was part of my concern, Administrator.
In going around to different countries over the last eight
years, asking our people in the State Department, asking our
people, our agriculture attaches even, the USAID people, the
people in Commerce at the different embassies around the world,
do you know why--what the requirements are in the United States
to help assure that these biotech products are going to be safe
to people, to animals, and the environment, and my
consternation was that they didn't know what the scientific
evidence was. And so that is why we--I think we sent you a
draft proposal of the bill, saying that we have--and what I put
in the State Department authorization bill was that we need the
kind of written, accurate, scientific information so that our
American people around the world have better knowledge when
they talk to the people in these other countries.
Mr. Natsios. We will support your amendment, Congressman.
Chairman Smith. Good. Well, and I assume, Dr. Colwell, that
the NSF would like to be part of this group if it is going to
exist to coordinate, to cooperate, to make sure that that
scientific, accurate, factual, scientific information is out
there.
Dr. Colwell. As a scientist, I couldn't do otherwise.
Chairman Smith. Let me ask the question on trade that you
mentioned, Dr. Natsios. Is the threat of trade restrictions of
some of those products going to Europe part of the reason that
is holding down research at the African universities?
Mr. Natsios. It is not holding down the research.
Chairman Smith. The biotech research.
Mr. Natsios. It is affecting the farmers' use of the
improved varieties of the biotech material. The scientists
still want to get the research, and most of the heads of state,
even the one country that actually banned it completely. By the
way, that is the only country in Africa that has banned
completely any biotech food aid from the United States. The
perception was everybody was doing it. One country did it. Even
Zimbabwe, and Dr. Mugabe is not one of my favorite people. He
is destroying his country. But he banned it because of this
cross pollination thing, even though it was inaccurate; not
based on health requirements. And he didn't ban its use; he
just required that it be milled before it was distributed. And
even in the country that banned it, Zambia, they want the
technical help to build up their capacity to do this research
themselves. They asked for it when I met with the president of
the country. He asked for it and we brought those scientists to
the United States. The National Science Foundation has helped
us, USDA has helped us, the EPA has helped us, in terms of
taking scientists from Africa and economists around to show
what our regulatory systems are, how careful we are about this,
what our regimes are, how we do research. And we sent them up
to Harvard, because a Kenyan scientist heads the biotech
research center at Harvard University and is a big advocate of
biotech research himself. He is an African scientist at
Harvard. And it was very useful, but we need more of these.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Colwell, can you be more definitive in
terms of, for the record, what we put in the NSF bill in terms
of the competitive merit based awards for partnerships that
entered into a partnership that shall include one or more
research institutions in one or more of the developing
countries to have that? Has a request for proposals been sent
out? Will universities start putting in proposals for this
specific partnership with researchers in other countries to
make sure that we move ahead on that section of the law?
Dr. Colwell. We are working through the auspices of the
NSTC and the working group on the plant genomes. We initiated
discussions with USAID, the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Energy, to support these research collaborations.
Chairman Smith. But this is partnerships with scientists,
African scientists, in their particular country?
Dr. Colwell. Yes.
Chairman Smith. To try to develop products that are going
to be most helpful for their countries?
Dr. Colwell. Yes. We are funding already U.S. scientists
who are partnering with African scientists. We are providing
the training.
Chairman Smith. Can you give me some examples?
Dr. Colwell. Training, NSF awards have enabled African
researchers to come to the U.S. for collaborative research and
training, and we have been funding projects for African based
equipment, scientists, and we have leveraged funds as well by
providing funds that then can be matched in the country. So we
are working very strongly.
Chairman Smith. Well, just I hope you will review the
language.
Dr. Colwell. Sure.
Chairman Smith. And I don't mean to be in a scolding nature
or anything, but specifically, we wrote in that, institutions
in those African countries that we would partnership with, so
maybe review it. I just think it is so important that we work
with those countries, with scientists in those countries, that
are going to add to the credibility of the product that they
develop and with the helpful assurance that it is going to be
something that is going to help with their needs of more
quantity of agricultural production or more quality in terms of
health.
Dr. Colwell. One area that I feel very strongly that we
need to strengthen is the microbiological resource centers in
the biotechnology centers that have been set up that are
located in Kenya, and Uganda, and so forth. These, I think,
already are doing biotechnology research, and I think can be
enhanced and strengthened at the grassroots level. And I think
that is very important to do.
Chairman Smith. Well, we tried--and just to wrap it up--we
tried to assure that--we said that some of the money that is
being appropriated in Section 5 has to be used for this kind of
partnership, so please review that.
Dr. Colwell. I will indeed.
Chairman Smith. Representative Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having
this hearing and appreciate the testimony, also. For a long
time, I have had interest in things that are not going on in
Africa and our attention to that country, so I think it is very
appropriate that we look at this. My question would be more in
line with trying to analyze the resistance rather than trying
to promote biotech. I mean, I am on it, I support it. One of
the questions I have is all I heard so far about biotech is the
production of corn and the deployment of corn in terms of
biotech. Are you looking at plants and food stuffs that are
native to Africa that people are more used to? Because when I
was in the Peace Corps back in the 1960's, you know, one of the
things I tried to show is that we can increase production
tenfold if we use hybrid corn seeds. And we showed that we
could increase the production, but they said, you know, you are
right, we can, but do you know what? The corn tastes different,
you know. So there are probably some biases within a culture
and a country, but then I think there are some advantages of
taking what it is that they understand and know and develop
that, too.
And I guess the other question is, if we are trying to
address the issue of famine by introducing biotech, is biotech
the only factor that lends itself to famine, or is it the way
land is used, is it the way ownership is done? Because with
USAID, understand in different countries, you know, land
ownership could be hierarchal and poor farmers are not the
large landowners, so they may not be the one that does the
export. So are there class differences and are there other
social differences that we need to pay attention to as we move
forward on biotech?
Dr. Colwell. Your questions are extraordinarily perceptive,
and indeed, the first question with respect to the varieties
you are familiar with in a country, that is entirely important.
That is to have African rice genetically engineered to be
resistant to fungus and infection, and at the same time to be
enriched with vitamin A to prevent blindness, those varieties
in the country are the ones that should really be addressed.
And I think that will also enhance acceptance, because as you
say, it can be as simple as taste. It can be texture or
whatever. But it is important and it is critical. So we are, in
fact, focusing on the foods that are used in the country.
And I also find your comment and question about other
applications of biotech. Plant biotech is important, but
bioprocessing is also very important. And use of biotechnology
for maintaining, let us say, treatment of soil and also for
treatment of waste products, so that they can be reused and
recycled is very, very important. So plant biotech is, of
course, the subject of today's hearing, but it is but one of
many opportunities and applications that can be made. So this
is--to bring the technology, the tools, the methods, the
fundamental research into the hands of the scientists and the
agriculturists in the countries is clearly very, very
important.
Mr. Honda. Then to follow up with the Chairman's question
about reading the bill, will the bill provide you the
flexibility you need in order to create the process that you
are describing? Because a lot of times bills will be very
narrow and prescriptive.
Dr. Colwell. May I respond to you in writing, because I
want to be precise and I want to be very helpful. And rather
than just answer off the cuff----
Mr. Natsios. If I could add, what we are doing in AID, we
have already invested in research in 26 African food crops for
basic research through biotechnology to deal with diseases and
improved efficiency. Let me give you some examples. We are
developing a vitamin A enhanced corn for Africa. Vitamin A, by
the way, can reduce by 25 percent the death rate among children
under 5 because it protects a child against infection. And
vitamin A deficiency is a major problem that we face in
countries that have a very limited food basket. In other words,
they don't have a lot of variety in their food. They don't have
vitamin A. We just introduced sweet potatoes into South
Africa--I mean, Mozambique, because a vitamin A deficiency is
killing so many children. Now, we will permanently get it into
the agricultural system.
We are developing a cassava biotech variety in Nigeria,
Ghana, Kenya, Danforth Center, a cowpea improvement project in
Nigeria. Rinderpest, which is a major problem for cattle in
Africa and Kenya, a papaya resistant--there is a papaya
ringspot virus in the Lake Victoria region of Africa. We are
doing that with USDA. The banana disease that you mentioned,
Mr. Chairman, earlier is, in fact, we have invested in that
research as well. So there are 26 of these different--they are
insects, viruses, some of them are animal, some of them are
plant, but they are all using biotechnology and they do this
through a thing called the Collaborative Agricultural
Biotechnology Initiative. We call it CABIO. It invests $15
million to $20 million a year in this sort of research through
institutions where we match an American research facility with
one in Africa or another country around these specific issues.
So we are focused specifically on exact diseases and local
varieties. They have to be acceptable, because if people eat
them and they don't like them, they are not going to use them
and the farmers will never grow them. So we have a whole set of
tests we go through, not just to solve a technical problem, but
they have to sell the taste test and everything else. We are
also working with a number of foundations like the Rockefeller
Foundation. Gordon Conway is one of the leading experts in the
world on this, and we have been very close to Rockefeller,
actually, since the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution was
the World Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the USAID with
Norman Borlaug 35 years ago that helped create this Green
Revolution. We believe by the use of this technology and other
reforms in the markets that we can deal with the problem of
famine in Africa.
One of the reasons that we face famine in Africa, only one,
is, in fact, drought. A South African scientist is now taking a
gene from what they call a de minimis plant. It is a plant that
needs almost no water. They are taking the gene and they are
going to cross match it, cross breed it, with a maize variety,
a corn variety, that will be extremely drought resistant. And
if we can get that variety to be acceptable to people and to do
what it needs to do, we may solve one of the ongoing problems
in Africa that famine is driven by, and that is drought. It
doesn't solve all the problems. You have to deal with markets,
you have to deal with infrastructure, you have to deal with
predatory governments like the Zimbabwe Government, but drought
is one of the major factors, and we can deal with this, we
believe, through this research, and we are supporting this
research.
Chairman Smith. Mr. Atkin indicated that he doesn't have
any questions at this time, so I would call on Representative
Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I think this is a
very important hearing, and I appreciate the fact that we are
having it. Thinking about what is going on in famine and the
lack of uptake of the technology in Africa leads me to think
about the EU. And in some ways, I think it is so shocking and
really scandalous that people in Europe who have so much would
take the actions they have done to disadvantage the poorest
people on the planet, really, who live on the continent of
Africa. I just think it is outrageous. So I am thinking what
you are doing is important. It is good, it is thoughtful, but
if we don't actually deal with Europe, we are facing barriers
to actually achieving a goal that is so decent and good.
And I am wondering if you have given any thought to how we
might not only deal with the governments of Europe, but with
some of the interest groups that are behaving in this
shockingly bad way, how we might influence that.
Dr. Colwell. Well, there is a certain irony in that NSF
participates in a direct partnership with the European
community in a biotechnology initiative which has been ongoing
for several years, maybe as long as 10 years, and a lot of the
research is going on there. So there is a very dramatic irony
in the situation. It is really a consumer issue. It is not a
science question with respect to not accepting the
biotechnology products. And I would say that, as a scientist, I
believe that if the African Government leaders, and some have
spoken out very strongly, and the individual African consumers
can see the direct tangible benefits, I think they will embrace
the technology.
Mr. Natsios. Let me just add, most of the development
ministers in Europe are very good friends of mine, and I would
say at least half the development agencies, the USAID's of
Europe, strongly support biotech research and use of biotech
seed in the developing world as one of the many things we need
to do to deal with this problem of hunger and of drought and
famine. And they actually invested money in it, but there is a
hysteria that has been whipped up and many of them are on the
defensive now as a result of their support for this, and we
talk about how to deal with this. Tony Blair realizes it is
damaging British agriculture to have this kind of hysteria.
Part of it is this animal disease that devastated their animal
herds in Europe. That, apparently, is one of the things that
some of these advocacy groups have played on, in terms of
public fears, to turn around public opinion on this subject.
The European Union actually, privately, had already
approved I think five of our corn varieties before this became
a big controversy, and we were exporting the corn to Europe,
and they already take our soybeans now. And I think 70 or 80
percent of our soybean crop is biotech. They are using it in
Europe now. I might also add that three or four percent of the
corn crop in France is already biotech, and I am told that
German scientists are now developing biotech grapes for the
vineyards in Germany. So the scientists are okay and most of
the political leaders I deal with are okay and understand this.
The problem is there is a divide between public opinion because
of what happened with these animal diseases and the political
leadership.
Blair is having a series of town meetings across Britain
because he thinks it is hurting the long-term economic
interests of British agriculture to have this hysteria against
it. A lot of research is going on, but what is happening also
now is because of the hysteria, the research has slowed down
and the seeds are not being used in the agricultural system and
they are behind us. So you are having a marrying of some
extremist advocacy groups with agricultural interests who want
this, but because they are far behind us, are very worried that
we are going to take over their markets because we are doing
this so much better than they are. Having those two interests
married at the same time is not in anyone's interest, but it
has happened. So they are facing a very difficult situation
now, and unfortunately, it is getting worse and worse.
Ms. Lofgren. I don't know if you are able to do this, but
can you identify kind of the sector where this hysteria is
originating in the EU?
Mr. Natsios. I would rather not do it publicly at this
meeting, because I have to deal with these people, and some of
them will get upset. If I tell you which development ministers
are pro-biotech, they may get removed.
Ms. Lofgren. No, I don't mean that. Actually, I am not
being clear with my question. There are private groups, I
presume, and this isn't just necessarily emanating from
governments, that are spreading rumors in Africa, of
distributing lies that actually are resulting in the starvation
of young children. I would like to know who those people are.
Mr. Natsios. I will tell you what the groups are later. I,
actually, made a public statement at--they demanded my
resignation. I said it publicly who the groups are at the
Johannesburg conference. They demanded my resignation, they
have issued long, some of them personal, attacks on me, on
USAID, and some of these groups, full of the most
extraordinarily abusive slant.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, it can be after this meeting, but it
seems to me that we ought to take some action that is necessary
legally, but I mean, the church groups ought to become
involved. What these groups are doing is unconscionable and
they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Natsios. I think they should be ashamed.
Ms. Lofgren. It is like a war crime what they are doing and
we should start a counter effort because we should just not
accept this.
Mr. Natsios. When I said this publicly in August of last
year, it was very interesting. One of the groups said they
would suspend their opposition because I accused them of, in
fact, starving people to death, by name. They did not like it
and they said they would suspend their opposition to biotech
for the extent of the food emergency. But then two weeks later,
someone convinced them that that was the wrong thing to do and
they announced they were still opposed to any food aid being
imported. I said if the Europeans want to import food, or
export food to Africa in the form of food aid to take the place
of ours, I am happy to do it. But they don't do a lot of food
aid, so they couldn't do it. We were it, basically, in terms of
the great bulk of the food that was going to these emergencies.
So there is a problem. Some of them are simply
irresponsible. I have never seen such egregious abuse of fact
and science as the material they put out. It is on their
websites. I saw a card being sent out by one of these groups in
South Africa at the Johannesburg summit, and it said you will
change your gene pool if you eat biotech corn. That is what it
said. They were sending these postcards out to people. I said,
what is this based on?
Ms. Lofgren. Well, my time is up, but I would very much
like to have some further information after this hearing about
the origin of this assault on the children of Africa. Thank
you.
Chairman Smith. Zoe, your terminology is great, and thank
you for your comments. It was interesting, when I was visiting
with the scientists, the research scientists, the Federal
research that is the equivalent of NSF in the Netherlands, they
said, well, you folks in America are a little dumb on how you
are going about this. Why don't you start producing things that
are going to really help people? Producing food where they
can't produce enough and they are starving now, or producing
the kind of food that is going to be more nutritious. And I
think that is sort of what inspired me to generate this kind of
hearing and the language that the Ranking Member and I have
tried to push, that if we can get our foot in the door in
Africa, then it is going to be the start of a better
understanding. And with that, I would ask the Ranking Member.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
understand better the relationship between the NSF and USAID
and other Federal agencies and how you might work together with
this plant biotechnology development of something in Africa.
Mr. Natsios. What we do together, and not just in this area
but in the health field and other fields, is we jointly fund
things. So we will--USDA and AID will jointly fund a research
project in South Africa, for example, or Kenya, or something
like that. Or the National Science Foundation will do the same
thing, or with the EPA. So we do this jointly in terms of
funding. Our scientists talk to the scientists from other
Federal agencies all the time on these sorts of things and we
have a structure, CABIO, as I described earlier, which is a
network of American universities that partner with African
universities, and some of these partnerships that are dealt
with through CABIO grants involve other Federal agencies that
we also get funding for.
Ms. Johnson. Is it a formal coordination or just informal?
Mr. Natsios. Is there a formal mechanism?
Dr. Colwell. It is a bit of both. In some programs, such as
the plant genome centers, the research that is done and the
interactions are regularized. But we also do a lot of sharing
of information and developing programs together, and that is
more or less ad hoc, so it is a mixture.
Ms. Johnson. Okay. For the USAID supported research at U.S.
universities that address agricultural problems in Africa, to
what extent are African scientists involved in the activities,
including the setting of goals and that sort of thing?
