Washington D.C.
June 3, 2004

SECRETARY VENEMAN:  "First of all, I want to thank you all for your service, and I was just asking Bernice on the way over here when did this committee first meet?  And I think it was just a year ago.  And that you've had at least four or five -- is this your fifth meeting?  So that's, I mean that's quite an aggressive schedule for a committee.  But I think it's certainly an important one.

     "I want to thank you all for your service.  I want to welcome those of you who have been reappointed and newly appointed like Carol.  I'm very pleased that you all are willing to do this.

      "Michael has been continuing his leadership.  As you know, David Hegwood has made a change in the Department.  He will now be our person that's going to the FAO in Rome, and we're very excited about that because as you know one of the most important activities under the FAO in addition to food aid and the world food program which we're very involved in is the CODEX..  And David I think comes with a tremendous amount of knowledge and background in those issues.  So I think he'll be a wonderful addition there.

     "Bernice has taken over the biotech part of the portfolio, as sort of the cross-cutting issue in USDA, and we're very pleased to be able to welcome her back to the Department with her vast knowledge about issues relating to biotechnology.

     "So I think we have a strong team.  Cindy Smith from APHIS has been doing -- oh, there she is; you're way back there -- has been doing a terrific job leading the new biotech group within APHIS.  And so as I said, I think it's a strong team.  And we've really tried to look at, what is the direction we need to be going in?

     "We've seen some of the biotech issues in the headlines recently-- the recent approval of the corn variety in Europe, the first in many years.  And then last week the FAO announcement that they were going to be really looking much more positively at biotechnology with regard to feeding hungry people.

     "And I think that may be coming partially out of some of the things that we've done with our international conference on ag science and technology which I'll talk a little bit about in a few minutes.

     "One of the things that I think we probably talked about last year, but as we began to deal with some of the problems of biotech, whether it was first StarLink or it was Prodigene or it was the pigs that were used for transgenic research, all of these really pointed to the fact that we needed to really understand, better define the appropriate role of government regulatory systems to make sure that we didn't undermine the consumer confidence in our food supply.

      "And I kind of think some of these issues were wakeup calls for us to really examine all our systems and make sure we're doing the right thing.  And so I would say we in the USDA have taken the lead in trying to bring the inter-agency process together to try to really determine what is it we need to do in terms of our regulatory responsibility given sort of the diverse nature of biotech that we're dealing with today.

     "Biotech is -- you know, when we first started talking about biotech back in the late '80s and early '90s it was, okay we're going to have biotech food, and we weren't talking about these crops, you know, like the StarLink that were going to be approved for one thing and not for another, so would they get into the food supply?  And our regulatory structures really need to take into account as we create products that may be for pharmaceuticals and not for food, for industrial and not for food.

     "And so we've taken a pretty proactive stance in USDA to make sure that we can really understand how we need to regulate these things and to recognize that a one-size really doesn't fit all.

     "So we have taken several steps to build our regulations, enhance our permit systems for plant-made pharmaceuticals and industrials, we're increasing our inspections at the sites, we're training personnel on our rules and so those who are involved in field tests; we're creating a compliance and enforcement unit within APHIS to really have much more of a compliant responsibility.  We're creating an environmental and ecological analysis program.

      "In January we announced that APHIS will be preparing an EIS, evaluating its biotech regs and possible changes as it moves to update its regulations.  And we're also looking to bring a broader perspective through the EIS process.

"Given the growing scope and complexity of biotech, USDA has also recognized the need to have more safeguards and have greater transparency in the process.

     "So our goal is to ensure that all of those involved in field-testing of biotech crops understand and adhere to the regulations that APHIS has put forward.  And we've heard this need echoed by those in the industry, the food and agriculture sectors, the nongovernmental organizations, private stakeholders, the public, and so we are taking action to get more information out there to make sure that we have a transparent system.

     "APHIS is also planning to take several steps over the coming weeks to bolster the transparency and the regulatory system while protecting the confidential business information. 

      "We're also looking at our regulatory authorities to determine, are they the right ones?  What do we need to do?  Do we need to make changes?  And so a vital part of all of these efforts is input from all of you because there is a lot of experience around this table, a lot of expertise in the kinds of issues we're dealing with.

     "And so I think that can be critical as we look to do the right thing, create the right regulatory structures as we move this technology forward.

     "Since I last visited with the committee last June, we did host this ministerial conference on science and technology.  Now by way of background, this came out of the World Food Summit Five Years Later, which was held in June of 2002.  At that time I said in my remarks to that forum that we would host a major forum on science and technology to really look at how we can use science and technology to reach the goal of cutting the number of hungry people in the world by half by the year 2015.  We are backsliding on that goal.  We started out in 1996 with 800 million people defined in that category.  It's now I think over 840 million.  So we're going backwards rather than forwards.

