[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. TRADE POLICIES AND AGRICULTURE DISEASES:
SAFETY, ECONOMIC, AND GLOBAL CONSIDERATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY AND TRADE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 26, 1999
__________
Serial No. 106-153
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/
international--relations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-606 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE RADAVANOVICH, Califorina JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Michael H. Van Dusen, Democratic Chief of Staff
John P. Mackey, Republican Investigative Counsel
Parker Brent, Staff Associate
------
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
STEVEN J. CHABOT, Ohio PAT DANNER, Missouri
KEVIN BRADY, Texas EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
DANA ROHRABACHER, California JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
TOM CAMPBELL, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
Mauricio Tamargo, Subcommittee Staff Director
Jodi Christiansen, Democratic Professional Staff Member
Yleem Poblete, Professional Staff Member
Camilla Ruiz, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
WITNESSES
Page
The Honorable Michael V. Dunn, Under Secretary, Marketing and
Regulatory Service, Department of Agriculture.................. 4
Benjamin Cohen, Senior Staff Attorney, Center of Science in the
Public Interest................................................ 9
Craig Wheeling, President and CEO, Brooks Tropical............... 12
Peter Day, Director, Center for Agricultural Molecular Biology,
Cook College, Rutgers University............................... 14
APPENDIX
Prepared statement:
Alan Bowser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Basic Industries,
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce..... 24
U.S. TRADE POLICIES ANDAGRICULTURE DISEASES: SAFETY, ECONOMIC,
AND GLOBAL CONSIDERATIONS
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on International Economic
Policy and Trade,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m., in
room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen [presiding]. The Subcommittee will come to
order.
The upcoming Seattle round of negotiations is indicative of
the critical importance of international trade of agriculture
products to all countries in the global trading system. For the
United States, agricultural exports represent billions of
dollars for our economy. However, with expanded commercial
relations, there are also increasing risks and challenges which
must be addressed in order for our agricultural producers to be
able to compete effectively in the global marketplace.
One of these challenges is in the area of agricultural
disease. While it is difficult to draw a direct correlation,
critics of trade agreements, such as NAFTA, use statistical and
scientific data, for example, to argue that many of the
problems with agricultural pests and diseases are related to
increased imports.
Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch, relates
this to provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement
[NAFTA], which restrict food safety and agricultural diseases
and pest inspections.
Contaminated or infected products can come directly from
their point or origin or can be transshipped or repackaged
through another country. An example is the smuggling of
prohibited Asian products or French and German grape and
nursery stock, both through Canada and into the United States
A modification of this position is the view that trade
agreements and the policies which support them place greater
demands on domestic resources which means that only 70 percent
of what crosses the borders at Nagales, New Mexico, for
example, is inspected.
For my State of Florida, this has resulted in the arrival
of new pests, such as the hibiscus mealy bug which attacks 200
kinds of plants, as well as increases in Med fly, citrus canker
outbreaks, and the tomato yellow leaf curl virus, to name just
a few.
This not only translates into health hazards for domestic
consumers, it also threatens the survival of many crops which,
in turn, diminishes our export capacity. It creates a
tremendous financial burden for these farmers, for the
industries, for State structures which must deal with these
threats, further affecting our global competitiveness.
Again, focusing on the experiences of my home State, total
State costs for control and eradication of these pests and
diseases, as of September 30, 1999, amounted to over $56
million. Industry costs for control is estimated at between
$139 million to $144 million. Estimated annual potential sales
lost with statewide spread is between $937 million and $1.2
billion.
But similar scenarios are developing throughout the United
States raising the specter of the debate on country of origin
labeling. The argument raised by critics of such proposals is
that it could be used both as a non-tariff barrier by our
trading partners to impede U.S. access to their markets or as
an excuse for retaliation. Supporters who underscore that the
proposal in no way is anti-trade will point to similar
requirements by Canada, Mexico, the EU, and Japan, arguing that
country of origin labeling could make the United States more
consistent with the rest of the world.
Other experts looking to curtail the spread of agricultural
disease would say that, at least preliminarily, the answers are
to be found in Sanitary and Phytosanitary [SPS] Agreements in
regional and global trade accords. The commissioners and
secretaries of Agriculture of New Mexico, Florida, Arizona,
California, and Texas, for example, underscore the need for
full implementation of these SPS Agreements with all trading
partners, tighter measures for pest and disease prevention in
the nations with whom we trade, and increased resources to
Federal agencies for inspection, early detection, prevention,
and eradication of pest and disease introductions.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest is not
supportive, arguing that reforms to the SPS Agreements are
needed to protect U.S. food safety requirements from being
weakened in the name of facilitating international trade.