Mr. Natsios. Let me just give you an example. I visited the
Danforth Center in St. Louis, which is one of the premiere
institutions in terms of research. We are supporting a cassava
biotechnology for Africa, but it is being done by training
African scientists from Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya. In fact,
some of them I met when I was there. Some of them already have
their Ph.D.'s as scientists and they are getting post graduate
research work done, and then they go back to the universities
and teach it at their universities. In other cases, we have
actual universities in Africa that have agriculture schools
where there will be a partnership between an American
university and an African university, and some of this work is
done through the ministries of agriculture in Africa. So it
depends on the--I can give you a list, actually, of the
portfolio, and you can see some of the things that we have that
we do try and do.
[Note: Information referred to is located in Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record.]
Ms. Johnson. Okay. There are a few land grant colleges
throughout the country that have agricultural programs, and I
wonder if you work with any of them in relationship with
Africa?
Mr. Natsios. Yes, we do, definitely. Michigan State,
Cornell University is on the list here, Tuskegee, Purdue.
Dr. Colwell. Riverside.
Mr. Natsios. University of Florida, UC Davis. Those are
just some of them. We will give you a list.
[Note: Information referred to is located in Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record.]
Ms. Johnson. Okay. I wonder about Texas A&M or----
Mr. Natsios. Texas A&M, yes, is definitely on the list.
Ms. Johnson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Natsios. You are from Texas, Congresswoman, I did
remember that.
Chairman Smith. I suspect you knew that. We have three
votes. We have probably the most outstanding panelists on the
third panel that any committee in Congress could bring together
to give Congress, this committee and Congress, guidance on
where we go. We have a 15-minute vote that is in process now,
two 5-minute votes, so it is my guess that it will be about 20
minutes then we will reconvene. So again, Dr. Colwell,
Administrator Natsios, thank you very much, again. We hope that
you are open for additional questions that haven't been asked,
if we could send them to you.
Mr. Natsios. Absolutely.
Dr. Colwell. Absolutely.
Chairman Smith. And with that, the Subcommittee is in
recess at the call of the Chair.
[Recess]
Panel 3
Chairman Smith. The Subcommittee will end its recess and
come back to order and work. I would like to make a couple of
comments before we proceed. Number one, thank you so much for
your time and being at this panel. Dr. Conway, Dr. Kilama, and
Dr. Horsch, a video, not only the transcript, but a video of
your testimony will be made available to the rest of the
Committee, plus it will be made available to interested parties
in biotech. I am a member of the Biotech Caucus in Congress,
and so we very much look forward to your comments and
testimony.
A statistic that Dan has given me--and Dan Byers, thank you
so much for all of your work in having a great hearing this
afternoon--is the fact that a tremendous impact on the people
of Africa where a one percent productivity increase is
estimated to bring six million African men, women, and children
out of poverty. So just even some small changes and the
potential for great changes, I think, is with us if we are
smart enough to move ahead. And probably, we are not going to
stop biotech development, but some of the environmental groups
that want an emotional issue, that are looking for a
precautionary principle to slow down the advancement, are going
to slow it down. But it is such a tremendous opportunity for
the many populations of the world that, eventually, it is not
going to be stopped.
With that, let me introduce our third panel, and Mr. Akin
has suggested that he would like to introduce Dr. Horsch in a
little more detail. Dr. Gordon Conway is President of the
Rockefeller Foundation, a New York based charity dedicated to
improving food security around the world. Dr. Conway's previous
positions include Vice Chancellor of the University of Sussex
in England; Director of the Sustainable Agriculture Program of
the International Institute for Environment and Development in
London, and he has authored Unwelcome Harvest: Agriculture and
Pollution, 1991; and The Doubly Green Revolution: Food for All
in the 21st Century, in 1999.
Dr. John Kilama is President of the Global Bioscience
Development Institute, a firm developing training and
consulting to policy-makers in developing countries on
biotechnology regulation, intellectual property rights, and
international trade development. His background is in
pharmaceutical and agricultural biotechnology and
agrichemistry. And previously, Dr. Kilama worked at the Dupont
Company, specializing in developing chemicals for crop
protection and establishing collaborations between Dupont and
institutions in developing countries. And with that, I would
yield to Mr. Akin for an introduction.
Mr. Akin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this
opportunity to do a little bragging and also introduce our
third panelist. I really appreciate your holding the hearings.
I also thank the panelists for their long suffering. We have
had--it has been a pretty long series of meetings today. Of
course, Monsanto is headquartered in my hometown of St. Louis,
and that is our area. It is a leading provider of agricultural
products and integrated solutions for farmers, and it is a
critical element of the Missouri economy. In the past few
years, the St. Louis region has been recognized as the biobelt,
the world class center for plant and life science research, and
Missouri researchers are discovering new genes that could
increase drought tolerance or utilize nitrogen more
efficiently, thereby, requiring fewer fertilizers, which in
Africa is also expensive. And as we have heard in previous
testimony, hard to come by. The work is groundbreaking and will
save countless lives.
Monsanto is also partnered with Donald Danforth Plant
Science Center in St. Louis, and the Danforth Plant Science
Center is an independent, not for profit, research center in
the St. Louis area. It has made a special commitment to
assisting countries in the developing world, including many in
Africa, in building their capacity for sustainable agriculture
and nutrition. Efforts are underway at the Danforth Center to
develop crops with increased resistance to disease and pests.
For example, scientists are working to develop varieties of
cassava, a starchy root crop that is Africa's most important
staple food, that are resistant to the devastating plant
disease known as mosaic virus. It is estimated that upwards of
35 million metric tons of food are lost in Africa each year due
to the devastating impact of that virus alone. These important
discoveries are vital to increasing crop yields and resistance
in many developing countries where the majority of people
depend on agriculture for their livelihood.
More importantly, on a continent where at least 1/3 of the
population lacks adequate food supplies, it is essential that
we remain committed to plant biotechnology research. There is
little doubt that these findings could contribute to an overall
growth of the country's economy by reducing property and
increasing the ability to grow and buy food, and creating
higher standards of living, including better health and
education. For all these reasons, it is my great pleasure to
introduce Dr. Robert Horsch, the Vice President of Product and
Technology Cooperation for the Monsanto Corporation. He has led
the company's plant science culture and transformation efforts
contributing to the development of the Bollard, the YieldGard,
and Roundup Ready traits which are in broad use today.
In 1999, Dr. Horsch received the Presidential Medal of
Technology for his contributions to the development of
agricultural biotechnology. He is also a member of the Private
Sector Committee of the Consultant Group of International
Agricultural Research. It sounds like CGIAR when you put it
together. And the United Nations Millennium Project Task Force
for Hunger. Doctor, it is a pleasure to have you here and the
rest of our panelists. Unfortunately, I have got two other
concurrent meetings, so you are going to have to excuse my
slipping out. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank you
very much for just a great series of hearings.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Akin follows:]
Prepared Statement of W. Todd Akin
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for holding this
important hearing and I want to thank the witnesses for testifying in
front of the Committee today.
Headquartered in my hometown St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto employs
approximately 14,700 people in 60 different countries worldwide.
Monsanto is a leading provider of agricultural products and integrated
solutions for farmers and is a critical element of Missouri's economy.
In the past few years, the St. Louis region has been recognized as
the ``Biobelt'' a world-class center for plant and life sciences
research. Missouri researchers are discovering new genes that could
increase drought tolerance or utilize nitrogen more efficiently,
thereby requiring fewer fertilizers, which in Africa is often expensive
and hard to come by. This work is groundbreaking and will save
countless lives.
Monsanto has also partnered with the Donald Danforth Plant Science
Center in St. Louis.
The Donald Danforth Plant Science Center is an independent, not-
for-profit research center in St. Louis. The Center has made a special
commitment to assisting countries in the developing world, including
many in Africa, in building their capacity for sustainable agriculture
and nutrition. To deliver on this commitment, the Danforth Center has
established a series of objectives for the next five years, among which
are to:
LMake discoveries that can benefit developing
countries;
LEstablish meaningful collaborations with research
institutions in developing countries;
LFacilitate the development of biotechnology products
for developing countries;
LIntegrate training with research and development for
developing countries;
LImprove the regulatory climate for biotechnology in
developing countries; and
LRaise understanding of the potential benefits of
biotechnology for developing countries.
Efforts are underway at the Danforth Center to develop crops with
increased resistance to disease and pests. For example, scientists are
working to develop varieties of cassava--a starchy root crop that is
Africa's most important staple food--that are resistant to a
devastating plant disease known as the mosaic virus. It is estimated
that upwards of 35 million metric tons of food are lost in Africa each
year due to the devastating impact of this virus.
Danforth Center scientists are also developing plants to improve
human nutrition and health--for example, plants with increased levels
of iron and folate. They are also studying plant nutrition to better
understand how roots absorb minerals and survive drought. This research
could lead to plants that can grow in mineral-poor, arid or saline
soil, and foods enriched in essential elements.
The Danforth Center is working to share the benefits of
biotechnology with the developing world and in doing so is
demonstrating in a very clear way that cutting-edge plant science can
contribute to improvements in agriculture, nutrition and health in poor
nations.
These important discoveries are vital to increasing crop yields and
resistance in many developing countries where the majority of people
depend on agriculture for their livelihood.
More importantly, on a continent where at least one-third of the
population lacks adequate supplies of food, it is essential that we
remain committed to plant biotechnology research. There is little doubt
that these findings can contribute to the overall growth of a country's
economy by reducing poverty, increasing the ability to grow and buy
food and creating higher standards of living including better health
and education.
For all these reasons, it is my great pleasure to introduce Dr.
Robert Horsch, the Vice President of Product and Technology Cooperation
for the Monsanto Corporation. He has led the company's plant tissue
culture and transformation efforts, contributing to the development of
the Bollard, YieldGard, and Roundup Ready traits, which are in broad
use today. In 1999, Dr. Horsch received the Presidential Medal of
Technology for his contributions to the development of agricultural
biotechnology. He is also a member of the Private Sector Committee of
the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
and the United Nations Millennium Project Task Force for Hunger.
Chairman Smith. I did mention that the testimony will be
made available to you. You will be tested on all of the
testimony, especially, of Dr. Horsch. I would like to also
mention that----
Mr. Akin. I notice there is no one else here. This is a
tough committee.
Chairman Smith. I would like to mention, also, that I
requested and we received written testimony for this hearing
from T.J. Buthelezi. He is a cotton farmer in South Africa. His
testimony is in each one of the member's folders, plus is
available on the distribution table outside. And in his own
words, it was just very interesting that he talked about
raising the biotech cotton, and he started with just a small
plot, and as he saw that he could save labor, and pesticides,
and the potential damage of applying that extra pesticide, he
kept expanding. I think he started with three hectares, and
then he went to five, and now he is up to twenty-six, and his
testimony is very interesting, because unlike a lot of farmers
in the world, he indicated he has got so much money now. And
with that, Dr. Conway, please proceed.
[Note: The statement of Thembeitshe Joseph Buthelezi
appears in Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record.]
STATEMENT OF DR. GORDON CONWAY, PRESIDENT, ROCKEFELLER
FOUNDATION
Dr. Conway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Johnson, and the entire distinguished Subcommittee. I am
pleased to be here for this hearing on an extraordinarily
important subject. I am delighted you are going to be setting
an examination at the end. As a former professor, I will slip
in a trick comment. The central mission of the Rockefeller
Foundation for its 90-year history is to improve the lives and
livelihood of poor and excluded people around the world. And
this inevitably involves food and hunger. And I want to point
out, of course, that we were as Dr. Natsios said, at the
beginning of the Green Revolution in the 1940's. Norm Borlaug
was a member of the staff of the Rockefeller Foundation when he
did this groundbreaking work.
But today, of course, it is Africa that is the top of the
list of the world's regions where the poor are chronically
hungry. And at this point in time, it will be impossible to do
too much to address this problem. In my oral testimony, I would
like to focus on three key issues. First, I want to briefly
describe some of the key challenges faced by Africa and its
agricultural sector. Second, I will talk about some principles
that I believe can guide policy-makers who are considering
biotechnology applications in Africa. And finally, I will
briefly describe some of the Rockefeller's specific efforts
that may be of interest in this field.
The facts concerning Africa are well known and have been
laid out before you all this morning. Very simply, Africa is
not currently growing enough food. In most African countries,
the per capita food production is going down. There are many
reasons for this: conflicts, disease. They are all taking a
terrible toll on Africans, including farmers. But one important
cause is simply that agricultural productivity is just too low.
The average yield on African farms is the same as the average
yield on European farms at the time of the Roman Empire 2000
years ago.
The typical African farmer today is a woman with a family,
farming a small plot of low fertility land, confronted by a
variety of challenges: pests, diseases, terrible roads, erratic
rainfall, lack of fertilizers. And everyone agrees that
improvements in her productivity will be beneficial to her and
to her family. What, of course, is disputed is whether
biotechnology can be helpful to African agriculture. And the
skeptics fall in one of two camps. There are those who are
concerned about the health, environmental, and safety impacts.
Then there are the others who are concerned that so much of the
new technology is in the hands of western companies, that it is
expensive to purchase, it may be inappropriate for use in
developing countries.
These are important concerns, but for us at the Rockefeller
Foundation, what we are attempting to do is address two central
questions. First of all, how can we help poor, small holder,
African farmers increase their food security? And secondly,
what tools can be made available to them to address the
difficult challenges they face in producing a healthy harvest?
And in considering those two questions, we have to be
absolutely clear that biotechnology is but one tool in a larger
toolbox, from which African farmers must themselves choose.
There is no magic solution to the problems of African hunger
and African agriculture, but the problem is so big that the
Africans should have the right to consider every possible tool
at their disposal. We believe that Africans should be the ones
to weigh the cost and benefits, and we believe Africans should
have access to the knowledge to help themselves, and we have
constructed our strategy around that goal.
This principle, that Africans should be able to choose, has
led us to work toward putting African scientists and farmers in
positions to draw down upon the new technologies and to adapt
them for their uses. Western corporate ownership of much of the
intellectual property necessary for use in biotechnology
presents an impediment. We need to go to public resources to
help African institutions and regulatory bodies, its
scientists, and its farmers. The fact is that improvements in
African agricultural productivity are not likely to be made in
American laboratories, but in applied settings by African
scientists, drawing upon the best of the world's know-how in
real situations. Africans need commitments from governments,
their own governments and western governments, to help in
building the necessary capacity in Africa. And they need
western companies to make available the knowledge that might be
adaptable, and that is what we at the Rockefeller Foundation
are trying to do.
We recently created the African Agricultural Technology
Foundation, which is African led, African based. It is designed
to resolve many of the barriers that prevent small farmers,
small holder farmers, from gaining access to enabling
agricultural technologies. It is based in Nairobi Kenya, and
directed by Dr. Eugene Terry from Sierra Leone, who is superbly
qualified in his field. We have also worked to help strengthen
African regulatory bodies and to train hundreds of African
scientists. We make grants to help appropriate regulatory and
managerial systems so they can function effectively.
We have made a number of other grants in Africa, undertaken
a variety of other efforts, but in my opening remarks, I want
to suggest this central principle and goal to you. Let us look
at how Africans can be free to make choices and use the full
range of ideas and techniques, from conventional crop breeding
and soil fertility improvement to advanced technologies, to
help themselves.
I spent most of my life not in New York or London, but in
the field, in developing countries, working as an ecologist.
Many parties working together learned a lot, including learning
what did work and what did not work as a result of the so
called Green Revolution in Asia in the 1960's and 1970's. I was
proud to be a part of that. Now we must all focus new and
innovative ideas on helping Africa be in a better position to
help itself, and I am grateful for your inviting me here for
this most important discussion. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Conway follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gordon Conway
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Johnson, and the entire
distinguished Subcommittee. I am pleased to be here for this hearing on
an extraordinarily important subject and to represent the Rockefeller
Foundation.
I know that we have been asked to limit our spoken testimony to
approximately five minutes. Like the other panelists, I have submitted
longer written testimony to the Committee and will answer any questions
about those submissions. In my oral testimony I'd like to focus on
three areas that I believe are central to successfully dealing with the
current situation. First, I will very briefly describe some key
challenges faced by Africa and its agricultural sector. Second, I will
talk about some principles that I believe can help guide policy-makers
who are considering biotechnology's applications in Africa. Finally I
will briefly describe some of Rockefeller's specific efforts that may
be of interest in this field.
The facts concerning Africa's current situation are well known to
you--and very serious. As we meet this morning in Washington, there are
literally millions of people in Africa who do not have enough to eat
and are at risk of starvation. While this current crisis is real, it is
not new. There are about 200 million chronically malnourished human
beings in Africa and 40 million African children who are severely
underweight for their age. One estimate is that there are about six
million children a year who perish in the world from illnesses related
to malnutrition--six million children dying without enough to eat is a
terrible reality, a horrifying number that I believe should shame every
civilized person.
The next fact that must be mentioned is that Africa is not
currently growing enough food. There are many, many reasons for this--
armed conflicts and disease among other factors are taking a terrible
toll on Africans, including farmers. But one important cause is simply
that agricultural productivity in Africa is just too low. Indeed, the
average African farmer's crop yields are about the same as those
enjoyed by some farmers during the Roman Empire. That too is a shame,
and many parties, including the Rockefeller Foundation, are trying to
improve agricultural productivity in Africa.