     "One of the things that we thought could be done is to really help people understand how science and technology can impact particularly those areas of the world where the most hungry people are and where agriculture is also at a subsistence level, where so much of economic activity centers around agriculture as a means to allow people to have enough to eat.

     "So we hosted the ministerial conference in Sacramento last June.  It really exceeded our expectations in terms of its success.  We had over 1,000 participants.  We had about 120 countries represented.  We had 119 people at ministerial levels.  These were ministers of Agriculture, of Science and Technology, of Environment, of Trade, Commerce, a whole range of people that participated; with speakers.

     "Norman Borlaug spoke and really, really made a powerful presentation that I think really hit home, particularly with the African countries.  And he talked about the Green Revolution, which he's attributed as being the father of, and he said, specifically directed at the Africans, that:” You missed the Green Revolution, you cannot afford to miss the gene revolution."  That was the central message of his comments.

     "We had such interest in this conference, and we didn't just focus on biotechnology.  We focused on a range of technologies -- whether it's basic, one of the issues that came out very strong was just water and water availability and quality, and what are some of the basic technologies that can help that?  And of course that ties in with biotech as well because we need to figure out, we need to help the science be directed toward drought-resistant varieties of things like cassava and things and test resistance of things that they eat in impoverished areas of Africa.

      "We have follow-up interest in that.  The Costa Ricans came to us actually at the conference and the ambassador followed up with us along with IICA, and we hosted a regional conference in Costa Rica last month in May, very well attended.  We had 10 countries there that really, really engaged the discussion of how do you move this technology, various technologies forward and work together.

     "Some of the technologies, some of the areas of cooperation for example, we're working together on regulatory systems.  Let's share our expertise on regulatory systems, on recognizing the need for strong sanitary and phytosanitary systems.  We have another regional conference scheduled in Burkina Faso in June-- again, to look at some of the specific issues around the needs of Africa.

      "In addition we announced the Norman Borlaug International Science and Technology Fellows Program, and this program, we had Norman Borlaug in the Department.  It was just a week after his 90th birthday, so we celebrated with him.  And this program will fund scientific training and exchanges at U.S. universities, USDA and its agencies, research centers, nonprofit institutions and private companies.  And we hope to have as many as 100 Borlaug fellows a year.

     "So we've also promoted farmer-to-farmer dialogues.  Certainly we've had a lot of discussions with countries about how we work together in the whole structure of biotech.  So I know there's a tremendous amount of work that you all are doing to look at all of the various issues relating to these emerging technologies.  I think it's just very important that we set the direction and the course in the right direction to make sure that we harness the value of these technologies while making sure that we protect the food supply and appropriately regulate.

     "So again, we appreciate your efforts and look forward to working with you.  And thank you again for your willingness to serve.”

     PROF. LAYTON:  "Thank you, Madam Secretary, and thank you for your leadership during the last few years on this issue.  It's been a tremendous help I think to the nation and to where we're going in the world in biotechnology.

      "Do we have time for questions?”

      SEC. VENEMAN:  "You're the one that said we were going to be off schedule.”

     PROF. LAYTON:  "I don't have my watch on and you do.  Well, we were just discussing prior to your coming in that we have now a whole stack of documents with a lot of work to get done so we can give you a report in December of this year, so -- potentially on labeling and traceability, even more quickly, quicker report if we get a lot done this week.  So that's why my comment was there.

     "Are there any questions for Madam Secretary?”

     QUESTION:  "Madam Secretary, I was at the ministerial meeting that was held in Sacramento and I echo what you say in terms of that meeting and its attendance.  And there were some very powerful messages indeed that came out of those.  One of the messages came from the secretary of Agriculture from the Philippines.  He talked about, he had recently made the decision with regard to the transgenic maize in the Philippines, and he talked about that decision necessitating him to have the political will to move forward.

     "And I just wonder in the regional meetings you've had and your discussions with the other national leaders your assessment of kind of the state of that political will, which I think will be very important as we try to address some of these very complex issues.”

      SEC. VENEMAN:  "He did talk about that.  He's a very interesting gentleman, the person that is the minister of Agriculture from the Philippines.  And he had a fair amount of resistance, not from his farmers, but particularly he talked about from the Catholic Church.  There's been a fair amount of resistance in some of these countries. 