We hope to address all of these issues during today's
hearings as well as the issue of biotechnology which not only
provides possible solutions to the issue of agriculture disease
but affords new opportunities for American companies in the
global marketplace.
I would like to enter into the record the statement of Mr.
Gallegly who could not be with us today, without objection.
[The above-mentioned statement was unavailable at
presstime.]
I would like to recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Menendez
of New Jersey, for his opening statement.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Madam Chairlady. I appreciate your
opening statement, and I have a different perspective on the
hearing and hope to hear some of that as well.
That is, in essence, the fight that America has always had
in gaining fair market access for agricultural products, which
has always been a challenge for the United States, from
fighting dairy subsidies to demanding access for American beef
products. Finding new ways to obstruct market access for
agricultural products is a favorite pastime for many of our
trading partners, and transgenic crops seem to have given the
European Union [EU] and others a new opportunity to restrict
American imports. So, in essence, we are in the midst of a food
fight.
The debate over GMO's and GMO products is not about the
safety of the genetically modified food products, labeling
requirements, or the environmental impact of transgenic crops.
It is about one thing, in my view: the obstruction of market
access.
Certainly, the United States and other countries must
ensure the safety of their food supply. Domestically, the Food
and Drug Administration is charged with ensuring that GMO crops
and processed foods containing GMO products are safe for
consumption. However, domestic and overseas policies must be
guided by sound science rather than unsubstantiated claims.
To date there has been no scientific basis to conclude that
genetically modified products are more risky than non-modified
products. Yet it seems that the EU has seized on and perhaps
even exploited consumer concerns about GMO's to support
regulatory restrictions and barriers for the approval of GMO
products. The EU has imposed a de facto ban on new GMO products
imports by insisting that it cannot approve new products until
2002 when new approval procedures are developed.
Trade experts have rightly questioned whether the EU's de
facto ban is simply a stalling tactic designed to give more
time to the EU's domestic industries who were late in making
investments in GMO technology to develop competitive products.
The EU's ban in imports of hormone-treated beef, despite a WTO
settlement decision favoring the United States may be
indicative of what is in store for GMO's. Similar resistance by
the EU to imports of new GMO products, even if the United
States pursued and won a WTO case, would cost American
companies and farmers millions of dollars in sales and lost
market opportunities.
I think the United States must separate fundamental market
access issues from auxiliary issues being used to cloud the GMO
debate, like labeling. The questions raised by consumer groups
about whether GMO products should be labeled to allow consumers
the right to choose whether or not to consumer genetically
modified foods are legitimate, but the debate over labeling
should not be used to obstruct product access. The United
States must remain focused on the real debate which is about
fair and timely market access for agricultural products whose
safety is backed by science, and we look forward to some of the
testimony in that regard.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
I would like to recognize other Members who may have some
statements.
Mr. Delahunt. I don't have a statement, and I want to
apologize, because I am going to have to leave shortly, but I
did want to listen to this testimony, and I am pleased, Madam
Chairlady, that you have scheduled----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt [continuing]. This particular hearing. But I
do share the concerns of both you and Mr. Menendez. Thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Our first witness is the Honorable Michael Dunn, who is the
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Services for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Among his responsibilities is
the managing of the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Animal
and Plant Health Service, and the Grand Inspection Packers and
Stockyards Administration, three agencies responsible for many
aspects of the marketing, protection, quality, and
transportation of the Nation's food, feed, and fiber supply.
Prior to his appointment, Mr. Dunn served as Acting Under
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development at the
USDA. He was also Administrator of USDA's Farmers' Home
Administration. He served also as vice president of the
National Farmers Union and of the Farm Credit Bank of Omaha.
The Department of Commerce official was unfortunately not
able to be with us, but he will be submitting written testimony
and asks that we submit any questions in writing, and he will
be happy to answer.
So, Mr. Dunn, we will be glad to enter your testimony in
full in the record, and please feel free to summarize your
remarks.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL V. DUNN, UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND
REGULATORY SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the
Committee; I appreciate the opportunity to be here; to take up
this most important matter.
The global economy is certainly something that we need to
deal with. Almost 40 percent of what we raise and grow in the
United States is exported in some way, shape, or form.
Passenger traffic has doubled since the 1990's; air cargo is
doubling every 5 to 6 years. The United States expects to
export and import more than ever. By fiscal year 2000, we
expect to export some $50 billion in commodities in the
agricultural sector.