But I do not want to just reiterate facts about the need to improve
African agricultural productivity. Everyone likely agrees that
improvements in productivity would be beneficial. What is sometimes
disputed is whether biotechnology can be helpful to African
agriculture.
Skeptics of biotechnology for Africa usually come from one of two
camps. First, some are concerned over the health and safety impact of
new technologies. Second, others are troubled that so much of the new
technology is developed by Western companies, it is expensive to
purchase, and it may be inappropriate for use in developing nations.
These are important concerns. In charting our course at Rockefeller
and trying to answer them, we have found a single central principle has
helped guide us. That is, how can we help Africans be in a better
position to evaluate what technologies are right for them, and to be
able to obtain and implement helpful technologies? We believe Africans
should be the ones to weigh costs and benefits. And Africans should
have access to the knowledge to help themselves and their farmers. We
have constructed our strategy around that goal.
Here in the United States, and many other places, the decision has
been made to use biotechnology--indeed more than 75 million acres in
the United States are planted with genetically modified crops. As some
of you know, I am an applied ecologist, and I have looked into the
scientific issues extensively. I could talk at some length about my
opinion on the subject.
But my ultimate conclusion is that just as Americans and Europeans
are free to make reasoned and fair decisions for themselves, so should
Africans have the same choice.
Similarly, our principle--that Africans should be able to choose--
has led Rockefeller to work towards putting African scientists and
farmers in a position to draw upon and adapt new technologies. Western
corporate ownership of much of the intellectual property necessary to
use biotechnology is a problem. We need greater public resources to
help African institutions and regulatory bodies, its scientists and its
farmers. The fact is improvements in African agricultural productivity
are not likely to be made in American labs, but in applied settings--
most likely by African scientists drawing upon the best of the world's
know-how in real world situations. Africans need commitments from
governments to help build the necessary capacity, and they need Western
companies to make available knowledge that might be adaptable.
In Asia, locally based scientists have made thousands of important
advances and are experimenting with hundreds of new crops. Africa needs
to be in a position to do the same--it needs a variety of institutions
to help Africans be able to evaluate and develop potentially useful
technologies.
That is what we at the Rockefeller Foundation are trying to do. We
have recently helped create an African-based, African-led organization,
the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, designed to resolve
many of the barriers that have prevented smallholder farmers from
gaining access to enabling agricultural technologies. It is based in
Nairobi Kenya, and directed by Dr. Eugene Terry who is originally from
Sierra Leone and is superbly qualified in the field.
We have also worked to help strengthen African regulatory bodies
and train hundreds of African scientists. We make grants to help
appropriate regulatory and managerial systems so they can function
effectively.
We have undertaken a variety of other efforts in Africa, but in my
opening remarks I wanted to suggest this central principle and goal to
you--let us look at how Africans can be free to make choices and use
this technology to help themselves.
I have spent most of my life not in New York or London, but in the
field, in developing countries, working as an ecologist. Many parties
working together achieved great things as part of the so-called Green
Revolution in Asia in the 1960s and 1970s. I was proud to be a part of
it. Now we must focus new and innovative ideas on helping Africa be in
a better position to help itself.
I look forward to our discussion, and working together to improve
the situation of many millions of very poor people.
Thank you.
Biography for Gordon Conway
Gordon Conway, a world-renowned agricultural ecologist, was elected
the 12th President of the Rockefeller Foundation in New York City, in
April 1998. He is the first non-U.S. citizen to lead the Foundation,
which was founded in 1913 by philanthropist and international
businessman John D. Rockefeller. Prior to joining the Foundation, Dr.
Conway was Vice Chancellor (President) of the University of Sussex in
Brighton, one of the United Kingdom's leading research universities,
and Chair of the University's Institute of Development Studies.
The Rockefeller Foundation is a knowledge-based, global foundation
with a commitment to enrich and sustain the lives and livelihoods of
poor and excluded people throughout the world. Dr. Conway oversees the
Foundation's philanthropic grant-making in its four program themes:
Food Security, Health Equity, Working Communities and Creativity &
Culture. The four themes and a cross theme of Global Inclusion fund
program initiatives including those to increase food production in
developing countries; develop medicines and vaccines for diseases like
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; and, in the United States, to
create strategies to move people out of persistent poverty and to
reform public schools.
Dr. Conway pioneered integrated pest management in Sabah, North
Borneo, Malaysia, in the 1960s; developed agroecosystems analysis in
Thailand in the 1970s; and in the 1980s was one of the first to define
the concept of sustainable agriculture--a field that is critical to
successful development of poor countries--as the Director of the
Sustainable Agriculture Program of the International Institute for
Environment and Development in London. Dr. Conway developed
interdisciplinary centers of environmental education at London
University in the 1970s and helped set up similar centers in the Sudan,
Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand.
In the late 1980s Dr. Conway worked on participatory projects in
northern Pakistan and Ethiopia, which enabled villagers in these
countries to analyze, define and implement solutions to their own
agricultural and environmental problems.
Dr. Conway has written more than 100 papers, monographs and books
on applied ecology, resource and environmental management, and
international development. His most recent book, The Doubly Green
Revolution: Food for All in the 21st Century (Penguin and University
Press, Cornell), was published in 1999.
A former Ford Foundation representative for India, Nepal and Sri
Lanka, Dr. Conway spent 12 years as an Administrator, Director and
Professor at England's Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine. He also chaired the Commission on British Muslims and
Islamophobia for the Runnymede Trust, a U.K. think tank on race and
ethnicity.
Dr. Conway has worked with several American-based research
institutions including leading a team charged with producing a new
vision for the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research in Washington, D.C., that coordinates the work of the
International Agricultural Research Centers, many of which are or have
been Rockefeller Foundation grantees.
Dr. Conway has a Bachelor's degree in zoology from the University
College of North Wales, Bangor, United Kingdom, a diploma in
agricultural science from the University of Cambridge, United Kingdom,
and a diploma in tropical agriculture from University College of West
Indies, Trinidad. He received his doctorate degree in agricultural
ecology from the University of California, Davis. He holds honorary
fellowships from the Institute of Biology and the University of Wales,
Bangor, United Kingdom; and honorary degrees from the Universities of
Sussex and Brighton, United Kingdom, and the University of the West
Indies, Trinidad. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences, an Emeritus Professor at the University of Sussex and
Visiting Professor at Imperial College.
Dr. Conway is married with three children. He and his spouse,
Susan, reside in Sleepy Hollow, New York.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Conway, thank you very much, and it is
awkward. We just finished voting on the last vote. I voted
quickly and then came over, but I would like to also mention
that this is live on our Science Committee website, and it will
be available on the website for anybody's review for the next
year-and-a-half until the conclusion of this Congress. Dr.
Kilama.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN KILAMA, PRESIDENT, GLOBAL BIOSCIENCE
DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
Dr. Kilama. Thank you, Honorable Chairman Nick Smith, and
Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, for providing
me with the opportunity to speak to you, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee on Research, regarding Plant
Biotechnology Research and Development in Africa: Challenges
and Opportunities. Mr. Chairman, the tragic truth is
unavoidable. Despite the great potential of plant biotechnology
to improve food production, Africa is losing the war against
hunger. As USAID Administrator Natsios has noted, an estimated
435 million Africans could face severe food insecurity by the
year 2010. And yet, this doesn't mean that plant biotechnology
has failed in Africa. On the contrary, plant biotechnology has
not been given a chance to work in Africa.
Why is plant biotechnology research and development not yet
successful in Africa? We have the temptation to blame the
European Union moratorium on GMOs for Africa's failure to adopt
biotechnology. But in my opinion, there is more fundamental and
more troubling factors that are responsible. Even if the
European Union ends its moratorium on GMOs, and surely it will,
plant biotechnology will still face a bleak future in Africa
unless we develop a clear roadmap to address the root causes of
this crisis, rather than its symptoms.
In my view, developing a roadmap for creating sustainable
biotechnology applications that eliminate food insecurity in
Africa must consist of the following steps. We must focus on
financial support of the long-term strategic plan, not on
making short-term investments. These plans would include
developing a process for coordinating all the efforts of the
African assistance for biotechnology that are currently
provided to Africa by various U.S. agencies.
We must revive and rebuild Africa's battered capacity for
applied research and make research institutions a cornerstone
of our efforts. This process should encourage a spirit of
entrepreneurship and the incubation of private companies that
commercialize innovations that come out of Africa applied
research centers at various universities.
We must focus on applied research to solve problems that
Africans themselves identify as essential and relevant to the
food crisis. Africans must be involved at every stage of the
planning and implementation.
We must rebuild Africa's battered infrastructure for
agricultural extension at a time when it is more essential than
ever. We must help Africans create legal certainty,
predictability, transparency to help spur investment from the
public sector and to nurture an entrepreneurial spirit. And we
must act very quickly because technology is moving so fast, and
if Africa is already behind and nothing is done, it is
unbelievable what is going to happen in 10 or 15 years. We have
seen Asia move, we have seen South America move. Africa is
moving backwards.
Mr. Chairman, continuing to apply short-term fixes will not
reduce potential food catastrophe in Africa. Only long-term
strategic investment will address the problems. We need to
support the building of African university institutions by
providing adequate funding and working with university
officials in partnership with African policy-makers to help
them understand their options for making decisions about
biotechnology research. The support would be on the basis of
how they may contribute to solving the hunger problem five
years or ten years down the road.
Mr. Chairman, Africa's infrastructure for applied research
in biotechnology is in bad shape. In a recent study, Dr.
Alhassan, a visiting scientist at the International Institute
of Tropical Agriculture pointed out that the National
Agricultural Research System of the following seven countries
in West Africa, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana,
Mali, Nigeria, and Senegal has no capacity to do any advanced
research. So the question I would ask then, how can we expect
advanced research to take place when African scholars are
poorly paid? Libraries lack modern research tools such as
computerized databases. Research institutions lack internet
connectivity. African scholars are isolated from the main
currents in their discipline, both within Africa and across the
globe.
We know it doesn't have to be this way because in the
1960's and the 1970's it wasn't. During that period, many
African universities enjoyed a significant budget for applied
research. Most African governments spend at least one percent
of their GDP on scientific research. Today, you would be hard
pressed to find even five governments that spend as much as one
percent of their GDP on research. Many governments only spend
one-tenth of one percent. What went wrong? It is easy to point
fingers, civil wars, corrupt self-serving governments that are
very oppressive and ill informed about biotechnology. Even the
World Bank, in pursuit of structural adjustments, put pressure
on African government to discourage research and higher
education in favor of short-term approaches. At least now, I
have seen they are beginning to review that policy.
In any case, finger pointing won't get the job of
rebuilding done. So where do we start? Across the continent,
there are several African leading universities and research
institutions that have considerable potential to emerge as
centers of quality research in plant biotechnology. Among those
I would include the University of Botswana, Ahmadu Bella
University in Nigeria, and I would include Yaounde University
in Cameroon, the National University in Cote d'Ivoire, Addis
Ababa University, Omar Bongo University in Gabon, the
University of Ghana, the University of Namibia, University
Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar, and Makerere University in Uganda. A
number of African research institutes, as well, are very
active, and one of them is KARI [Kenya Agricultural Research
Institute], which has now produced some variety in sweet
potatoes as a result of partnership between USAID and Monsanto
Company.
It is very important that innovations within African
universities be given a chance to move into the private sector,
and I want to give one example. The University of Western Cape
in South Africa can serve as a role model. At that university,
the South African National Bioinformatics Institute, SANBI, is
developing bioinformatics analysis site and using it as an
incubator for new companies. The mission is very simple. It is
to produce innovations which can then be passed on to private
sectors. And I believe the solutions for food security is not a
matter of simply producing food for Africans to eat. It has to
be looked at in the global system, economic system, and I
believe that is one way in which we can be able to reduce
hunger in Africa.
It is important to bring biotechnology to the heart of the
African people, rather than create centers of excellence that
are far away and far less responsive. Africa needs to bring
biotechnology to its grassroots. Technology must be supported
by local expertise and local universities that understand local
needs. Sources of knowledge and support must be on the ground
close to the farmers. I want to give you an example. I live in
Delaware. If the chicken farmers or the poultry farmers in
Delaware had to rely on centers of excellence in, let us say,
Nebraska or California, I don't think that would be serving the
interests of the farmers in Delaware. And that is why the
center of excellence for poultry is located in the University
of Delaware. So why should we really begin to try to introduce
scientific research from far away and not creating those
centers within each country? And I think it is very important
that the source of strength for developing capacity in plant
biotechnology has to lie within the university.
I want to say that during my recent trip to Brazzaville,
the capital of the Republic of Congo, I met with Honorable
Jeanne Dambendzet, the Minister of Agriculture, and during our
meeting, she expressed great concern about the problems that
they are experiencing with cassava blight, which is a disease
that is destroying the cassava. And by the way, cassava is the
second leading source of carbohydrates after rice, and yet,
there is not sufficient funding that is available to provide
the opportunities for Africans to grow cassava, which is
essential in most of West Africa and East Africa Central,
including even South America and Asia.
One other thing, also, I discovered within Central Africa
is a product they call koko, and this is harvested wild, and it
is a very important source of protein for a lot of people in
Central Africa, from Cameroon to Gabon, to Congo, to Central
Africa. And yet, there is an issue of it being destroyed in the
environment. So allow me to conclude by saying that it is very
important that whatever we try to do, it has to be long-term,
and we begin to see the benefits of long-term strategy in Asia,
which is bearing fruit today. If we continue to provide short-
term fixes, it will not solve the problems of Africa. And in
fact, it is very important that research become a cornerstone
of our efforts, and it has to be imbedded in universities,
strengthened universities.
And one last point, when I was growing up and going to high
school, there were so many Americans who were imbedded in the
universities as professors. Today, you would be hard pressed to
find any single individual in most of these universities who
are serving one year of sabbatical in African universities. In
fact, we prefer Africans to come into the United States. I
think that is beneficial, but it is more beneficial if we begin
to have the traffic both ways. And I think one of the efforts
that should be done by the National Science Foundation is to
encourage the university professors here to go and spend a year
or two years, and by doing that, it provides opportunities for
the African scientists to learn some of the more sophisticated
ways of conducting research. And I thank you for giving me the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kilama follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Kilama
Thank you, Hon. Chairman, Nick Smith and Hon. Eddie Bernice
Johnson, Ranking Minority Member, for providing me with the opportunity
to speak to you and Members of the Subcommittee on Research of the U.S.
House of Representatives' Committee on Science regarding ``Plant
Biotechnology Research and Development in Africa: Challenges and
Opportunities.''
The tragic truth is unavoidable: Africa is losing the war against
famine. Despite the enormous potential of plant biotechnology to
improve food production, Africa is losing the war against hunger. As
USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios has noted, an estimated 435 million
Africans could face ``severe food insecurity'' by the year 2010,
And yet, this doesn't mean that plant biotechnology has failed in
Africa. On the contrary, plant biotechnology has not been given a
chance to work its wonders in Africa--and that is almost as terrible a
tragedy.
Why hasn't plant biotech been given a chance? Although it is
tempting to blame the European Union's moratorium on GMOs for Africa's
rejection of biotech, more fundamental--and more troubling--factors are
responsible. Even after the European Union ends its moratorium on
GMOs--as surely it will--plant biotechnology will have a bleak future
in Africa unless we develop a clear road map to address the root causes
of this crisis--rather than its symptoms.
In my view, developing a road map for creating sustainable
biotechnology applications that eliminate food insecurity in Africa
must consist of the following steps:
1) LWe must focus on financial support of a long-term strategic
plan; not on making short-term investments. This will require
developing a process for coordinating all the efforts of
foreign assistance that are currently provided to Africa by
various U.S. agencies.
2) LWe must revive and rebuild Africa's battered capacity for
applied research, and make research institutions a cornerstone
of our efforts. This process should encourage a spirit of
entrepreneurship--and the incubation of private-sector
companies that commercialize innovations that come out of
applied research centers at Africa's universities.
3) LWe must focus on applied research to solve problems that
Africans themselves identify as essential--and relevant--to the
famine crisis. Africans must be involved at every stage of
planning and implementation.
4) LWe must rebuild Africa's battered infrastructure for
agricultural extension at a time when it is more essential than
ever.
5) LWe must help Africans create legal certainty,
predictability and transparency to help spur investment from
the public sector, and to nurture an entrepreneurial spirit.
We must act with a sense of urgency, because the gap between the
technology ``haves'' and the ``don't-haves'' is expanding daily. As
technology becomes increasingly sophisticated, that gap will continue
to widen--unless we act decisively.
Allow me, please, to elaborate my approach in a bit more detail.
An Emphasis on the Long-term
First, instead of continuing to apply short-term ``fixes,'' we need
to focus on long-term strategic investments. We need to patiently
nurture and rebuild African university institutions--and work with
African policy-makers to help them understand their options for making
decisions about biotechnology research--and its enormous potential for
eliminating hunger, and fueling economic development. We must assist
African universities with both financial and strategic planning so as
to rebuild Africa's deteriorated university systems.
The consequences of a long-term approach are profound. We need to
evaluate biotechnology options and technologies--not by assessing how
much they will pay off this year or next year, but on the basis of how
they may contribute to solving the hunger problem five years or ten
years--or even further down the road.