      "We had a very interesting exchange on the first day at lunch -- because we had people from the Vatican there, and that was very helpful.  But I think it was Joe Jenn, who's our undersecretary for Research, as you know, who was having a conversation at lunch with the minister of Agriculture from Zambia and, somehow the issue of why they rejected our food aid.  And they specifically told us it was because the Catholic Church told them to, the priests down there.

     "So I said, well you know, we have representatives from the Vatican, I want to get you together.  So they did.  They had a conversation. 

     "And I think there is a growing recognition, certainly the Vatican has now begun to look at the promise of some of these technologies to help feed the hungry.  I mean, we've had of course people from Africa come and talk about the productivity gains that they've seen in some of these varieties that they've been using in some of these regions.  I can't remember the cotton farmer that we had who told us that it was giving him so much benefit that he could get another wife.

     (laughter)

      PROF. LAYTON: "Well, that's tremendous….

     SEC VENEMAN:  “economic benefit….”

     (laughter)

      "He said that at one of our conferences, our press conference.  But the fact of the matter is, I think with the FAO-- I think there is a growing recognition here that this is not a technology to be feared but a technology to be wisely used for the benefit of those who need to be fed. And I think that's what the minister from the Philippines was saying is that we want to do this for the benefit of our agriculture, our ability to feed our own population. And he was willing to take some risks in that regard, and I think successfully so.”

     QUESTION:  "Another arena where people from the developing world, hungry people who are trying to advance their own interests at work, is in the trade arena, looking basically for access to markets in what they view as an uneven playing field where enormous subsidies are given, say, to U.S. cotton farmers. 

     "How did you all kind of try to incorporate those two kinds of ways -- this is perhaps too simplistic -- but two ways of helping cotton farmers?  You could either give them access to technology which may or may not get them where they want to go, versus giving them access to markets which actually would help them immediately on the road to prosperity."

     SEC. VENEMAN:  "Well, I think both are very important.  I think that, let's take an example of some other products other than cotton because cotton actually trades pretty freely around the world.  But one of the problems we see with the developing world is, if you get into a situation where you can produce certain crops that can be exported is that some of these countries don't have the ability to put together sanitary and phytosanitary systems to meet the requirements to export. 

     And that's an area where we see a tremendous need to provide technical assistance to people in terms of developing their own regulatory systems, not just for biotechnology but for the whole host of pest and disease prevention so that these countries can have an opportunity to trade.

     "As you know, obviously the subsidies are on the table as in the WTO negotiations, but some of the highest market access barriers, some of the highest barriers to trade are in the developing world. 

     "And I think another thing that is very important is a recognition that by creating more access, by creating more trade regionally this will also benefit some in the developing world.

     "And so not only is subsidies a very important aspect of the WTO negotiations but also the market access is very important.”

     QUESTION: "Secretary Veneman, I would just like to add that I think that you really hit the nail on the head as we see as farmers one of the barriers we have to trade, and a problem as we bring more technology forward is that synchronization of approval processes around the world and getting those regulations in place. 

      "And I think your department USDA, as well as State Department, is working on that.  And we're trying to help that.  But the sooner we can do that the better, as you know, because a new product comes on that we really have issues around the world since we don't have a harmonization or a synchronous approval -- synchronous if that's a word -- but look forward to get something more done in that area.

     "So thank you."

     SEC. VENEMAN:  "One of the things that we have tried to emphasize with countries-- for example, when I went to China a year and a half ago or so I not only took my Under Secretary for International with me, but I took my Under Secretary for Research with me because we have a lot of common interests in research.

     "And one of the points we tried to make is that we have a common interest in trying to promote good regulatory policies with regard to biotech because we're both doing, we both have a lot of products that are being developed and we have a common interest in making sure that the regulatory systems are proper and appropriate and that we should work together in that regard.

      "But just as we have a number of agencies that are involved in the regulation, they have even more.  And so I know it can be confusing in our government with how we regulate biotech in FDA, USDA, EPA -- but in some other countries again you have so many agencies with jurisdictions that you run into the same kinds of issues only in a much more exaggerated way.” 

     QUESTION:  "Madam Secretary, it's a real privilege.  I guess my question would be related to a recent experience in that I met with a gentleman from Jordan who was inquiring why Kentucky Fried Chicken had changed to KFC.  And he told me that in Jordan it was believed that the reason they had changed is because it was now genetically modified and it was no longer chicken, so they had dropped the word "chicken" out of the name. 