This increase also increases our risk of introduction of
pest and disease. An example of that was in fiscal 1998, APHIS
intercepted almost 2 million potential pest and disease-bearing
plants and animals; more than 52,000 carried some type of
harmful pest and disease, which could cause billions of dollars
in damages.
The Animal Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS]
safeguards agriculture by facilitating trade through sound,
science-based regulations. If you will think of this as a full
continuum of how we go about safeguarding our borders, we have
a preclearance inspection; we then have import permit
decisions, giving permits to import or export into the United
States; we have port of entry inspections; we have quarantine
treatments; we have detection surveys, and finally then when we
do find something, we have eradication programs.
At the port of entry, we have teams of inspectors. You may
have seen our beagle brigade, the small beagle dog which is
non-threatening, but has the best nose in the business, and if
you try to bring in some animal product or vegetable that is on
a restricted list, they will catch you. We have, in addition to
that, animal import centers, which quarantine animals coming
into the United States.
We have two entities that play an important role at APHIS.
One is Plant Protection and Quarantine [PPQ]. They look
primarily for the plant-side seeds, plants, bulbs, timber,
flowers, etc. Then we have Veterinary Services, which also has
the National Center for Import and Export for Animal and Animal
Products.
Phytosanitary certificates from exporting countries need to
be verified by that country's officials, and this is part of
what the WTO SPS Agreement was all about. We identify what we
have, a pest or disease of concern, in their country; they do
the same in our country. They rely upon our officials to
certify whether or not the product is coming from an area that
is free from that pest or disease, and we rely upon them to do
the same thing.
We have in APHIS an international service, people that are
actually located in 26 foreign countries. They maintain
information on the pest and disease that those countries might
have, and they certify that that country's program is in fact
designed to exclude the pest and disease of concern. They also
spend a great deal of time explaining our programs to their
consumers and producers, and if we have a problem with a
shipment going to that country, they are the ones, the first
line of defense for us, to explain exactly what is in that
product that is coming in that may be under contention.
We also conduct cooperative and pest disease control and
eradication programs in other countries. An example of this is
the screwworm eradication program that we have going in Central
America. We have been able to eradicate that disease from the
United States, and we are looking to establish a border in
Panama at the Darien Gap that will essentially keep all of
Central and North America free. Also foot-and-mouth disease
eradication is taking place in Central America.
Our phytosanitary standards that are developed, NAFTA and
the WTO, are linked to risk and are based upon sound science.
We have international standard-setting bodies, such as the
Office of International Epizootics, the International Plant
Protection Council, and the Codex Alimentarius. On all of those
standard-setting boards, APHIS has delegations that help set
these international standards.
Before we had the SPS and WTO, our trading partners
required either treatment of our products before they would
accept them in or more often would simply exclude the product
from going into their country. Since we have had the SPS, our
trading partners must accept our pest-free areas
regionalization and the systems approach of a series of
measures to mitigate the possibility of the pest. Results in
the past 3 years has been that the United States has been able
to maintain or open some $9.5 billion in exports through the
SPS WTO programs. At the same time, the United States has
expanded import of some $49 million.
The WTO strengthens the SPS by emphasizing the importance
of using the risk analysis, the use of sound science, and the
requirement of communications to other countries. For this to
work here in the United States, we need monitoring and
surveillance to ensure that things do not get into the country.
As the Chair had indicated, one of our greatest concerns is
the amount of pests and disease that are coming in through
smuggled goods in the United States. What we have found, where
we have protocols in place with a country which will allow
treated material to come in or certified pest-free product to
come in, the amount of smuggling goes down. We need to continue
our monitoring and surveillance. The earlier that we take
action, the less it takes to fight--to do the eradication.
We have had a number of eradication programs, as the Chair
has indicated--Med fly eradication in Florida, ongoing program
in California as well. We are, however, losing many of the
chemical tools that we need for these eradication purposes, and
we need to develop new methods.
We have asked the National Plant Protection Board to give
us some recommendations on what they think we need to safeguard
America. They have come up with a booklet entitled
``Safeguarding America.'' Within that, they have 300
recommendations for USDA to take to safeguard our borders from
plant pest and disease. We are currently evaluating those
recommendations and will begin to implement them as the budget
allows.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
USDA has stated that it would have to create a multimillion
dollar infrastructure to inspect products if country of origin
label requirements are implemented. What is your view about
establishing cooperative agreements with our States which
already have some sort of labeling requirement?