Although this means taking risks--and betting on uncertain, new
options--we cannot afford not to take risks, if we want to develop
long-term meaningful solutions. If we don't think long-term, there is
no doubt that we--or our counterparts--will be discussing the issue of
African famine in even more dire terms, some ten or twenty years from
today.
To monitor the progress of our long-term approach, we also need a
process for coordinating the efforts of various U.S. agencies--in order
to make sure that their programs are consistent, and there is no
redundancy.
Focusing on Applied Research
Next, we must rebuild Africa's battered infrastructure for applied
research, and make it a cornerstone of our long-term efforts. Africa's
infrastructure for applied research in biotechnology is in tatters.
Biotechnology budgets have dried up, and professional standards have
declined to the point where advanced research is virtually non-
existent.
In a recent study, Dr. Walter S. Alhassan, a Visiting Scientist at
the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan,
Nigeria, pointed out that the National Agricultural Research Systems
(NARS) of the following seven African countries have no capacity to
conduct advanced biotechnology: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire,
Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, and Senegal.
Elsewhere, the situation is similar, except for in South Africa.
How can we expect advanced research to take place? Consider that:
LAfrican scholars are poorly paid.
LLibraries lack modern research tools such as
computerized databases.
LResearch institutions lack Internet connectivity.
LAfrican scholars are isolated from the main currents
in their discipline both within Africa and across the globe.
LThere is no credible legal system to protect
innovations of Africans through fundamental international
standards such as the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property rights.
We know that it doesn't have to be this way--because from the 1960s
through the 1970s, it wasn't. During that period, many African
universities enjoyed a significant budget for applied research. Most
African governments spent at least one percent of their GDP on
scientific research. Today, you would be hard pressed to find even five
governments that spend as much as one percent of their GDP on research.
Many governments only spend one-tenth of one percent.
A generation ago, professional standards were high. Moreover,
Africa's researchers had ample opportunity to engage in exchange
programs with their counterparts in the United States and Europe. Many
Americans took sabbaticals in Africa, as did some of their counterparts
in Europe. These reciprocal exchanges strengthened the skills of
African professionals, and kept them up-to-date with their colleagues
elsewhere around the world.
What went wrong? It's easy to point fingers. Civil wars. Corrupt,
self-serving governments that are repressive and ill informed about
biotechnology. Even the World Bank, in pursuit of ``structural
adjustments,'' put pressure on African governments to discourage
research and higher education in favor of shorter-term approaches. Now
I am glad to see that they are reversing that policy, and recognizing
the importance of quality research and high standards.
In any case, finger pointing won't get the job of rebuilding done.
So where do we start? Across the continent, several of Africa's
leading universities and research institutions still have considerable
potential to emerge as centers of quality research in plant
biotechnology--provided that we make a patient, long-term commitment to
funding--and guiding--their progress along the right path. According to
the same study by Dr. Alhassan, The West and Central African Council
for Agricultural Research and Development (WECARD)\1\ recognizes the
importance of biotechnology for agricultural research in the region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CORAF (Conseil Quest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le
Developement Agricoles)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some highlights of Dr. Alhassan's study:
LThere is considerable strength in tissue culture and
a growing potential for molecular biology work in Cameroon.
LExcept for a shortage of manpower, the infrastructure
for biotechnology in Cote d'Ivoire is above average for the
subregion.
LIn Ghana, the biotechnology infrastructure is weak
but the manpower base is relatively strong.
LNigeria has a strong infrastructure in tissue culture
work, but it is relatively weak in molecular biotechnology
infrastructure. However, this will develop over time, as
Nigeria draws up its guidelines for biotechnology development
policy and biosafety, and as it establishes institutions to
promote biotechnology research and joint development with
emerging local entrepreneurs.
LSenegal has the best laboratory infrastructure and
manpower for agricultural biotechnology in the subregion. Its
standard of biotechnology work is relatively more advanced than
the neighboring countries.
Several African universities have considerable potential, if their
infrastructures are provided with additional support. Among these, I
would include the University of Botswana--which has one of the best
chemistry departments in Sub-Saharan Africa except for in South
Africa--and Ahmadu Bello University in Nigeria, which is headed by a
no-nonsense administration that is looking for funding to engage in
applied research in biotechnology. Other universities with significant
promise include the University of Yaounde (Cameroon); the National
University of Cote d'Ivoire; Addis Ababa University in Ethiopia; Omar
Bongo University in Gabon; the University of Ghana; the University of
Namibia; University Cheikh Anta Diop of Dakar, Senegal; and Makerere
University in Uganda, the country in which I was born.
A number of African research institutes, as well as institutes
within ministries of agriculture, are also in a position to emerge as
applied research centers in plant biotechnology. Most remarkable is the
Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI), which is already engaged
in a fruitful partnership with the USAID and the private sector. The
fruits of that partnership are already apparent in the form of
genetically modified sweet potatoes.
For an example of how university research can incubate new
companies--and strengthen entrepreneurship--the University of the
Western Cape, in South Africa, can serve as a role model. At that
university, the South African National Bioinformatics Institute (SANBI)
is developing a bioinformatics analysis site, and using it as an
incubator for new companies. The mission of SANBI is to ``develop
analysis systems relevant to the South African Community.'' Instead of
relying on a developed country to come in and rescue Africa from its
problems, young companies such as Electric Genetics believe that South
African citizens should learn about bioinformatics and help themselves.
Gensec Bank and Real Africa Holdings launched the first biotech venture
capital fund, Bioventures, in 2001.
We should also do everything in our power to reduce the painful
isolation of Africa's scientific community--by fostering exchange
programs and sabbaticals that expose Africa's Molecular biologists and
biotechnologists to the ferment of new ideas and new technologies in
the United States. In this regard, I suggest we leverage the sizable
community of African scientists who are permanent residents in the
United States, including many U.S. citizens. Many members of this
African Diaspora are ready and willing to contribute their skills and
perspectives, without necessarily relocating to Africa.
Bringing biotech to the heart of the people
Next, we must bring biotech to the heart of African people rather
than create ``centers of excellence'' that are far away--and far less
responsible. Africa needs to bring biotechnology to its grass roots.
Technology must be supported by local expertise at local universities
that understand local needs.
Sources of knowledge and support must be on the ground, close to
farmers--and readily available to support them--not halfway across
Africa, as some people have proposed. Imagine poultry farmers in
Delaware relying on research support centers in faraway Nebraska or
California, instead of centers at the University of Delaware. It's hard
to see how that sort of research center can be responsive to the needs
of farmers in Africa, who are far more isolated than farmers in
Delaware. Moreover, it's a lot cheaper to create three or four first-
class institutes in a country than to ask people to bear the impossible
cost of traveling abroad for assistance.
On the contrary, local communities must become engaged in making
vital decisions about where and how to apply biotech research efforts.
Only then--and only after gradual, patient efforts--will plant biotech
be viewed as ``local'' and ``African''--rather than alien and
threatening.
We must work with local communities to identify their needs, their
priorities--and the technologies that are the best fit. Local
communities will be the best judges of research projects that are worth
pursuing, not faraway institutes that deal with only a handful of
scientists from each country.
How exactly can locally focused applied research help? Here are
several options that seem especially promising:
First, applied research can help develop new varieties of plants
that are critical to African nutrition--but are currently threatened by
disease or biodiversity loss. Although most of the genetically modified
organisms intended to be introduced to Africa are in cotton, rice and
corn, there is a good opportunity for biotechnology to have a
significant impact on the production of cassava, which is currently
suffering widespread blight disease in Africa. Cassava is the second
most important source of carbohydrates in the world--and the
consequences for African famine will be devastating if production drops
severely.
During my recent trip to Brazzaville, capital of the Republic of
the Congo, I met with the Hon. Ms. Jeanne Dambendzet, the Minister of
Agriculture. During our meeting, the Minister expressed her deep
concern about the devastation of cassava blight disease in her country.
She is very fearful of the impact on local cassava production and how
Congolese rural communities will cope with the shortages of food.
Madame Ambassador Robin Sanders, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of the
Congo, arranged my trip. Ambassador Sanders is taking a leading role in
assisting the efforts of Congolese leaders to combat the problem of
serious cassava blight disease. At the moment, there is no light at the
tunnel for solving this blight--because there is not enough funding
directed towards solving the cassava problems in Africa, or anywhere
else.
Second, applied research can help local communities effectively
cultivate and commercialize many wild products that are popular--but
whose future is threatened by over-harvesting. One such product is
Gntum leaves that are known throughout Central Africa, mostly by the
vernacular name koko.\2\ Commercial activity in these leaves has been
increasing for several years. Today they are sold in most European
countries. In all Central African countries, women play a primary role,
from gathering to selling. An investigation in 1980\3\ found that the
trade in Gnetum in the Koilou region of the Congo employed over 400
women to harvest the leaves from the wild. It's a popular but
endangered wild plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Mialoundama, F., ``Nutritional and Socio-Economic Value of
Gnetum Leaves in Central African Forest,'' Chapter 14, Man and the
Biosphere Series, Volume 13.
\3\ Mialoundama, F., (1980). ``Action regulatrice des feuilles sur
l'activite morphogenetique du bourgeon terminal chez Gnetum africanum
Welw.'' Comptes Rendus des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences; Paris,
291, 509-512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many Central Africans, especially in Cameroon, Congo, Gabon and the
Central African Republic, depend on koko for the nutritional value of
its leaves, a significant source of protein, essential amino acids, and
mineral elements. Yet koko could soon become extinct if researchers
don't get a solid opportunity to apply biotechnology to its
cultivation. Hon. Djombo, Minister of Forest Economy and Environment,
for the Republic of the Congo echoed these concerns during our recent
meeting in Brazzaville.
Next, applied research can help us develop a model for moving
biotechnology into local communities effectively. Although
biotechnology has the power to enhance valuable traits--and ward off
disease--crops that are genetically modified can nevertheless suffer
from weeds. So we need research that helps farmers manage their crops
that include genetically modified organisms.
Which research projects will turn out to be the most useful? I
can't tell you--and neither can anyone else. Only local African
communities will be able to make that judgment--and only if their local
applied research institutions are allowed to flourish--and share their
knowledge. Only if local communities can get involved in monitoring
programs--and seeing which projects are really addressing their needs
and which are not.
Strengthening infrastructure for agricultural extension services
In addition, we need to see revive institutions of applied research
as the source of agricultural extension services that African farmers
need to survive--and thrive--in the age of biotechnology and global
markets.
Several factors make agricultural extension more essential than
ever before: The faster pace of technological change; the globalization
of agricultural markets; and the growing integration of biotechnology
with information technology.
These factors make the challenges confronting Africa's farmers
today very different from the challenges that faced my father in Uganda
when I was growing up in that country.
When I was a child, my father grew tobacco and cotton on a farm
that benefited enormously from the ``Green Revolution.'' If it hadn't
been for the Green Revolution, my father would not have had the
resources to make a good living--and lay the seeds for my higher
education and career as a scientist.
Unfortunately, few African farmers today are making the smooth
adjustment to new agricultural technologies that my father did during
my childhood. Many farmers who have been introduced to new technology
are abandoning their farms--because of the failure of today's
infrastructure for agricultural extension.
To understand why, consider the fundamental contrast between the
Green Revolution and the Biotech Revolution of today--and the greater
demands on agricultural extension today. The Green Revolution brought
new technology in the form of fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides and
herbicides. Although new, these technologies did not require the long
learning curve required of today's line-up of new products. They were
not only less sophisticated than today's new technologies, they weren't
changing rapidly. A fertilizer was a fertilizer; it was not being
continually redesigned and improved--like today's products in
biotechnology and information technology. Getting a handle on new
technology today is harder than ever--because technology is a moving
target. Anyone who works with computers knows that.
In my father's generation, it was also much less of a challenge to
understand the risks involved in using new technologies, as well as
their impact on the economic and social patterns of communities. In
those days, African farmers did not have to become skilled in the new
art of risk assessment. There weren't as many new products--and the
risks were easier to assess. Nor did farmers have to learn about
regulatory regimes; or about regional, national--even global economic
conditions that affect their livelihood.
Now, at the very time when African farmers must learn continuously
in order to survive, agricultural extension services designed to help
them have been gutted by budget cutbacks, and other forces we have
discussed earlier. At a time when Africa's farmers need more support
than ever, the infrastructure for agricultural extension has eroded.
Is it any wonder that many farmers fail to take full advantage of
the biotechnology that is made available to them? Is it any wonder that
so many abandon their farms--and return to the city? Is it any wonder
that they become biotechnology Luddites--rejecting a technology that
could do them so much good because they don't have the resources--
including funding and skills--to use it effectively?
Plant biotechnology is constantly changing, and farmers need to
understand complex processes of risk assessment. New products are newer
and harder to grasp; that is the wonder of biotechnology--but also a
challenge for gaining acceptance.
We must also make sure that agricultural extension services are
equipped to explain regulatory issues to farmers, as well some of the
economic complexities that reflect the influence of the global
marketplace. All of these efforts must be continuous--rather than one-
shot efforts at training--because everything is always changing.
Creating Legal Certainty, Predictability and Transparency
Research is expensive and we can't depend on governments alone to
get the job done. We need to get the private sector actively involved.
A key to boosting biotechnology lies in developing strategies for
stimulating private-sector investment. However, the current absence of
legal certainty, predictability and transparency creates major
obstacles to investment for research-intensive industries in the
biotechnology sector. Without laws that conform to minimal
international standards--such as the WTO Agreement on Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights--businesses are unable to make
the investments needed in terms of capital and technology transfer; and
in the training and upgrading of local personnel.
In the long run, these factors are critical to sustainable economic
diversification and sustainable economic growth. In the absence of
protection for trademarks, patents, undisclosed information and
copyrights, African countries are unable either to protect the
intellectual capital of their own elites or attract foreign capital
from innovative multinational companies. The absence of IP protection
also contributes substantially to brain-drain. Many of Africa's most
talented and capable scientists, doctors and inventors have ``voted
with their feet.'' They have emigrated to European and American
laboratories or clinical research facilities, where they have greatly
enriched global science and technology across many sectors. However,
they have been unable to contribute to the economic development of
their home countries, apart from sending remittances.
Staying the Course
If we neglect this approach--and focus on technology, rather than
the entire agricultural system--many farmers are likely to throw up
their hands in defeat, when they hit their first hard times.
If we continue to focus on the short-term, and neglect the kinds of
applied research that can bring science to the people, biotechnology
will have a bleak future in Africa. And if we don't focus on bringing
biotech to the heart of the people, hundreds of millions of Africans
will lose their best chance to stave off famine. But if we act now to
take a more strategic, longer-term view, I'm confident that we can turn
the corner in the struggle against famine.
About GBDI
Since GBDI was established in 1999, we have conducted
multidisciplinary training sessions about biodiversity, biotechnology
and related intellectual property law in Kenya, Botswana, Nigeria,
Tanzania, and Benin. Overall, nearly 500 scientists, lawyers, public
officials and other professionals from 43 sub-Saharan countries in East
Africa, West Africa and Southern Africa have received GBDI training and
consultation in biodiversity, biotechnology and related law. We are
also deploying our professional resources to provide consultations for
public- and private-sector institutions that want to expand their
presence in promising markets for bioresources--or move into new
markets.
A major goal of our current efforts is a program designed to
overcome the barriers that have stood in the way of passing biosafety
regulation throughout Africa. Biotechnology in Africa faces a critical
challenge. Not one country in Africa has yet to enact biosafety
regulatory law, despite the fact that biosafety regulations are
mandated by the Biosafety Protocol. Unless African leaders pass
biosafety regulatory laws--and implement them effectively--Africa will
never adopt and develop biotechnology, or acquire biotechnology through
technology transfer from the U.S. or other trading partners.
In addition, we are planning to work with the Republic of the Congo
(Brazzaville) and the U.S. Embassy in Brazzaville to organize a
conference for African heads of state, to focus on the critical issue
of cassava blight and how biotechnology offers a great solution to it.
Some of these programs that we want to implement will depend on the
availability of funds.
Biography for John Kilama
Dr. John Kilama, President of Global Bioscience Development
Institute, has a broad background in the pharmaceutical, agricultural
biotechnology and agrochemical chemistry. Born in Uganda, Dr. Kilama
received his Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry from the University of
Arizona in Tucson, Arizona in 1988, a Pharmacy degree from the
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky in 1979 and a BA in
chemistry from Berea College, Berea, Kentucky in 1976.
Dr. Kilama worked in DuPont Company as a Senior Medicinal Research
Chemist, and was awarded several patents that cover innovative
applications of new classes of chemicals for crop protections and
published several scientific peer-reviewed articles in the
agrochemicals journals. At DuPont, he developed a natural product team
in the Chemical Discovery Department. He also helped established
several collaborations between DuPont and other institutions in
developing countries. He developed an approach to establishing a long
lasting, workable relationship between multi-national corporations and
institutions in developing countries.
GBDI brings very unique experiences of organizing complex training
in developing countries and an unparalleled network among scientists,
lawyers, political leaders, and policy-makers in developing countries.
