[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 24, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1337-E1338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIOTECH DECISIONS SHOULD BE SCIENCE-BASED

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 24, 2003

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
following editorial from the June 23, 2001, Omaha World-Herald. The 
editorial emphasizes the need to take a science-based approach 
regarding the issue of biotech crops and highlights a positive example 
in India. On the other hand, the European Union's continued moratorium 
on approving new agriculture biotech lacks a scientific basis. This 
discriminatory and protectionist stance harms U.S. farmers, consumers 
worldwide, and developing countries. The U.S. is correctly challenging 
the EU's position, which is transparently devoid of any relationship to 
sound science.

                        A Tale of Two Mind-Sets

       Recent days have shown a big contrast in how some 
     governments abroad approach the issue of genetically modified 
     foods.
       One development, from India, reflects a commendable, 
     science-based approach to biotech crops. The other, from the 
     European Union, indicates the E.U.'s continuing insistence on 
     using bogus claims about biotech crops as an excuse to shut 
     out U.S. food exports.
       In India, the government says it is nearing regulatory 
     approval of a genetically modified potato that has one-third 
     more protein than normal. The new potato is to be distributed 
     to school children as part of their mid-day meal.
       The head of India's biotechnology department voiced strong 
     support for the new product, calling it part of ``a 
     technology for the future.'' Many of India's more than 1 
     billion people are plagued by dietary deficiencies in protein 
     and vitamin A, she said, and biotech foods such as the new 
     potato can help address the need.
       In another encouraging sign, a group of Indian scientists 
     stepped forward in April to rebut the claim by anti-biotech 
     activists that the new potato is the brainchild of profit-
     seeking Western corporations: As reported

[[Page E1338]]

     by The Associated Press, ``the Indian scientists made clear 
     they are on the front lines of such developments.''
       Last week, representatives of India's biotech sector' spoke 
     out, saying that their industry' is in a state of ``near 
     paralysis'' due to opposition from critics of genetically 
     modified foods. One Indian biotech consultant lamented that 
     the ``protest industry'' has ``exploited a few--technical 
     violations and has made the entire system rigid.''
       In Europe, anti-biotech activists enjoy particular clout, 
     and last week talks between U.S. and E.U. officials over 
     genetically modified foods broke down. The United States will 
     now turn,to the World Trade Organization to appoint a panel 
     to rule on the case. The United States is said to have a good 
     chance of gaining a ruling that would compel the E.U: to end 
     its ban on American biotech crops.
       Don Lipton, a spokesman for the American Farm Bureau 
     Federation, was right when he said that ``countries shouldn't 
     be able to erect barriers for nonscientific reasons.'' In 
     India, the government, to its credit, acknowledges that 
     point. Regrettably, European governments are content to 
     ignore it and continue their opportunistic stonewalling.

                          ____________________