Mr. Dunn. I believe that was from our Food Safety
Inspection Services on what it would cost to establish the
various process lines for meat, for instance, and how much it
would cost for the packer to segregate and then for USDA to in
fact ensure that that type of labeling takes place.
The other concern that we have is that we have very little
inspection that takes place at the retail level. Most of our
inspection is at the wholesale level or as it comes into the
country, and we simply do not have the infrastructure out there
as far as inspectors to do an ongoing retail type of
inspection.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. And following up on what you say about
inspection, it is clear that the imports of fruits and
vegetables have increased over the last 5 years, and,
therefore, harmful pests and diseases have also increased
substantially. Have the number of inspectors and the funding
for detection and eradication efforts kept pace with these
increases, and how have you responded to the increasing demand
for inspection and eradication?
Mr. Dunn. What we have tried to do is to use a risk
analysis on inspections. So we try to determine what are the
pest and disease of greatest concern to us, and then what are
the pathways that those might come into the United States. What
we have tried to do is target the resources, both human and
fiscal resources we have, for those pathways to ensure that
that does not happen.
Our funding has been moderately increased to offset cost-
of-living increases, etc. A good portion of the funding that we
have is based upon user fees, and as the number of passengers
increase for planes and at ports, we do have additional moneys
that way to ensure the interception of what might be coming in.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. And Mr. Gallegly would like to ask you
this question: ``Some of my constituents,'' he states, ``have
brought to my attention, and this has been reinforced by the
National Plant Board report, that APHIS has been remiss in
soliciting information from stakeholders when making important
decisions which affect plant and animal health. I find this
alarming since stakeholders are the people who are most
affected by the work APHIS is doing. There are a great number
of universities, scientific personnel, growers, grower
organizations, etc., and APHIS should be interacting with them
to discuss issues of pests and diseases in the United States or
abroad. What is APHIS doing to reach out to such stakeholder
groups?''
Mr. Dunn. I think this is an extremely important issue to
have everyone's input. In fact we underwrote the cost of the
``Safeguarding America,'' which was made up of one-third
industry personnel, on-third academia, and one-third State
personnel, and asked that group to come up with exactly the
types of things that they were talking about as what do we need
to do to safeguard the United States.
Now, in addition to that, our risk analysis is something
that we need people to have a better understanding of. Very few
people read those risk analyses when they are published in the
Federal Register. We will be, at the beginning of the year,
having a public hearing on our risk analysis to have input from
everyone on how we go about doing those.
But then on individual rules, what we have tried to do is
have as much input as possible. On our avocado rule, for
instance, we had five national hearings to allow everyone an
opportunity to come up with any type of input that they think
they should have before we put that rule into place. That is
one of the areas that certainly with the use of the Internet
there is the potential to get greater input. We will do our
best on that, Madam Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. I have no questions.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Yes, I would just--and you didn't obviously
direct your remarks at all to the comments and observations
about the GMO's by Mr. Menendez. I don't know if you have an
opinion, but I am obviously interested in your analysis and
your evaluation.
Mr. Dunn. I think Mr. Menendez makes an excellent point.
There is no finding of any safety reasons for labeling GMO's at
all, and that has been the opinion of this administration as we
have gone forward. Now, we are finding that this year, at
harvest time, there has been some segregation of the product,
and that has been dictated by the processors. And that, in
turn----
Mr. Delahunt. Because of economic reasons, the ability to
sell to the European market.
Mr. Dunn. That is correct.
Mr. Delahunt. Is there any science at all that provides a
rationale for the EU's position or is this just simply blatant
protectionism?
Mr. Dunn. Well, we don't feel there is any rationale.
Mr. Delahunt. But do they pretend? Do they cite scientific
data or any studies whatsoever that have any validity or
legitimacy?
Mr. Dunn. You can always find some scientist----
Mr. Delahunt. Right.
Mr. Dunn [continuing]. To say something. Just like some
economists can have----
Mr. Delahunt. I used to be a prosecutor, and of course in
the area of responsibility and sanity, there was always an
expert to testify on both sides. So, I understand that, but I
guess the point that I am trying to make, Mr. Secretary, is
there a reputable, legitimate institution that has done any
studies in this area that provides a rationale for the position
of the EU that is well respected in terms of these kind of
issues?
Mr. Dunn. Mr. Delahunt, we have been in this business of
approving GMO's for about 12 years now here in the United
States. At USDA, the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service
approves the field testing and the transportation of the
product. What we look for is to see if there is any impact on
non-targeted species, if there is going to be any environmental
impact. The Environmental Protection Agency looks at it as if
it is in fact something like a VT gene which has an insecticide
in it so that there is no adverse effects there. Then the Food
and Drug Administration looks at it for food safety reasons. To
date, we have found no reason on those that have been approved
not to approve them.