ADDRESS
Ph.D., President, The Global Bioscience Development Institute,
Inc., 702 West Street, Suite 205, Wilmington, DE, USA 19801; E-mail:
[email protected]; Web address: www.gbdi.org; Tel: +1 (302) 656-6439;
Cell: +1 (302) 898-0008; Fax: +1 (302) 656-6442
CAREER SKILLS/KNOWLEDGE
Management
LOrganizing professional training sessions on
biotechnology, biodiversity and intellectual property law for
the promotion of economic development.
LRaising funds from leading international
organizations.
LAnalyzing international trade regulations and their
impact on the economic development of developing nations.
LEvaluating technical assistance most suited for
promoting economic growth of developing countries in
biotechnology, biodiversity and intellectual property.
LFormulating effective private/public sector
partnerships.
LRecruiting and managing professional staff in the
research and development of pharmaceuticals and agricultural
products
Pharmaceuticals
LExtensive background monitoring the use of drug
products at the community level.
LDesigning and managing mechanisms for distribution of
pharmaceutical drug products at community levels.
LSupervising and directing advanced research and
development in pharmaceuticals and agricultural products.
Biotechnology
LFormulating biosafety guidelines for developing
countries.
LPublic speaking on economic development issues
related to biotechnology, biosafety and intellectual property.
LEvaluating biotechnology policy options and setting
priorities for developing countries.
CAREER ACHIEVEMENTS
LAs founder and president of the Global Bioscience
Development Institute, Inc. (GBDI), created and supervised
intensive practical training about global biodiversity,
bioprospecting, biotechnology and intellectual property law for
500 executives and officials from 45 countries.
LRaised and managed over $750,000 in funding for GBDI
operations since its establishment.
LEstablished GBDI training curricula used by numerous
national leaders in Africa and Asia as a model for practical
professional training beneficial to sustained economic
development.
LCreated and led several effective partnerships
between multinational corporations and institutions (private
and public) in developing nations.
LCited as an expert on biotechnology, biodiversity and
intellectual property in leading publications around the world.
LDelivered numerous presentations at professional
conferences and seminars hosted by leading bioscience
institutions around the world.
LActive participant in advisory boards of World Health
Organization--IPPPH (Initiative on Public-Private Sector
Partnership for Health) in Switzerland, and the International
Organization for Chemistry in Development (IOCD), in Belgium.
LAs senior medicinal research chemist at DuPont Co.,
awarded several patents covering innovative applications of new
classes of chemicals for crop protection.
LAs senior medicinal research chemist at DuPont Co.,
headed a team that utilized natural products as a broader
research and development program.
CAREER EXPERIENCE
MANAGEMENT
Global Bioscience Development Institute, Inc., Wilmington, DE--1998-
Present
President
Total responsibility for managing GBDI, a global institution
providing practical training in biodiversity, biotechnology and related
intellectual property law for scientists, senior executives, government
officials, lawyers, economists, intellectual property professionals and
technology transfer professionals.
LDirect all fundraising efforts for programs that have
trained more than 500 professionals in 45 countries around the
world.
LWork with professional trainers to develop targeted
course work that meets the needs of local institutions and
professionals.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
DuPont Life Sciences, Wilmington, DE--1990-2000
Senior Medicinal Chemist, Chemical Discovery Dept., Agricultural
Division
LCreated and led successful project teams combining
chemical, biochemical and physical techniques such as molecular
modeling to design and synthesize novel biologically active
compounds.
LDeveloped a workable approach to establishing long-
term relationships between multinational corporations and
institutions in developing countries. Awarded several patents
covering innovative applications of new classes of chemicals
for crop protection.
CLINICAL PHARMACY PRACTICE
Community Practice and Consultant
Wilmington, DE--1994-present
Tucson, AZ--1984-1990
Presbyterian Hospital
Dallas, TX, Clinical Hospital Pharmacist, Pharmacy--1979-1982
PRESENTATIONS ON BIOTECH AND BIODIVERSITY POLICY
LApril 2002: ``BioEconomy: The Future of World Economy
in the 21st Century,'' at the ``BangaloreBio2002: Showcasing
Karnataka's Biotechnology Agenda'' conference in Bangalore,
India.
LMarch 2002: ``BioDiversity--A Key to Economic
Prosperity in Africa,'' at the ``Sasol Scifest 2002''
conference in Grahamstown, South Africa.
LMarch 2002: ``Challenges to Adopting Science and
Technology to Create Wealth in Africa,'' at the ``Sasol Scifest
2002'' conference in Grahamstown, South Africa.
LMarch 2002: ``Appropriate Information on
Biotechnology: Key to Understanding the Opportunities That
Biotechnology May Offer to African Seed Trade Association
(AFSTA) and Africa,'' at the African Seed Trade Association's
(AFSTA) congress in Dakar, Senegal.
LMarch 2002: ``Bread for the World Institute's
Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology: Can it Help Reduce
Hunger in Africa?'' at ``Key Food Safety & Biodiversity
Concerns on Agricultural Biotechnology in Africa'' conference
in Washington, DC.
TRADE MISSIONS
LSept. 2002: Delegate from Philadelphia to the
People's Republic of China.
LJuly 1994: Member of U.S. delegation to Uganda headed
by Congressman Tony Hall (Ohio).
EXAMPLES OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
L``Aryl-substituted quinoxalines and related
heteroarenes as novel herbicides prepared via palladium-
catalyzed cross-coupling methods.'' ACS Symposium. Ser. (1995),
584 (Synthesis and Chemistry of Agrochemicals IV), 171-85 (with
Smith, Ben K.; Denes, Radu; Selby, Tom).
L``A new synthetic approach to the C-D ring portion of
streptonigrin analogs.'' J. Heterocyclic Chem. (1990), 27(5),
1437-40 (with Iyengar, Bhashyam S.; Remers, William A.; Mash,
Eugene A.).
L``Racemization-Free amidation of unprotected alpha
amino acids or ester via aluminum amides.'' 206th American
Chemical Society National Meeting, Chicago, II, 1993 (with Tim
Neubert).
EDUCATION
Postdoctoral, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN--1988-1990
Ph.D., Medicinal Chemistry, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ--1983-
1988
BS.C., Pharmacy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY--1976-1979
B.A., Chemistry, Berea College, Berea, Kentucky--1973-1976
Chairman Smith. Dr. Kilama, thank you. Very good. Dr.
Horsch.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT B. HORSCH, VICE PRESIDENT, PRODUCT AND
TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION FOR MONSANTO.
Dr. Horsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I would like to submit my entire statement for
the record. I will be brief right now. I appreciate this
opportunity to testify today, and I thank Congressman Akin for
his very kind introduction. Today, I lead Monsanto's
partnerships with public institutions and nonprofit foundations
to help small holder farmers in developing countries. We help
them to gain access to better agricultural products and
technologies and research that will lead to that.
Monsanto's presence in Africa is centered in South Africa,
where we have an advanced breeding and research facility in
Petite. There we develop seeds for much of Sub-Saharan Africa.
This includes both conventional seeds and seeds improved with
biotechnology traits. The Speaker and Representative Johnson
toured our Petite research facility on a fact finding tour of
issues facing Africa a year or two ago.
How can we improve productivity in Africa and can biotech
play a key role? The biggest problems in my studies and travels
have been pests, depleted soils, drought, and poor human
nutrition from inadequate completeness of the diet. On pests,
the tropics have much worse pest problems than we face here,
where our winters set the pests back every year. Africans
either use chemical pesticides, or much more often, nothing at
all and suffer the losses. Biotech is a proven solution for
controlling key pests everywhere in the world it has been
applied. And researchers are pursuing genes that will control
many other serious pest problems beyond those we have solutions
for today.
Depleted soils: The soils in Africa are fragile and
depleted of nutrients plants need to grow and develop. By
combining biotech with no till farming, the soils can be
restored. A concerted research effort on improving nitrogen use
efficiency by the crops could increase productivity where
fertilizer is limiting and expensive.
Drought: Desertification or failure of rains to come at
critical times during plant growth frequently leads to crop
failure. We have heard a lot about, and I have seen preliminary
results with genes designed to alleviate and reduce drought
stress and losses due to drought that are promising in
greenhouse tests and lots of technology and science that is
promising to help solve this problem.
Human Nutrition: Essential nutrients can be built into
starchy staple foods, such as rice or corn, right on the farm
in areas where there are no groceries to provide enriched
processed foods or dietary supplements.
We already know biotech can be used successfully by small
holder African farmers because they have been using it in
biotech cotton for several years already to great advantage,
and Chairman Smith has provided the testimony of T.J.
Buthelezi. I will just point out similar results are being
obtained by thousands of his neighbors in South Africa.
Ongoing biotech research is aimed specifically at African
problems in growing staple foods. I mentioned sweet potato,
which is also an important subsistence crop because it will
grow in poor soil and survive droughts already, but it suffers
from a devastating viral disease. With partial funding from
USAID, Dr. Florence Wambugu and other Kenyan scientists have
worked in my lab and then returned to Kenya to continue work to
finish developing a biotech solution for the sweet potato virus
problem. You have heard from Congressman Akin and others about
work on cassava diseases ongoing at the Donald Danforth Plant
Science Center, and Monsanto is fully supportive of the new
African Agricultural Technology Foundation that Gordon Conway
has described. Other examples are in my written submission.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to emphasize three
recommendations to this committee. We should continue to
strengthen investment in basic and applied research and in
agricultural innovation and conservation in the United States.
Our leadership benefits our country and it benefits the rest of
the world as well. We should continue our leadership in
establishing science based regulatory principles and policies
and help other countries to do so, too. Lack of working
regulatory systems is becoming a major obstacle to introducing
new biotech products in other countries or even just to conduct
the science and field tests to do product development locally,
as Dr. Kilama has so ably recommended as important.
Finally, and most importantly, I think we must work
together to get needed products into farmers' hands and
farmers' fields sooner rather than later. To do this, we will
need to create a new focus and priority on turning research
into products that farmers need and can use to grow more and
better food. And then we must gain the appropriate regulatory
approvals and find mechanisms to deliver these public goods,
biotech products, such as the disease resistant cassava, sweet
potatoes, or improved nutrition staples that I mentioned
earlier, to the subsistence farmers across Africa. And I would
agree with my esteemed colleagues here that it must be done in
a way that gives each country choice, each farmer choice, about
how this is done, and that much of the local adaptation and
research work must be done in partnership and at the local
institutions. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Horsch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert B. Horsch
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Rob Horsch
and I am Vice President of Product and Technology Cooperation for
Monsanto Company. I appreciate this opportunity to meet with you today.
First, I would like to give you some background on my career in
science and agriculture, which will explain why I am here today, and
why I am so passionate about the need for agricultural research and
development in Africa and the rest of the developing world.
I received my Ph.D. in genetics at the University of California,
Riverside in 1979, and conducted postdoctoral work in plant physiology
at the University of Saskatchewan. I then joined Monsanto as a
scientist in 1981 to lead the company's plant tissue culture and
transformation efforts, and contributed to the development of the
insect-protected and herbicide-tolerant biotechnology traits in broad
use today in soybeans, corn, cotton and canola.
In 1999, I, along with three of my colleagues, was honored to be
awarded the National Medal of Technology by the President of the United
States for our contributions to the development of agricultural
biotechnology.
Today I lead Monsanto's efforts to partner with public and private
institutions to help farmers in developing countries gain access to
better agricultural products and technologies. We share fundamental
scientific data; technology, including genes and traits; training to
move technology into crops important for food security; consultation on
environmental stewardship and information on food safety; and licenses
to patented technologies--all to develop crops that can produce more
food, use less pesticide, and improve people's health around the world.
This commitment to the developing world dovetails with our
corporate mission at Monsanto to make a positive difference in
agriculture--arguably still today the world's most important industry.
Monsanto Company's Commitment to Plant Biotechnology
The vision of the people at Monsanto is abundant food and a healthy
environment. We are working to deliver products and solutions that help
to meet the world's growing food needs, while conserving natural
resources and protecting the environment.
Monsanto has a long history of turning innovative science into
successful, high-value products that improve the efficiency of crop and
animal agriculture.
Biotechnology is an example of our commitment to agricultural
innovation. We developed Roundup Ready seeds that have been genetically
enhanced to provide herbicide tolerance, thereby allowing Roundup
herbicide to be applied directly over the top of the crop in the field.
This provides outstanding weed control without damaging the crop, and
protects the environment.
In fact, according to a recent study by the National Center for
Food & Agricultural Policy, the eight biotech crop varieties currently
grown in the United States like corn, cotton and soybeans have reduced
pesticide use in 2001 by 46 million pounds.
That's millions and millions of pounds of synthetic chemicals that
biotechnology eliminated in just one year. And reductions in pesticide
use continue to increase each year as farmers substitute more biotech
crops for pesticides.
We have also developed YieldGard and Bollgard seeds that protect
themselves from harm by damaging insect pests. This provides
outstanding pest control, built right into the seed, without the use of
chemical insecticides.
We also believe that biotechnology will be an important tool in
helping to feed our planet's population.
In the last 60 years alone, the world's population has tripled from
2 billion to 6 billion. The United Nations estimates there will be
another 2 billion people by the year 2020, most living in the world's
poorest regions.
With more people in the world, we're going to have to find ways to
provide more food. According to Nobel Laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug,
``You've got two choices. Either you improve yields so that you can
continue to produce the food that is needed on the soil that is well-
adapted to agricultural production, or you'll be pushed into cutting
down more forests.''
We believe that biotechnology will be a crucial part of expanding
agricultural productivity in the 21st century because it will help
people to grow more and better food that is needed today, while also
conserving natural resources that are important for a sustainable
future.
This technology can be particularly beneficial for Africa and the
developing world where productive agriculture is so crucial.
Agricultural Situation in Africa
I understand that Speaker Hastert and Congresswoman Eddie Bernice
Johnson recently visited Africa to view the challenges faced by African
farmers first-hand. In fact, they visited Monsanto's Petite Facility in
South Africa.
We are one of the largest and highest quality seed producers on the
African Continent and have invested in advanced breeding and research
facilities at Petite, serving the needs of much of sub-Saharan Africa.
We also have invested in top quality seed production facilities in
Africa and serve customers in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Tanzania,
Kenya, Uganda, Mozambique and Zambia.
Through my position at Monsanto, I also have had the opportunity to
travel to many of these countries and to witness the daunting
agricultural challenges faced by farmers in Africa.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to share with you and the subcommittee my
assessment of the agricultural challenges faced in Africa--challenges
that make it difficult for farmers there to grow a healthy harvest.
In general, there is a lack of infrastructure and markets in Africa
to support development of local businesses, economy, and trade. In
terms of agriculture, this lack of infrastructure makes it difficult to
get modern tools to farmers, including fertilizer, improved seed, and
crop protection chemicals.
In addition to this lack of infrastructure, environmental
conditions in Africa make it difficult for farmers there to cultivate a
healthy crop.
All across Africa, despite hard work and ingenuity, significant
portions of the harvests are often lost to factors farmers cannot
control. These factors include depleted soils that lack sufficient
nutrients to grow a decent crop; a lack of rainfall and water for
irrigation results in severe and frequent drought; and plagues and
pests, including weeds and insects.
Robert Paarlberg, professor at Wellesley College, in an article
titled Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture in the 21st Century
recently said, ``The social welfare consequences of this farm
productivity failure in Africa have been devastating. Lagging
productivity on small farms is the chief reason why 30 percent of
children in Africa are still chronically malnourished. For Africa more
than any other region, the problem of inadequate food consumption grows
directly from an unsolved farm production problem.''
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, cereal
production in sub-Saharan Africa is now 19 percent lower on a per-
capita basis than it was in 1970. And grain production is the lowest in
the world at 1.7 tons per hectare--less than half the global average of
4 tons per hectare.
Biotech's Relevance to Africa's Needs
Given the enormous infrastructural and environmental challenges for
agriculture in Africa, biotechnology can be an extremely beneficial
tool for farmers there because the technology is delivered directly
through the seed. Biotech crops don't require additional inputs to make
the technology work, like expensive farm equipment or extensive
training.
Pests
The first generation of biotech products was developed to help
farmers to control insect, virus and weed pests. This application of
biotech has proven its relevance to agriculture in all world areas,
including Africa. The results have been striking in boosting
productivity, and are now being well documented by third-party studies.
And there is much more that can be done to solve other insect and viral
diseases, to solve fungal and bacterial infections, to solve nematode
and parasitic weed attacks.
Depleted Soils
Biotech solutions for adding nitrogen to starved soils may not
occur during my career, but improving nitrogen use efficiency is
possible and may help modest levels of fertilizers produce a bigger
harvest. And in an indirect, but very real way, reducing pest damage
helps to get more food from whatever nutrients are available to the
crop. The biggest need for depleted soils is fertilizer (either
inorganic or organic), but biotech can help make its use more
efficient.
Drought
In a similar way, biotech can not substitute for rainfall,
irrigation or good water management practices, but it can help improve
water use efficiency by reducing yield loss from drought stress and by
increasing yield potential in water limited environments. I have seen
tremendously exciting, although preliminary, results in greenhouses
tests of new genes designed to protect against the damage of drought
stress. We typically measure yield per acre of land. In the future, we
may come to measure yield per gallon of water. Here too, yield lost to
pests is a waste of water as well as a waste of soil nutrients and
labor.
