[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 141 (Wednesday, October 8, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2008-E2009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      BIOTECH AND FORTRESS EUROPE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 8, 2003

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
following column written by Sonja Hillgren, editor of the Farm Journal, 
which appeared in the Summer 2003 issue of the publication.
  This column highlights the improper hurdles that the European Union 
(EU) has put in place to block the importation of American agricultural 
products. The current EU restrictions on the importation of food with 
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have cost agricultural producers 
billions of dollars in recent years. As the column indicates, some of 
the products the EU uses and exports have long been GMO-based.
  The intransigence by the EU is having a very detrimental effect on 
American farmers. Also troubling are the indications that the EU is 
planning to move forward with labeling and traceability requirements 
that will continue to act as a mechanism to block U.S. agricultural 
products. This clearly runs counter to the WTO principle that rules 
should be based on scientific evidence.
  The EU's GMO standards are transparently devoid of any relationship 
to sound science and are either based strictly on emotion or are 
designed quite simply as trade barriers--or both. The U.S. must take 
strong action to bring reason back to this issue.

                      Biotech and Fortress Europe

                    [From Farm Journal, Summer 2003]

                (By Sonja Hillgren, Farm Journal Editor)

       Those wily Europeans have devised a scheme that could 
     freeze out imports of U.S. crops and food products. Their 
     vehicle is labeling and traceability for genetically modified 
     (GM) food and feed. Approved last month by the European 
     Parliament, the plan is on a path for implementation next 
     year.
       ``It is clearly about restricting trade,'' says Criss 
     Davis, a Shullsburg, Wis., farmer who chairs the 
     international marketing committee of the United Soybean 
     Board.
       I don't want to contemplate the consequences for the U.S. 
     farm economy if we fail to respond aggressively at the same 
     time as we continue a respectful dialogue with consumers, 
     processors and retail grocers in the European Union (EU). 
     That is how U.S. soybean growers have kept open the market 
     for the past seven years.
       Under the new EU rules, any food or feed with more than 
     0.9% of an EU-approved GM product must be labeled as biotech. 
     Food with more than 0.5% of a GM product not approved by the 
     EU would be barred from the European market.
       Tough to implement. Especially onerous is the requirement 
     for labels and traceability for processed products like 
     soybean oil, even though tests cannot detect whether or not 
     processed products have been genetically altered. An 
     invitation for fraud, it is a big change from current rules 
     that require labels only if a modified gene can be detected. 
     ``They are going to have a terrible time implementing it,'' 
     warns Davis.
       Soybean meal, corn gluten feed and other livestock feed 
     also will have to be labeled for the first time.
       The rules do not require labels on meat, milk and eggs from 
     animals fed GM feed or on yogurt, beer or other products 
     produced from GM yeast or enzymes--all of which are 
     abundantly produced in Europe.
       Europeans say these new rules are a necessary prelude to 
     lifting a nearly five-year ad hoc moratorium on their 
     approvals of a pipeline of biotech crops. The Bush 
     administration recently challenged that ban before the World 
     Trade Organization (WTO). And the EU began suing its member 
     nations to lift individual country bans on biotech.
       Europeans also say they are doing the U.S. a favor because 
     traceability will be necessary for the next generation of 
     biotech products.
       Those are valid points. But Americans counter that there is 
     no scientific reason for tracking current biotech crops that 
     are no different from non-GM products. As soon as the new 
     rules are in place, the administration should file another 
     WTO case.
       Let's examine the deeper problem by focusing on more than 
     $1 billion in yearly soybean exports to Europe, the single 
     largest customer of U.S. soybeans. The vast majority of our 
     soybeans are biotech, and European consumers and retail 
     stores have indicated that

[[Page E2009]]

     they will reject any foods with biotech labels.
       Thus Europeans can import evenmore soybeans from Brazil, 
     where suppliers pretend not to grow biotech beans even while 
     smuggling some from Argentina.
       While the GM conflict is being argued before the WTO, the 
     Europeans can expand non-biotech oilseeds (grain and 
     livestock, too) in the 10 nations that will join the 15 
     nations of the EU next year. Their goal could be to make the 
     expanded 25-nation EU nearly self-sufficient in grain and 
     livestock agriculture.
       Trade deal. More than 40 years ago, when Europeans were 
     bigger food importers, U.S. trade negotiators convinced them 
     to import U.S. soybeans duty-free. A bone of contention for 
     the past 20 years, the principle was reaffirmed in a 1992 
     Blair House trade agreement. A cynic could view the biotech 
     rules as another European attempt to undo a 40-year-old 
     oilseed agreement.
       For those who want to fight the Europeans head-on, it is 
     wise to remember that the U.S. doesn't hold the best hand of 
     cards.
       The EU has won two WTO cases against the US.--for a tax 
     break on exports via offshore subsidiaries and for steel 
     tariffs.
       The EU has held off on imposing $6.2 billion in retaliatory 
     duties, including on U.S. fruits and rice.
       As a US. strategy, we can encourage other nations, 
     including the Europeans, to remain open to biotech. Brazil 
     says biotech will become illegal on farms next spring, but 
     many Brazilian farmers want GM crops, so that conflict is 
     coming to a head.
       Both U.S. farmers and USDA can underline the impracticality 
     of the new EU rules and monitor cheating by competitors. At 
     the same time, we can begin to look at a viable system to 
     track GM crops to deal with the next generation of biotech.
       Says Davis, ``I think we have the ability to capitalize on 
     those things better than our competition.''

     

                          ____________________