Mr. President, I would like to say a few words today about biotechnology and trade. As a working family farmer, I personally see the effects of this debate with my friends and neighbors, as well as Iowans I talk with in meetings across the state. With my own background and as chairman of the International Trade Subcommittee, I have addressed the issue of biotechnology and trade in many ways.
Last October, my trade subcommittee looked at the biotechnology issue during hearings on agricultural trade policy. Last fall, I brought Charles Ludolph, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Europe, to Iowa to hear the concerns our corn and soybean growers have about the European food scare over GMO products. Last December, I addressed this issue at the WTO Ministerial Conference Meeting in Seattle.
I have continued to have discussions about trade in genetically modified foods with the European Commission. I recently had another meeting on Capitol Hill with David Byrne, the EU Commissioner for Consumer Health and Safety Protection. This informative meeting followed a lengthy session I had with Commissioner Byrne in Seattle. We discussed recent developments affecting trade and biotechnology within the European Union.
Based on this work and my long-standing concern about biotechnology and trade, that I would like to report to the people of Iowa and America that I still have great concerns about what we are seeing in Europe, and now in Japan.
For nearly 30 years, Europe's governments have been telling their people that modern agricultural technology is dangerous. First, it was the pesticide scare of the 1970s. Even though we have added eight years to our life spans since we started widely spraying modern pesticides on our crops. Then it was growth hormones in meat, even though European scientists have confirmed the safety of these hormones. Now it's genetically modified foods, even though not one person has ever caught so much as a cold from eating a genetically enriched product.
Just last week, we learned that Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare is getting set to require mandatory safety tests on genetically modified foods before they can be imported into Japan. This will dramatically and adversely affect our farmers, who ship about $10 billion worth of products a year to Japan. Every year, Japan relies on US production for 80 percent of its soybean imports, and 90 percent of its corn imports.
Japan is taking this action even though genetically modified products produced in the United States must be approved by a food regulatory agency that the world looks to as the model for what a food safety agency should do. And both the Japanese and the European Union governments know that genetically modified foods are only approved for sale after thousands of field trials and rigorous testing.
So what's going on? I am convinced that a good part of these developments can be explained by a desire to restrain trade. Agricultural producers in Europe, and in Japan, can't grow corn, or soybeans, or many other products more efficiently, at better prices, than we can. After the United States and our trading partners agreed to the Agreement on Agriculture, one of the Uruguay Round Agreements, it is more difficult now to use quotas, tariffs, and subsidies to favor domestic producers. So they look for other means ? in this case, fear ? to counter the competitive edge we enjoy.
Mr. President, President Franklin Roosevelt said, "The only thing we have to fear is, fear itself." As far as biotechnology is concerned, the only thing Europe, and now Japan, have to offer is fear. It's how the Europeans have protected their domestic agricultural markets from American competition for 30 years.
Just look at the comment by Germany's environment minister, Jurgen Tritten, when the European Commission proposed a redrafting of the legislation governing the admission of genetically modified products into the EU. Just as they planned it, this new European Union legislation has the effect of slowing the approval of new U.S. genetically modified products in Europe to a trickle. The German minister was elated. He hailed this legislation as a "de facto moratorium."
And if it's not the case that the Europeans, and now Japan, are using fear as a new trade barrier, why is it that these governments, and the anti-biotechnology activists who are so worried about the impact of genetically modified foods, seem completely unconcerned about biotechnology in medicine? Is it because they really know that medical uses of biotechnology are completely safe?
I don't want to give the impression that all of this consumer fear has been whipped up just to restrain trade. There is always legitimate concern about new technology, especially in food. But in my view, the unprecedented safety record of our food regulatory system completely eliminates this concern. And it appears that Europe's governments have overplayed the extent of consumer concern.
A recent poll of 16,000 Europeans by the European Commission's own Environment Directorate found that Europe's citizens are less concerned about GMOs than they are over other environmental issues. When asked to rank their chief environmental concerns on a list of nine issues, GMOs finished ninth, in last place.
There is also another dimension to this issue you don't hear the anti-biotech activists talk about. That is the fact that we can now prove that biotechnology is the most powerful tool for good that our researchers have ever had. Right now, some 400 million people currently suffer from Vitamin A deficiency, including millions of children who go blind every year. A new genetically-enhanced form of rice containing beta-carotene, called golden rice, will mean these children will not be cruelly robbed of their sight. Another form of golden rice included genes to overcome the chronic iron deficiency suffered by 2 billion people in rice cultures. Women have always been subject to extra risk from birth complications because of anemia. What are the terrible risks in our food approval system that would justify blinding children, or subjecting Asian women to birth complications? The answer is simple: there are none. There is just the politics of fear. Because biotechnology is such a great force for good, this must change.
What can we do about it? I don't have all the answers. But I do know this. We have got to talk about finding a worldwide solution. And we can only do that if the United States leads. Right now, the Quad Countries ? the United States, the European Union, Japan and Canada ? lack a coherent vision for how to address the biotechnology issue. This is largely because the senior Quad partner, the United States, has backed away from its traditional leadership role in shaping global trade policy.
In fact, as a result of the administration's lack of focus and vision, this is the first time in 50 years that we have not succeeded in going forward with a new global trade liberalization agenda. As a result, the United States is reduced to agreeing to half-hearted ideas put forward by the European Commission in Geneva, like a "consultative forum" to look at biotech issues. Mr. President, I'm not even sure what this is, or what it is supposed to accomplish, but we have agreed to it.
Another sign of the administration's failure of leadership on trade is the fact that at Seattle, we refused to seek a comprehensive round, knowing this unreasonable posture would never be accepted by our trading partners. The administration's refusal to negotiate a comprehensive round was a complete reversal of United States policy that successfully launched and completed the last round of global trade negotiations, the Uruguay Round.
In 1986, our then-U.S. Trade Representative, Clayton Yeutter, said only a comprehensive round would result in the greatest gains for the United States. He was right. It did. I have a high regard for Ambassador Rita Hayes and her team in Geneva. They are leading agriculture negotiations that started about one month ago. But their hands are tied. They have to negotiate within a very narrow framework because a political decision made months ago to limit the scope of new global trade negotiations made it all but certain that the talks in Seattle would not succeed.
This is certainly a far cry from the traditional, bold United States trade agenda that has brought us such tremendous prosperity. Right now, agriculture is struggling. American farmers are struggling. I said a few moments ago that Europe and Japan are using fear in place of facts with regard to trade and biotechnology. But we can't counter fear with uncertainty. We can't combat false information with confusion. And we can't oppose political expediency in Europe with a lack of resolve at home. There is a great debate going on about extraordinary new technology and trade that we must lead. That sort of focused international leadership can only come from the White House. We need leadership that understands that we must trade globally, so we can prosper locally. I urge the administration in the strongest possible terms to rise to this challenge.