Nutrition
Nutritional enhancements like the higher beta carotene (vitamin A
precursor) in golden rice are being expanded to include golden mustard
oil and other golden staples. Beyond that, promising research on
increasing iron availability and other vitamins, minerals and proteins
can provide much needed enriched food on the farm where grocery store
access to enriched processed foods or multi-vitamins is neither
possible nor affordable.
Many people in Africa don't even have enough basic calories to lead
a healthy and active life. Increases in productivity and yield are
needed to boost total food production. And because of the AIDS epidemic
in Africa, in some regions of the country human labor is the limiting
factor in how much food can be grown--and lack of good nutrition can be
a hindrance to avoiding infections or respond well to medical
treatment.
Poverty
Similarly, biotechnology can't solve poverty in a direct way, but
it can increase ag productivity in ways that help resource poor farmers
to become more economically successful. And because it is information
technology, not resource and energy intensive material technology, it
can be shared without being consumed.
Biotechnology can't create markets and infrastructure of course,
but because it is built into the seed, it holds promise to bypass this
critical lack and help jump-start nutritional and economic successes
that could then help markets to develop.
A Success Story in Makhathini Flats, South Africa--Insect-Protected
Cotton
Where developing countries have reviewed and approved biotech crops
for planting, farmers have benefited dramatically.
South Africa has approved four GM crops for commercial release:
insect tolerant cotton (approved 1997); insect tolerant maize (approved
1998); herbicide tolerant cotton (approved 2000) and herbicide tolerant
soybeans (approved 2001). The total area under GM crops in the 2001/
2002 summer season was estimated at almost 200,000 hectares.
Since their approval in South Africa, farmers have eagerly adopted
biotech crops, which provide better yields, more convenience, improved
personal safety and environmental advantages.
For example, Monsanto's insect-protected cotton has been a
particular advantage to growers in the Makhathini Flats region of South
Africa, one of the poorer regions of the world, where bollworms
traditionally have destroyed up to 60 percent of growers' harvests.
Insect-protected cotton, enhanced through biotechnology to repel
bollworms, significantly reduces pesticide use and increases yields.
Average yields for biotech cotton in South Africa from 1998 and
2001 were 25 percent higher than for conventional varieties, according
to one study. Another study of the 1999-2000 growing season said
average yields were 93 percent higher than for conventional varieties--
with an average earnings increase of 77 percent.
Any yield increase can make a significant difference in an area
where half the people survive on less than $1 per day, and three-
quarters on less than $2 per day. According to a 2001 study by the
United Kingdom's Department for International Development, even a one
percent increase in overall yields would help raise the incomes of six
million people above $1 per day.
``In low-income developing countries, agriculture is the driving
force for broad-based economic growth and poverty alleviation,'' wrote
Per Pinstrup-Andersen and Marc Cohen of the International Food Policy
Research Institute, in an article titled ``Modern Biotechnology for
Food and Agriculture: Risks and Opportunities for the Poor.''
That's particularly significant given that 70 percent of the
African population relies on agriculture for their sole source of
income.
T.J. Buthelezi one of the first farmers to plant biotech cotton in
South Africa, says higher yields from biotech cotton have helped him
invest for the future in more land and better equipment. T.J. recently
told me, ``For the first time I'm making money. I can pay my debts.''
The successful adoption of biotech cotton clearly shows the power
and relevance of biotechnology for Africa.
Other Biotech Products in Development for Africa--Sweet Potato
Biotechnology is also being applied to staple food crops in Africa
to help develop a product that can survive difficult environmental
conditions, or that is enhanced to provide improved nutrition.
For example, several research institutions in Africa are partnering
with others, including Monsanto, to help save the sweet potato, one of
the most important food crops for small-scale farmers in Africa. Sweet
potato is an important subsistence crop in many parts of Africa because
it will grow in poor soils and survive droughts that will kill other
crops like corn.
However, the sweet potato feathery mottle virus, a virus spread by
insects and is resistant to chemical control, robs African farmers of
up to 80 percent of their sweet potato yield each year. Indeed,
Africa's yield is less than half of the world average for sweet potato.
The project to find a biotech solution to the feathery mottle virus
began in 1991 when, with partial funding from USAID, I recruited a
bright young scientist from the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute
named Dr. Florence Wambugu--a specialist in sweet potato viral disease.
Florence joined my laboratory in St. Louis, Missouri for two years,
sharing her knowledge of the crop and the disease. Several other Kenyan
scientists followed in Florence's footsteps, steadily making progress
on this difficult problem.
In 2000, I had the pleasure to visit the first field tests of
engineered sweet potato in Nairobi, along with Florence who had long
before returned to her homeland to continue her work to bring new
technology to Africa.
The first field test revealed what virtually all first tests
reveal--more work is still needed to produce a satisfactory product.
The commercial biotech products my company began selling in 1996 are
the result of going back to the drawing board four or five times.
The project has a way to go before African farmers are able to
realize the benefits of virus resistant sweet potatoes. But while the
problem is a difficult one and the resources and capacity for solving
it have been modest, progress has been steady and the method has been
proven for other crops and viruses.
Other Biotech Products in Development for Africa--Cassava
In addition, the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center--a not-for-
profit research facility in St. Louis, Missouri, dedicated to
agricultural research to benefit the developing world--is actively
conducting research on disease in cassava, another staple food crop
grown in Africa.
Cassava, a tropical crop grown for its starchy, tuberous roots,
contributes to food security and rural income in many developing
countries and feeds nearly 600 million people daily. However, cassava
is estimated to be performing at only a tenth of its production
potential due in large part to drought, pests and diseases, including
Cassava Mosaic diseases.
Cassava must be processed soon after it is harvested to prevent
spoilage, which places a burden on small farmers to get the crop from
the field to the table. Also, the protein content of cassava could be
increased significantly, providing a more stable and dependable source
of nutrition for the developing world.
The Danforth Center is partnering with several international
organizations to develop a comprehensive global research plan to
conduct research and develop a comprehensive global research plan to
tackle the most significant challenges facing cassava farmers,
including control of disease, post-harvest deterioration, and enhancing
the nutritional content of the crop.
In order to accelerate the center's efforts, Monsanto granted the
Danforth Center a royalty-free license to use proprietary enabling
technologies in this research. Monsanto philanthropic arm, the Monsanto
Fund, also supports research at the Danforth Center on virus-resistant
cassava through a multi-year grant.
Partnerships to Develop Biotech Products for Africa
The key to encouraging continued biotech research for Africa--and
eventually successful adoption of these products--are the partnerships
that have been formed to pool and deploy the resources of public and
private organizations from around the world.
As a company dedicated to sharing our knowledge and technology, we
participate in many global partnerships.
For example, at a policy level, we recently joined the Partnership
to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, a new coalition developed to focus
policy, public attention, and new resources on the continuing problems
of hunger and malnutrition in Africa. The Partnership focuses solely on
the agriculture sector, and is asking the United States to increase
assistance in several areas, including improving agricultural
technology development and transfer, such as biotechnology.
In addition, Monsanto is a supporter of the African Agricultural
Technology Foundation (AATF), which was launched by the Rockefeller
Foundation earlier this year to make important genetic information
developed by the major Western agricultural companies--including Dow,
Dupont and Syngenta--available to African subsistence farmers.
We also work with partners to facilitate the sharing and transfer
of the broad range of technologies needed by resource poor farmers in
Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Over the past decade, we have assisted hundreds of thousands of
farmers in the developing world by partnering with local communities,
government entities, public and private sector institutions, and non-
governmental organizations. Together, we work to understand the full
range of needs that these farmers have in order to provide enough food
for their families and communities.
The solutions provided to these farmers are often a package of
existing commercial technologies, including improved seeds,
biotechnology traits where approved and applicable, conservation
tillage practices, crop protection products and other inputs, as well
as training and technical assistance.
Monsanto and its partners also often provide for self help group
formation, support for the creation of other income generating
activities, access to microcredit, as well as linkages to grain traders
and processors who purchase surplus crops, produced as a result of the
improved technology package.
Farmers participating in these programs have experienced an
increase in social, economic and environmental benefits, including an
increase in food security and income. In 2001, Monsanto participated in
21 projects in 13 countries, reaching more than 330,000 small holders
farming 400,000 hectares of land. These countries included Mexico,
India, Indonesia and ten countries within Sub-Saharan Africa, a cross
section of key geographies.
These projects support our company's pledge ``to bring the
knowledge and advantages of all forms of agriculture to resource poor
farmers in the developing world, to help improve food security and the
environment.''
Only by working together and continuing to share our resources can
we bring the tools of modern agriculture to those who may not otherwise
have access to them. In doing so, we're helping people initiate a more
positive economic cycle for their own benefit and that of future
generations.
I and my colleagues at Monsanto hope sharing our data and
technologies encourages additional research and collaborations that
will lead to a wide variety of discoveries to enhance food security and
nutritional needs throughout the developing world. Although much is
being done to make new technologies available to resource-poor farmers
worldwide, there is still more that we can do together.
Recommendations to Address Challenges and Take Advantage of
Opportunities in Africa
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the following
recommendations, which I believe will serve to augment plant
biotechnology research and development in Africa, and help ensure that
African farmers have access to the most modern agricultural tools
possible.
LFirst, we must continue to strengthen investment in
basic science and education in the United States, such as is
supported by the National Science Foundation and conducted at
U.S. universities and research centers.
LIt is hard to prove looking forward, but abundantly clear in
hindsight, that breakthroughs in basic research today will
provide technologies and benefits for the future that we can
scarcely imagine. Investment in education and the development
of our country's human capacity has never failed to return
benefits exceeding expectations.
LWe must continue to strengthen support for innovation
and conservation in U.S. agriculture, as is the mission of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Land Grant Colleges.
LOur farmers are among the most productive and efficient in
the world, and our country has benefited from their abundant,
diverse, and nutritious harvests. We have re-invested some of
these gains in conservation and restoration of wetlands and
wildlife habitat and improvements in water quality without
sacrificing our economy or our food supply. As a result, our
agricultural system is the envy of the world, which sends its
brightest to study at our universities and bring home important
knowledge to improve their own agriculture.
LOur leadership benefits our country and the rest of the
world as well.
LWe must continue our country's leadership in
developing open trade policies and practices around the world,
as is the mission of the U.S. Trade Representative.
LThe recent trade-related fears of several African countries
acceptance of U.S. Food Aid are a terrible consequence of the
squabble with the EU. The reality is that Americans have been
very generous in sharing the bounty of our harvests for
emergency food aid needs around the world.
LOur country's trade policies ensure that our producers are
as competitive as possible in an open global market place,
bringing high quality food and other agricultural products to
growing markets around the world. By our example, hopefully one
day consumers around the world will be able to benefit from our
productivity as we enjoy their goods and services in exchange.
LWe must continue our leadership in establishing
science-based regulatory policies.
LThe so-called precautionary principle advocated by the
Europeans fails to recognize the greater risks and harm that
will certainly be caused by moving more slowly than is
warranted by careful analysis of risks and needs. The
opportunity cost for developing countries to forgo much needed
benefits for the principle of precaution at any price is too
great a price to pay--and certainly not necessary to ensure
safety.
LThe United States has acted with precaution--but followed by
learning and progress in biotechnology. As a result, we enjoy
both the safety and benefits of biotech crops and products.
LUSAID's current support for building the capacity of African
decision-makers to assess and approve the biosafety of
biotechnology crops will help ease the most significant
constraint to the introduction of biotechnology products that
work for small-holder farmers.
LWe must reverse the declines in international
agricultural development assistance as pledged by the current
administration and as being implemented by USAID.
LThe vicious trap of poverty can only be broken in our
lifetime if we and other developed countries extend a helping
hand in development. This will require both funding and know-
how to reach the people who most need our help.
LI think one of the best ways to do this is my last and
perhaps most important recommendation:
LWe must get needed products into farmers
hands and fields sooner rather than later. To do this,
we need to create a new focus and priority on finishing
and delivering public-sector biotech products--such as
virus-resistant sweet potatoes, cassava, and other
staple food crops in Africa--to subsistence farmers
sooner rather than later--a goal consistent with the
vision of the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID and the
newly launched African Agricultural Technology
Foundation.
LThe partnerships I described earlier and others I
did not have time to mention have made admirable
progress. But they are still far short of the need.
LWe must mount a bigger and more focused effort to
reach developing country farmers with products they can
put to use in their fields to increase the food on
their tables and the income in their households.
Private investments such as my company is making will
flow where the infrastructure, markets and regulatory
policies make it financially worthwhile.
LBut to serve subsistence farmers who are a long way
from the market economy, public investment is critical
in developing and delivering products--public goods
products that will not attract private investments in
any reasonable timeframe.
Closing
I mentioned earlier that as part of my position at Monsanto I am
able to travel to areas of the developing world to see with my own eyes
the challenges farmers and their families and communities face in
Africa and other areas of the developing world.
During my travels I've seen stunted and yellowed fields of corn
that might yield less than the grain used to plant them. I've seen the
ravages of caused by the twin scourge of hunger and poverty due to
decimated harvests. I've seen teenagers in Africa who looked like 8-
year-olds because they were suffering from chronic malnutrition caused
by both a shortage of calories and lack of sufficient proteins and
vitamins.
But I've also seen the hope for more and better food that is
possible by applying modern science to solving age-old problems in
agriculture. In Malawi, I saw farms with fields of corn that were as
green and laden with ears as I have seen in Missouri because the farmer
was given access to modern agricultural tools, including better seed
and fertilizer. In Kenya, I saw the field trials of sweet potatoes that
have new genes for virus protection added using biotechnology.
Research is underway at Monsanto and in laboratories throughout the
world to develop hardier and more nutritious food crops that would
benefit Africa and other areas of the developing world. As legislators,
researchers, philanthropists, and business leaders, it is in our best
interests to ensure these products make it from the lab to the fields
of Africa and beyond.
Mr. Chairman, the people of Monsanto look forward to working
together with you, the Members of this committee, and African growers
to help find solutions to the complex issues discussed during the
Committee hearings. Thank you.
Biography for Robert B. Horsch
Education:
B.S. Biology, University of California, Riverside, 1974; Ph.D.
Genetics, Genetics Program, University of California, Riverside 1979;
Postdoctoral Fellow, Plant Physiology, University of Saskatchewan 1979-
1981.
Employment:
Dr. Horsch joined Monsanto Company in May of 1981 and is currently
Vice President, Product and Technology Cooperation, in the Global
Product Management Division, with responsibility for small-holder
agricultural development partnerships and public-private technology
cooperation programs. He led the company's plant tissue culture and
transformation efforts from 1981 until 1995. In that capacity, he
contributed to the development of the Bollgard, YieldGard, and Roundup
Ready traits in broad use today. In 1996 he became Vice President and
General Manager of the Agracetus Campus of Monsanto Company's
Agricultural Sector in Middleton, Wisconsin, serving in that capacity
until the end of 1999.
Selected Awards and Honors:
1985-88--Invited to co-organize the Plant Molecular Biology Course at
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories.
1986--Thomas & Hochwalt Award: Monsanto Company's highest award for
science & technology.
1987-present--Appointed Adjunct Professor of Biology, Washington
University.
1988-94--Founding co-editor of The Plant Cell--now the leading journal
in the plant sciences.
1989--Principle Investigator on Technology Transfer grant award from
USAID (Virus resistant sweet potatoes for Africa).
1990--Appointed to National Research Council Panel on the Status of
Plant Science in the U.S.
1992--Organizer of FASEB Conference on Plant Molecular Biology.
1993-present--Invitations to speak, review, debate, or organize
workshops, scientific meetings and university seminars;
appointed to Editorial Boards of several major journals;
invitations to advise government agencies, universities,
international programs.
1996--Appointed Chairperson, Committee of Visitors, Developmental
Biology Program, National Science Foundation.
1997--Appointed member of Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee,
Department of Energy (until 2001); appointed member of Bio-
advisory Board, National Science Foundation (served until
2001); appointed member of Panel on Proprietary Science and
Technology for the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research, and invited to testify before the Senate
Agriculture Committee on the National Research Initiative.
1998--Appointed to the Board of Trustees for Lindenwood University, St.
Charles, MO (served until 2000).
1999--Awarded the National Medal of Technology by the President of the
United States for contributions to the development of
agricultural biotechnology.
2000--Appointed to the Private Sector Committee of the Consultative
Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
2001--Appointed to the Board of Visitors, University of Wisconsin,
Madison; Appointed as a founding Editor to launch a new
scientific journal called Plant Biotechnology in 2002.
2002--Named as the Distinguished Alumnus of the Year, University of
California, Riverside.
Publications:
Author of over 50 articles on plant biology and plant
biotechnology.