      (laughter)

     And my reaction was much the same.  Really, that's quite amusing.  He said, No, seriously.  He said, we've stopped eating chicken.  And this gentleman was an advisor to former King Hussein, well connected within the country, an educated man.  So it kind of brought out I guess in my mind the need that we recognize is there -- but I guess just the fact that we're not making progress very quickly even amongst folks who should be receptive to this technology.  So I'm pleased to see that you had a ministerial conference. 

     How aggressive, how much more aggressive can you be in trying to serve as the spokesperson for the U.S. for this technology and for the U.S. around the world.  Is there any way we can help you be more aggressive?”

     SEC. VENEMAN:  "Well, I mean, we seek to do everything that we can do.  We're always open and welcome new suggestions on how we can more effectively get the message out. 

     I really think that, again, the conferences and the follow-up --  I mean, we saw -- and Terry I think probably got a sense of this too -- we saw at that conference in Sacramento a real willingness, particularly with the Africans who I think were afraid of the technologies, been made afraid of the technology because they were afraid they're going to lose their European markets--  begin to look at this as something that they had to have their eyes opened to. 

      "I think that in terms of feeding hungry people, in terms of providing benefits for helping to address some of the issues that their farmers have, whether it's a pest-related problem or whatever,  I think the fact that we've been able, that they have wanted to have follow-up and get people involved, I think that's a very good start in getting people to change their opinions about, and being more open-minded about this, the technology.

      We can always do more.  We're certainly trying to do more.  As was mentioned the State Department's been very active in promoting benefits of these technologies.  And we're going to continue to work as hard as we can.”

      QUESTION:  "Thank you, Madam Secretary.  My question is somewhat a follow-up to what Duane was saying. 

     "I wanted to raise two issues that I think this committee is not dealing with and I think USDA needs to play a bigger role in, and I wanted to get your comments on it.  The first one is, and I think there are lots of potential benefits to the technology both here in the U.S. and abroad though there are some risks associated with the technology.  And I think there's a need for more risk assessment research with the technology; we don't know a lot about it, don't know a lot about the risks. 

     I think having more independent risk assessment research is something that would move this technology forward internationally and nationally.  USDA does do a little funding of that, I think about $2.5 or $3 million, but it really is not a lot given the extent of the technology and the potential for it, and that's one area where I think increased spending by USDA would go a long way towards moving technology forward.

     "I think the second area is public goods products.  Most of the products that are out there today both in the U.S. and around the U.S. and worldwide are really products that came from the private sector.  I think if you want to have a broader acceptance of this technology worldwide we need to see some more public goods products coming out, products that have been developed from the public sector for farmers both in developed countries and developing countries.  I think that's also an area where USDA has put some money into that.  I can't give you a number.  But I also think it's probably been less than it might be to really move the technology along.

     “So I guess I wanted to ask you about both those areas and what your thoughts about increasing USDA funding in those areas and trying to play a bigger role of getting public universities and people involved in both the risk assessment and also in product development.”

      SEC. VENEMAN:  "As I indicated -- I don't know if you have a chance to talk to Cindy, but we are in APHIS, as you know it was a pretty big step forward to start this EIS process in terms of looking at risk and looking at a variety of these issues.  And we are putting together a much more aggressive risk assessment part of what we're doing in APHIS.  So that's been something we are focusing on, and I would, and hopefully Cindy can address that with you a little later.

     “On this issue of research institutions and the public good, one of the fascinating things that came out of this conference in Sacramento was that so much of the international agriculture research money has kind of dried up from the world, whether it's the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation. 

     “But one of the sort of outcomes of this conference, and it wasn't one we had anticipated, was a discussion and a recognition that there has not been the kind of investment from sort of the foundation community that once went into research related to agriculture. 

     “And there's only so much research dollars that we have today.  And I think one of the things we need to do is we need to encourage leveraging resources to the greatest extent possible, partnering government, universities and the private sector.  We have, for example, partnerships that we have that we help to support with our 1890 schools and work in Africa on specific kinds of crops related that grow in Africa.  But I do think -- it would be great to have unlimited amounts of money, but what I think we need to do is figure out how to create the best kind of partnerships, to leverage resources that are out there and to do exactly what you're talking about, create more and more of these products that are really going to help people in areas that are truly in need of assistance.

     “And things like that, the cotton which I mentioned before, are helping farmers with productivity in very poor areas, helping to make a better living.  But I think as we look at some of the needs, and there was a recognition of this at the conference too, is that we really need to be focusing on what are the specific staple commodities that are in some of these countries where people are most hungry?  How do we help get research done that would assist in alleviating the kind of problems that they have-- if it's pest resistance for those kinds of crops or whatever.  But that's the kind of things that we heard coming out of the conference and some of the things that people collectively thought we needed to address.”