Selected Recent Speeches:
Isadore Bernstein Symposium at the University of Michigan School of
Public Health, October 26th, 2001, ``Agricultural
Biotechnology--the information age comes to agriculture''
University of Wisconsin, Madison, March 22, 2001 ``Plant Biotechnology
and Agriculture''
EMBO meeting, October 16th, 1999, Prague, Czech Republic, Science and
Society Symposium, ``Environmental and economic impacts of
agricultural biotechnology''
New York Society of Security Analysts, June 3, 1999, New York, NY,
``Creating Shareowner Value Through Sustainable Business
Development''
The Fourth Nathan Lecture on the Environment in honour of Lord Nathan
given by Robert B. Horsch, Ph.D., on April 6th, 1999, at the
Royal Society of Arts, chaired by Sir William Stewart
``Economic growth sustained by sunlight and information''
Remarks prepared for seminar at Harvard University, March 23rd, 1999,
Boston, MA, ``Transgenic Crops: possibilities for small farmers
& food security in Asia''
Remarks prepared for seminar at Yale University, March 24th, 1999, New
Haven, CT, ``A Vision for the Future of Agriculture''
Remarks prepared for seminar at the University of California,
Riverside, March 4th 1998, Riverside, CA, ``Agricultural
Biotechnology and Sustainable Development''
Remarks prepared for the Department of Energy, Basic Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee meeting on February 23rd, 1998, in
Gaithersburg, MD, ``On the importance of plants and plant
science for energy, environment and economy''
Remarks prepared for the meeting on Biotechnology and Biosafety
sponsored by the World Bank, October 9-10, 1997 in Washington,
DC, ``Biotechnology and sustainable development''
Remarks prepared for the Prince of Wales Business and The Environment
Programme, Salzburg, Austria, September 15, 1997, ``Decision
and Risk''
Testimony of Robert B. Horsch, Monsanto Company, before the United
States Senate, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry, March 18, 1997, ``Why investing in public research is
important''
Discussion
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Yesterday, I met with
representatives of USDA, our regulatory review groups, Food and
Drug, and USDA, and EPA. USDA and the Food and Drug said,
probably, testing genetically modified agricultural products
developed in Africa or any other place in the world, probably
examining them for being healthy to people and animals, could
be accommodated in this country very easily. EPA was a little
more reluctant, thinking that maybe some of the environmental
considerations should be actually done in place on those--in
the countries and areas where they should be provided. Is the
regulatory structure to develop the sample food plots and to
help assure safety to people in the environment, how big a
problem is that in terms of restricting, having some of the
technology developed and implemented? Let us go right down the
line, Dr. Conway, Dr. Kilama, and Dr. Horsch.
Dr. Conway. Well, obviously, it is still an impediment in
Africa. There are only a few countries in Africa that have got
the beginnings of a regulatory system. Kenya is one, Nigeria is
another, Uganda. I think the advice you got was probably
correct. I think you can do the regulatory and safety testing,
as far as human and animal health is concerned, in a single
location, whether it be in Africa or elsewhere. I think when it
comes to the environmental consequences of growing GM crops,
then you do have to have a degree of local specificity, because
one of the questions you want to ask is whether genes can flow
from the GM crop to the wild relatives. And so if you are
growing a crop that has got wild relatives in Africa, then you
need to look at that much harder. If you are growing GM maize
then, of course, it is not an issue because you don't have the
wild relatives.
So you have to treat each situation in its own right and
look at what is needed, but you will need in Africa a growth of
local regulatory and biosafety capacity.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Kilama, is it restricting to some
extent the implementation of it?
Dr. Kilama. Mr. Chairman, you probably put your finger on a
very critical issue, and let me address it this way. When I was
growing up in Uganda, my father grew tobacco and cotton, and
used a little bit of the Green Revolution to be able to provide
for my education. At that time, my father did not require to
know anything about risk assessment, didn't have to deal with
the intellectual property issues, didn't have to deal with many
of the issues that pertain to the food safety. And I think if
there is one thing that we really need to pay a great deal of
attention to, it is the regulatory issues in the continent of
Africa, and that in itself might be one single most important
reason why there hasn't been a considerable movement in the
biotechnology area.
There is not a single African country south of the Saharan
Africa, it could include the whole of Africa, even north, that
has really enacted any biosafety laws that have gone through
the legislative branches where they have debated, where the
public has some input, to be able to enact it as the law. In
Nigeria, they are using a constitutional loophole. In Kenya,
they are using a constitutional loophole in order to get the
biosafety protocol for allowing for GMOs or for any genetically
modified organisms to be tested. And my feeling is that--and I
have been to both of those countries a great deal. I don't
believe once, especially, in Nigeria, when GMOs begin to really
come into the picture in terms of field testing, the population
probably will have problems with it, and that is because a
substantial number of the population of Nigeria hasn't really
been brought to understand the important biotechnology. Yes,
there are people in the government that understand that. Yes,
there are ways in which you can actually get around it, to be
able to try to do field testing. But until we really try to
address the issue of regulatory, there will be problems in the
future. Not only problems for developing biotechnology, but
also, problems for encouraging private sectors like Monsanto
and others to really invest in the country, which are very
important.
Chairman Smith. I mean, part of it, it seems to me, would
be real in terms of examining the safety. Part of it is a
psychological, maybe, or an emotional reaction of consumers and
farmers being comfortable, that somehow there is something out
there that helps give that assurance. Dr. Horsch.
Dr. Horsch. I would just add that, first, the answer is
yes. The slowness of regulatory system development is hindering
the scientific research, product development, and product use.
Solutions to it have been suggested by my colleagues. I would
like to point out, though, that biotechnology is at its very
beginning of what will be a very long-term future as science
develops over the next century. And that today, we don't have
to anticipate and regulate the entire and future area of
technology on the backs of the very first applications, which
are much simpler and clearer cut than the potential of anything
you could do with biotech. And the U.S. system is very facile
in this, starting out precautionary and then learning and
making progress based on data and experience to move to
deregulate aspects of this science that have proven to be safe
in experience and data, while keeping a precautionary stance
for things in the future that may have more risk than what we
are using today, and that would be a very useful tool in the
toolkit. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Now, Dr. Conway, you mentioned that
recently you testified before the British Parliament. What was
their reaction?
Dr. Conway. This was a meeting that included both members
of the House of Lords and members of the House of Commons, and
also, members of the public. I think most of those who were at
the meeting were people who were very concerned about the
situation of food in Africa and in the developing world as a
whole. I think they were very sympathetic to the argument that
there is a great deal that has to be done, which includes, as
we have heard today, fertilizers, and roads, and markets, and
improved nutrition of the soils, but they all, I think, as I
understood it, accepted that biotechnology had a role to play.
It was one of the tools that needed to be used. That was the
reaction I got from that audience.
Chairman Smith. Let me ask a question on the African
Agricultural Technology Foundation that you mentioned. What is
the reaction of African scientists and political leaders to
that effort?
Dr. Conway. Well, this is something which has very much
come out of the concerns of African scientists. African
scientists, plant breeders, and others are very frustrated
because they see difficulties in getting hold of proprietary
technologies to do the work they want to do. And so in a sense,
many of them came to us and said, can you help us with
providing access to some of these technologies that are held by
companies like Monsanto and so on? These aren't, necessarily,
GM technologies. They can be tissue culture or even
conventional breeding technologies that are held by western
companies. And so it was a scientist who, basically, said, we
would like to see this happen. And so we set up this foundation
with support from USAID and with very warm support from
Monsanto and other western companies. Under this agreement,
African scientists who are trying to produce some new kind of
resistant crop or whatever it happens to be, will say, look, to
make this happen, I need this kind of technology. We think
Monsanto has it or another company has it. Can you broker an
arrangement and a legal agreement with Monsanto so that we have
got access to this technology for us to use in Africa, not for
us to use in the United States but for us to use in Africa?
Chairman Smith. But I hear you saying the support is good.
You are reacting to a need and the support is good. Dr. Kilama
and Dr. Horsch, help us understand a little better some of the
things that are impeding some of this research actually being
done in Africa at African research centers. Is it equipment,
communication, water, some of the things that are most needed
to best stimulate more research? Dr. Horsch, why don't you go
first, and then Dr. Kilama.
Dr. Horsch. I think I would agree with Dr. Kilama's
assessment of the situation. It is really all of those things.
The strategy that we have used as a company has been to bring
African scientists to study for a short period of time in our
laboratories here and then continue to collaborate with them
when they have gone back to their institutions in Africa and
participate and support them in strengthening the institutional
and human capacity back home.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Kilama.
Dr. Kilama. I think there are really no short answers to
it, but let me try to be very brief. Africa went through a
period between the late 1970's, up to today, where there was a
continuous deterioration of university systems, and either
through civil wars or through problems in terms of budget,
productivity and so forth. And institutions, as a university,
really are in bad shape, and I can't emphasize this more than
what I am saying today. Whether you go to Makerere University,
which was one of the premiere universities in Africa in the
1960's, from just a simple thing as books, journals, current
journals--I recently went to Uganda. There is a small company
called--I think it is called Medical Product, run by two
individuals. They have better facilities--and these are just
run by two people--better facilities than the Department of
Biology, Department of Chemistry at Makerere University.
There is no access to the world, to the greater people, in
terms of understanding what are some of the current things
going in research. And the problem to me is just so enormous,
and I don't have any, really, way on how we can be able to
bring this back in----
Chairman Smith. In onus, in both talent and equipment?
Dr. Kilama. In terms of talent, in terms of standards.
Standard, for example, is a big issue in Nigeria. If you take a
look at the University of Ibadan, take a look at Bello
University in the northeast, the standard university in Africa
is simply very poor right now. That is the best I can say.
There are a few individuals who come out of there, most of them
go overseas. Really, the problem is equipment, access to
communications, having tools that they can use and the pay.
Chairman Smith. So how can we--for all three of you, how
can we--what is necessary to encourage additional funding for
research in Uganda, Zimbabwe, other countries, Dr. Conway, in
expansion of this?
Dr. Conway. In the 1990's, the Rockefeller Foundation
supported the training of 300 to 400 Asian scientists in
biotechnology. There are now over 1,000 biotechnologists in
Asia producing new varieties. In China, there are several
hundred new biotechnology varieties in the pipeline. That is
what we did over 10 years. We have started to do this in
Africa. I was at a meeting in Entebbe in Uganda in November
with 100 African biotechnologists and plant breeders all giving
papers at the cutting edge of biotechnology and breeding. It
was very impressive. But as for the whole country, we just need
to multiply that, and it is a big ``just.''
In particular, I would like to see more funding going to
USAID. USAID used to be the great funder of agricultural
research in developing countries. It is doing much more now
under Dr. Natsios. But the more funding that can go toward the
training of people in biotechnology in Africa and to the
training and to the development of their research capacity, as
Dr. Kilama said, and to giving them money when they go back to
Africa to do the research, and fellowships for their Ph.D.'s,
that is one of the most important things that you could
encourage, sir.
Chairman Smith. Is Rockefeller one of the largest
foundations involved in this effort of agriculture? What would
be the top three or four foundations that are contributing to
the agricultural----
Dr. Conway. In terms of agricultural development, it is,
basically, ourselves. The McKnight Foundation does a bit, but
basically, in agriculture, it is just us.
Chairman Smith. I serve on three committees in Congress.
One is International Relations, one is Science, and then, of
course, Agriculture. And so in all three areas, I have been
pushing one thing, and that is that research and development of
more efficient use--of using less fertilizer, particularly,
nitrogen. Of course, our nitrogen fertilizer in this country
is, primarily, natural gas. We use about--we are at around 6 or
7 percent--5, 6, 7 percent of our natural gas in this country
is used to produce nitrogen fertilizer. It is one of our prime,
first choice, supplies of energy. So I put nitrogen fixation in
the agricultural bill for research and the science bill for
research, and the Department of Energy bill for research.
And it just seems to me tremendous potential if we pursue
it with enough vigor to have the kind of legumes and nodules
not only on the existing legume plants of the clovers and the
soybeans or whatever, but to also look at the possibility of
nitrogen fixation capabilities in some of the other plants that
could so significantly improve the production in Africa or
anyplace else in the world. Are any of you aware of anything
being done? When you mention in your testimony plants that can
get along with less fertilizer, what are you talking about? I
think it was you, Dr. Horsch, that might have mentioned it.
Dr. Horsch. Yes. The ability to scavenge rare fixed
nitrogen from the soil is something different plants do better
or worse. And there are biochemical tools that should be
discoverable and usable to increase the ability of a plant like
corn to find and absorb lower concentrations of nitrogen than
it is capable of today, and that means that you can increase
the efficiency of fertilizer use. You can apply lower rates and
still get good yields. A second area I will just mention is the
use of nitrogen fixing plants themselves as green fertilizers
or green manures, which can be combined with fertilizers with
No-till, with other practices and biotechnology, to bring a
more efficient source of nitrogen at lower levels as well.
Chairman Smith. We sent you some of my draft legislation on
coordination and to have better information of Americans over
in these other countries to start more capably spreading the
word on accurate scientific information on the potential and
safety. Have you reviewed it, would you support such
legislation, Dr. Conway, Dr. Kilama, Dr. Horsch? Would that
help? Can you come up with any suggestions to improve it?
Dr. Conway. I think that first of all, it is very important
that these debates that we have been hearing about this morning
are conducted on the basis of science, so the more that is out
there which relates to the real truth about these contentious
issues, the better it will be. However, I would want to couple
that with the points that we have been making, particularly, in
this session, is that the most important thing in Africa is to
build up the African staff in biosafety, in regulation, in
biotechnology, so Africans can make much better decisions for
themselves.
Chairman Smith. So what I hear you saying is acceptance is
not a problem, but it is. I mean, if you accept it and you know
more about it, you are going to move ahead quicker, I suppose.
Dr. Kilama.
Dr. Kilama. I, actually, welcome it very wholeheartedly,
Mr. Chairman, because one of the problems I have observed in
Africa, in particular, is there are so many programs that are
coming in from various sources, whether it at EU, in the U.S.,
from Asia, and there is a little bit of confusion within the
Africans because there is so much redundancy in some of the
programs that are being provided, and it actually has created a
little bit of a problem in itself. And what I see as this bill
doing is streamlining the process in which the U.S. Government
provides support to Africa.
And I may want to add one more thing to the bill, and that
is to actually encourage coordination of assistance that is
being provided by the various agencies, and I am not in the
government so I don't know how much they talk among each other.
But at least sitting from the outside, I see that there are so
many programs that could have been combined so there is no
redundancy. And in fact, in a way, it might save us a lot of
money if that is being coordinated by a group like the one you
are proposing. So I am really very much in support of that bill
and I believe it will do some good in terms of providing that
opportunity for explaining biotech or streamlining the kind of
assistance that would be provided for Africa in biotechnology.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Horsch, and maybe add to your response
who should be the lead agency. Should it be Agriculture that,
at least by name, is certainly involved with agriculture? Or in
the draft legislation we wrote in the State Department, but it
could very well be the Department of Agriculture.
Dr. Horsch. Well, that is a hard question. I would
definitely support your ideas in that bill and think it is a
great idea. I have seen other examples of the interagency
cooperation that have been very effective and helpful. I would
like to just point out that NSF is probably the world's best,
along with NIH, at competitive grants management, using
reasonable amounts of money to very cost effectively and
facilely focus attention on the most productive ideas. They are
just second to none in the world. But they do lack a certain
experience with application and with translating into farmers'
fields and agriculture. USAID has that, in part, as their
mission, and they are actually very good at getting things on
the ground and out in farmers' fields, but they lack a certain
facility with sort of rapid movement of competitive grants that
could go to address some of the needs that we have heard. And
if there was a way to kind of marry the two capabilities
together to get this technology out to serve farmers' needs in
farmers' fields more rapidly, I think that would just be a
brilliant outcome.
Chairman Smith. Any other comments on the lead agency?
Dr. Kilama. I think we have got to look at biotechnology in
two ways; one is research, one is politics. And at the moment,
I think politics is very, very much out front, and I think an
agency that understands the political world will also be very
useful. At the same time, an agency that understands the need
on how to bring this technology to the farmers would be
important. So if I was going to really have a vote, maybe a co-
chair between the Department of Agriculture as well as the
State Department, because a lot of the things that we are
discussing here have a lot of political implications to them.
Socioeconomic issues and some of these things are better
addressed at a political level as well as at the research or
product level.
Chairman Smith. Any comments or shall I go to the next
question? I am not going to--you folks haven't eaten probably,
and I am dedicated to being thinner so I might go on too long.
A report released yesterday by the Nuffield Counsel on
Bioethics, a policy group of the European Commission, actually
suggested that maybe Europe's trade policies were hindering the
advancement of biotechnology development in the world that
could especially help developing countries. I mean, to me, it
was maybe the beginning of an opening up of better information,
better understanding, in the European community of the
consequences of them being so dedicated to keep out any
genetically modified products. Any reaction that the three of
you might have?
Dr. Conway. Can I--if you don't mind, sir, if I can just
correct you a little? The Nuffield Counsel on Bioethics is an
independent body set up by the Nuffield Foundation. The
Nuffield Foundation is a bit like the Rockefeller Foundation,
so it actually has no relationship to the European Union except
it is in the geographical mass called Europe. So I don't
think----
Chairman Smith. Aw, shucks.
Dr. Conway. My apologies, but I think it is important to
make that clear. This is an independent body, which has come
out yesterday with an extraordinarily good statement. By the
way, there was also yesterday a statement by the International
Council on Scientific Unions, which has made the statement
that--it is in the Financial Times yesterday, so I am only
quoting from that, which has made a similar strong statement
about the role of GM crops and GM foods. I think it is very
important when looking at Europe to distinguish between the
European Union, European governments, activist organizations,
and the general public. Europe is like the United States; it is
a very complicated place, and one has to understand the
different components that are in there.
Chairman Smith. I am not sure, but it is certainly a
challenge where we go. I mean, emotion can be so significant in
restricting trade development. Greenpeace is very aggressive in
suggesting the precautionary principle that something might
happen later on, and so they sort of put science aside for the
moment. But also, they become very--it seems to me very liberal
with their interpretation of some of the testing that has gone
on, whether it is the monarch butterfly or other problems that
has been achieved. And somehow, there just needs to be a better
understanding of the traditional crossbreeding and hybrid
breeding that that also has dangers when you come up with
25,000 genes of two different plants and mate them together,
you can end up with a lot of bad characteristics, sometimes
dangerous characteristics. And being precise and understanding
the results of taking one gene and folding it in, and the
protein influence, it seems to me that Bt, for example, is now
simple enough, and maybe that is not the right word, but that
we could apply it in so many different products to help in
different Bt's that are more effective in dealing with some of
the specific problems and some of the specific plants. And Dr.
Horsch, just your comments. It seems like the gates are just a
little bit open and somehow we need to learn to open them the
rest of the way.
Dr. Horsch. Bt is a really interesting set of organisms.
There are actually thousands of varieties of bacillus
thuringiensis, which make proteins that control different kinds
of insects. And we discovered and used ones for both
caterpillars and certain kinds of beetles. Other labs have
found ones that will control mosquitoes. Our newest product in
the market controls the corn root worm, which is a different
insect than the corn borer, and they are very different but
both Bt genes. It is, as you point out, a very facile area of
technology. And this diversity is all existing in nature for us
to discover and put to use.
Chairman Smith. What I would like to do is not keep you any
longer, but let me ask each one of you to take a minute or two
to conclude any comments that should be passed on to this
subcommittee and our full Science Committee. So just sort of do
a wrap-up, if you will, of any other thoughts that maybe we
should be considering, and we would also ask you that you allow
us and staff to send you some of the questions that we haven't
asked today. And so as far as a wrap-up, Dr. Conway, then Dr.
Kilama, then Dr. Horsch.
Dr. Conway. Let me say, I think what is important is to
understand that we are at the beginning of a decade long
program here for Africa. That is the kind of time span that we
have to be thinking of. This is what we have learned in our
work in Asia to develop the role of biotechnology and food
security, along with the other tools that are necessary. Keep
stressing that. And anything that this Congress can do,
anything that this Government can do, anything that American
scientists, and American universities, and American private
companies like Monsanto, can do to make that happen is going to
be welcomed.
What it is going to take is people on the ground, Africans,
and there are beginning to be a number; there needs to be more.
What it is also going to take is the development of research
capacity in the universities, and I don't just mean applied
research. I mean, pure research, microbiology and other such
departments in African universities. That is what we have seen
as being most valuable in Asia. And in particular, it is going
to mean a real partnership. It is going to mean bringing
American, European scientists, together with African
scientists, to crack this problem in partnership. And in
particular, it is going to mean public-private partnerships of
a kind like African Agricultural Technology Foundation, where
you have got a foundation like ourselves, you have got
companies like Monsanto, you have got the U.S. Government like
USAID. That is the model for the future, and anything you can
do in this committee to further that kind of model for Africa
is going to be extraordinarily valuable. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Smith. Dr. Kilama. Thank you, Dr. Conway.
Dr. Kilama. I wanted to quickly respond to one thing before
I make my final remark, and that is Greenpeace came out in this
discussion in a variety of ways, and I have been troubled quite
a bit as I discuss a lot of these issues in many radio stations
in Africa why there is very little response to Greenpeace or to
some of these organizations that are really damaging in terms
of wrong information to the African people. And today, I am
still troubled, why we haven't responded very strongly in terms
of answering these people, word by word, or case by case. And I
hope the Committee can at least look at ways in which we can
address some of these issues pertaining to misinformation.
I believe what the Committee can really do is to look at
Africa not in just one single issue. There is a very major
problem in that continent that we really have to take a very
close look and look at it from a global perspective. We have to
look at why Asia, some of the countries in Asia, have moved far
away from Africa, and yet, 30 years ago, many of them were at
the same level. I think the problem really has to do with the
way that many of these governments are running the institutions
in Africa. There are no credible institutions in Africa that
can stand up to some of the problems that might be created by
government. I think we have to look at how we provide
assistance to Africa.
If we simply want to provide a quick fix to certify maybe
some response to pressure groups, we will be here 20 years from
now talking about the same issues. But if we look at the issue
in terms of long-term process, building up the institutions,
creating conditions in which the private sector can really
flourish in Africa, and my view is very strong on this. The
only way Africa is going to provide security for the food is to
create a lot of private sector development in Africa, and there
is no way out of this. Government cannot do it. The only way we
can really solve the problem is to create the conditions in
which the private sector can be able to flourish in Africa,
investment from the private sector. And if we can address that
issue, I think we will not be talking about it in 10 years.
Chairman Smith. Very good. Dr. Horsch.
Dr. Horsch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
reiterate the concept of partnerships. I think that is at the
heart of what is needed and what will work. If you go to the
dictionary, partnership has three different aspects: a common
vision among the parties. Here, I think we all agree that
farmers' success, good nutrition, and adequate food, and
environmental conservation are a common vision for agriculture
around the world.
The second component is sharing with each other, and
biotechnology, in particular, is relevant to the sharing
concept. Because it is an information technology, rather than a
material or energy based technology or product, it can be
shared without being used up. For energy, for chemistry, for
tractors and such, if you share them, or use them, you consume
them. Whereas, information technology, like biotech built in a
seed, it can be propagated and shared without consumption.
And lastly, is cooperation with clear responsibilities, and
I think we have heard today some mechanisms for both
understanding and strengthening the different roles and
responsibilities in the private sector, the public sector, and
the public itself has to play in this process. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Gentlemen, we are grateful for your time,
for your expertise. On behalf of the Congress, our compliments
for your achievements, and with that the Subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Rita R. Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation
Q1. LAt the hearing, Congresswoman Johnson asked, ``How do your
agencies interact with non-governmental organizations that support
research and development and capacity-building activities in Africa
that are relevant to applications of plant biotechnology? What are some
examples of such collaborations?'' Could you please give some specific
examples of interaction with non-governmental organizations? Can you
give us specific names of programs or institutions you have been
working with?
A1. Three examples are provided of recent interactions with NGO's that
support research and development and capacity-building activities
relevant to the application of plant biotechnology.
In FY 2003, NSF staff met with Executive Director and other staff
of AfricaBio, an NGO based in South Africa that works with university,
government, corporate and community stakeholders to promote the safe,
ethical and responsible application of biotechnology. There are plans
for NSF staff to meet with this group again in South Africa this summer
to further explore ways of strengthening NSF support for collaborative
research in the area of biotechnology in Africa.
NSF is part of an interagency group (including USDA and NIH) that
funds several African-based International Cooperative Biodiversity
Groups (ICBG's). These projects, one based in Cameroon and Nigeria and
the other in Madagascar, combine chemical exploration of plants for
agriculturally and/or pharmaceutically valuable compounds with
biodiversity conservation and economic development. Each project
involves one or more NGO's. In the Cameroon and Nigeria project, for
example, NSF support helps fund the participation of Bioresources
Development and Conservation Programme (BDCP), an NGO that undertakes
capacity building for bioprospecting, biodiversity conservation, and
natural products chemistry for agriculture and pharmaceuticals.
More broadly, NSF's work to bring the latest genomics research to
scientists in the developing world has included working with the
Rockefeller Foundation on the International Rice Genome Sequencing
Project (IRGSP), and with several CGIAR Centers (Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research) on the global Musa (banana and
plantain) genome, and on cereal crop genomes (e.g., corn, rice, and
wheat).
Q2. LDescribe, including funding level, the current NSF programs that
support U.S. scientists to do research in the area of plant
biotechnology at institutions in Africa. For the most recent year for
which data is available, and for the two preceding years, how many U.S.
scientists participated in such programs, and what were the U.S. and
foreign institutions involved?
A2. NSF-funded U.S. scientists are conducting research in areas
relevant to plant biotechnology with institutions in Africa:
FY 2003: Several relevant awards for this fiscal year have not yet
been finalized. Although details are not yet available, we can indicate
that several awards are being recommended for FY03, to include
activities such as joint research projects, support for African
graduate students to attend a genomics meeting, and funds to send U.S.
scientists to a scientific meeting in Africa. NSF/BIO (the Division of
Environmental Biology) also contributed approximately $170,000 total to
the two Africa-based International Cooperative Biodiversity Group
(ICBG) projects that conduct chemical exploration of plants for
agriculturally and/or pharmaceutically valuable compounds.
FY 2002: NSF's Office of International Science and Engineering
provided $26,400 in support of an international meeting in South Africa
that focused on an important plant pathogen, bacterial wilt. NSF funds
supported twelve U.S. scientists or students to attend the meeting,
which was also attended by twenty-two Africans from six nations. NSF
(the Division of Environmental Biology) contributed approximately
$170,000 total to the two Africa-based ICBG projects that conduct
chemical exploration of plants for agriculturally and/or
pharmaceutically valuable compounds.
FY 2001: NSF (the Division of Environmental Biology) contributed
approximately $170,000 total to the two Africa-based ICBG projects that
conduct chemical exploration of plants for agriculturally and/or
pharmaceutically valuable compounds.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement of Thembeitshe Joseph (TJ) Buthelezi
``Biotechnology in South Africa''
My name is Thembeitshe Joseph Buthelezi (TJ), Thembitshe means
Trust the Rock. My father said that I must not trust man, but the rock.
I am from Northern Kwa-Zulu Natal in South Africa, next to the border
of Mozambique and Swaziland--a place called the Makathini Flats. A hot,
dry but fertile land where thousands of farmers grow cotton and corn to
earn a living.
I am the chairperson of Hlokohloko Farmers Association which has
350 members. Our association is part of a larger farmers union called
the Ubongwa farmers Union comprising 5000 members. Ubongwa is an
umbrella body consisting of 50 farmers associations and meets once a
month to discuss issues and address farmers' problems like market
issues, cotton lint prices and seed varieties. When we want to talk to
different supply companies or to government officials, or to forward
information to our farmers, we do so under the banner of Ubongwa. I am
also the chairperson of Ubongwa.
Cotton has been planted in the Makhatini for more than 40 years,
and I have been farming it for 20 years. Now about 5 years back while I
was preparing for our monthly meeting as usual, I was approached by a
seed company's representative asking for an opportunity to introduce a
new technology seed to our farmers which he said will improve yield
while reducing input costs. Of course I was very much impressed to hear
such good news and I put it on our monthly agenda. And when he came he
gave his presentation, which was very nice. But farmers did not believe
him, because they thought such technology would not work--and it was
also more expensive than conventional seed.
However as a leader, I decided to take a risk and try the seed,
because there is a quote that goes `that the greatest risk in life is
to risk nothing. And a person who risks nothing does nothing, achieves
nothing and has nothing to tell.' And I said to myself if this seed
does not work, I would tell the farmers it does not work. And if it
works, I will tell them that it works and that they should try it.
Therefore I bought one 25kg bag of the new cotton seed called Bollgard
Bt cotton.
I planted 10 lines along side of my other cotton field and it did
not take me long to realize I had made a mistake by planting only ten
lines. The ten lines were much better than the other cotton on the
field and I had sprayed very little pesticide. Come harvesting time, I
harvested ten lines on Bt and ten on conventional cotton and the yield
of Bt cotton was more than double.
The following season I planted 2 hectares of non-Bt and 2 of Bt
cotton. That year we had a flood disaster and it rained for three
months non-stop. I could not spray my fields because the chemicals
would have been washed off by the rain. On the conventional cotton I
remember I used to watch bollworms feeding on my plants but could do
nothing about it. Sometimes I felt like crushing the bollworms with my
own hands! But on the Bt side everything was fine. The cotton was
growing nicely with no bollworm damage. It was amazing.
When I went to monthly meetings the farmers cry was that we were
not going to harvest anything that season. On the one hand, the non-Bt
crop, I agreed with them, but on the other hand I was very happy with
the Bt crop. When harvest time came, I made 12,7 on the Bt side and
only three bales on non-Bt cotton--and even this cotton was not of good
quality. The other farmers asked me how I managed to get 16 bales while
the situation was so bad. I told them that Bt cotton made it happen.
When the next season came I increased my cotton hectares from 4 to
8 and planted it all Bt cotton. I was surprised to see how much easier
the Bt cotton was to grow and how I had to spend less time on the
fields. I remember I used to go to the fields with other farmers and
find that I had much less to do and could sometimes go under a tree
enjoy the fresh air, while other farmers on each side of me were busy
spraying and sweating in the sun. And when it came to harvest time
again, I got more bales than they did. This time from 15 to 17 bales
per hectare, while they were making only 6 to 8 bales per hectare. That
encouraged me again to increase my hectares from 8 to 12. This season,
seeing again that I harvest better yields with less inputs, I have
decided to go for 25 hectares. I have enough time to do that size of
land, maybe even more, and I am busy clearing the bush in preparation
for the planting season. This is only possible for me because of Bt.
The benefits I get from Bt are the reduction of sprays from 10 to
2, and increased yield from 8 to 17 bales per hectare. The only sprays
I use are the lighter less toxic chemicals--I can even see more frogs
and bees in my fields, and no more dead birds. As a result of these
benefits, over 90 percent of the farmers in the Makhathini now grow
Bollgard Bt cotton.
Let me say this one thing: We were not pushed to this improved
seed, but we were attracted by the benefits. Bt cotton will also have
an impact on improving South Africa's cotton production, because the
country only meets about 55 percent of its needs and has to import the
rest. The rest of Africa really wants to boost cotton production so
that they can export cotton bales and also develop their own textiles
especially since AGOA encourages them to export textiles to the United
States. African farmers want freedom to grow any crop of their choice
and have access to the best available technology. I support a free
environment for growing and trading in biotech crops. Countries in
Africa should be encouraged to use these improved crops because farmers
will improve yields and make more money to improve their lives. That is
what all farmers want. It is very unfortunate that some African
countries are scared of using biotech because of the pressure and
negativity from Europe.
We in the Republic of South Africa have decided to move strongly
forward with biotech and we encourage other African farmers and
countries to do the same.
Thank you.
An African Agricultural Biotechnology Portfolio
Portfolio Sector Items
Biofortification
Biotechnology Assisted Development, Deployment and Nutritional Efficacy
Testing of High Mineral Beans to Combat Anemia in East Africa--
East Africa--IFPRI
Development of Vitamin A enhanced maize for Africa--Pan African--
Monsanto, Iowa State
Disease and Pest Control
West African Cacao: A Coordinated Biotechnology-Based Program to Breed
Cacao for West Africa--West Africa (Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon,
Cote d'Ivoire--USDA
Capacity-Building in Cassava Biotechnology in Africa--Nigeria, Ghana
Kenya--Danforth Cente
Biotechnology for Cowpea Improvement in Africa--Nigeria--UC-Davis, IITA
Preparation of Infrastructure for Extended Field Testing of Recombinant
Rinderpest Vaccines--Kenya--UC-Davis
USAID/SADC Heartwater Research Project--Pan African--University of
Florida
Development of Transgenic Papaya Resistant to Papaya Ringspot Virus for
the Lake Victoria Region of Africa--USDA
Biotechnological Approaches to Improved Banana Production in Eastern
Africa--INIBAP
Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II--regional research
projects in East, West and Southern Africa--Cornell University
South Africa supported research projects--indigenous buchu crop,
apricot rootstock, livestock diseases
Uganda supported projects--insect, weevil, nematode resistant bananas
Kenya supported projects--virus resistant sweet potatoes, maize
resistant to storage pests, livestock diseases
Nigeria supported research projects--cowpeas, cassava
Zambia supported projects--specifics to be determined
Mali and Mozambique--will support biotechnology research projects--
specifics to be determined
Biosafety
Developing an ASARECA Program in Biotechnology and Biosafety
WECARD/CORAF: Biotechnology Capacity Building in West Africa
Risk Assessment for Genetically Modified Cowpea in Africa
Assessment of Ecological Impacts of Introducing GE Crops into Africa
SARB: Southern African Regional Biosafety Program
PBS: Program for Biosafety Systems--regional approach to biosafety in
East, West and Southern Africa--ISNAR, IFPRI
Biosafety programs thru bilateral programs in Uganda, Kenya, Mali,
Mozambique, Nigeria
OTHER--IMPACT ASSESSMENT, PUBLIC OUTREACH
Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnology in
East Africa--IPPRI, Purdue University
Biotechnology for International Agricultural Development--public
outreach with Tuskegee University
Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II--economic analysis to be
done by Cornell University
U.S. Universities Working with USAID on Agriculture in Africa
LUniversity of California at Davis
LCornell University
LUniversity of Florida
LMichigan State University
LOhio State University
LPurdue University
LTexas A & M University
LTuskegee University
LVirginia Polytechnic Institute