Now, Secretary Glickman does understand that there is a lot
of concern about this. We have asked the National Academy of
Science to review how we at USDA go about our approval process.
The Secretary has asked that we establish regional centers to
monitor the long-term effects.
Mr. Delahunt. Has there been a study commissioned by the
NSA?
Mr. Dunn. Yes, we have commissioned a study.
Mr. Delahunt. Do we have any estimate as to when that study
may be concluded? Approximate; I am not asking for date
certain.
Mr. Dunn. It will probably be a year to a year and a half.
Mr. Delahunt. Thank you. That is all I have.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Dunn, and if we have any followup questions,
we will be submitting to them.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Our second panel leads off with Mr. Benjamin Cohen, senior
staff attorney at the Center for Science in the Public
Interest. Prior to this assignment, Mr. Cohen worked at the
Federal Trade Commission on both anti-trust and foreign trade
cases before the International Trade Commission and the
Department of Commerce. He also worked for the Committee on
Commerce and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
of the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as for
Representative Fattah and Congresswoman Meek. We welcome you
back, Mr. Cohen.
He is followed by Mr. Craig Wheeling, president and CEO of
Brooks Tropicals. As CEO of Brooks Tropicals, Mr. Wheeling is
responsible for overseeing the daily operations of the company.
Involved in agriculture since age 12, he joined Brooks Tropical
in 1988 as an assistant to Powell Brooks. After Hurricane
Andrew nearly devastated the company in 1992, he was largely
responsible for spearheading the reconstruction of operations
and the development of offshore business ventures and new
products. We thank you for being here, Mr. Wheeling.
Our last witness is Mr. Peter Day. Since 1979, he is the
director of the Center for Agricultural Molecular Biology and
professor of Genetics at Rutgers University. His research has
been concerned principally with the genetics of plant photogens
and the challenge of breeding disease-resistant crop plants.
Mr. Day has been involved with the development and the
application of molecular biology to crop plant improvement.
Most recently, this has expanded to the use of new technology
for environmental viral mediation and livestock improvements,
which are among the interests of the center he directs at
Rutgers, and, boy, I could use you with my daughter's science
experiments. Welcome, Mr. Day.
So, we will begin with Mr. Cohen. It is good to see you
again, Ben.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN COHEN, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY, CENTER FOR
SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here today on
behalf of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-
profit organization founded in 1971. CSPI is an advocate for
safer food and better nutrition. Its one million members
receive our monthly magazine, ``Nutrition Action
Healthletter.'' I have given copies of this month's issue to
the Committee staff to make available to Members of the
Committee. I ask that my entire statement be made part of the
record.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. We will be glad to enter all of your
statements in the record, and feel free to summarize.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
As you said in your opening statement, today's hearing is
especially timely, because in 5 weeks the World Trade
Organization's Ministerial Conference will begin in Seattle.
Our testimony focuses on the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the SPS Agreement, which
was negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round of Trade Agreements
and approved by Congress in 1994. As USDA's witness just noted,
this agreement covers both pests and food safety.
Let me state at the outset that we support expansion of
international trade and recognize the benefits to consumers
that it may bring. We also recognize that international
harmonization of food safety standards facilitates trade. The
benefits of promoting trade through harmonization, however,
must be balanced against the possible harm to consumers that
harmonization entails.
The international harmonization process will only benefit
consumers if national regulatory standards are harmonized in an
upward manner that provides the public with the greatest degree
of protection from unsafe foods and deceptive trade practices.
Unfortunately, the SPS Agreement, as it has been interpreted
and applied during the last 5 years by the WTO, threatens the
United States regulatory requirements because it is leading to
just the opposite, to downward harmonization. We, therefore,
support reforms to the SPS Agreement that would protect United
States food safety and consumer protection regulations from
being weakened in the name of facilitating trade.
Let me begin by summarizing the SPS Agreement. Under the
agreement, the WTO may force a nation to choose between
lowering its health standards for humans, animals, or plants or
paying an international penalty. A national health standard is
illegal under the SPS Agreement if the WTO decides that it is
not, ``based on scientific principles and is maintained without
sufficient scientific evidence.'' In making this judgment, the
WTO examines the extent to which the country has done a
scientific assessment of the risk to human, animal, or plant
life or health.
One of the primary purposes of the SPS Agreement is to
promote trade by encouraging countries to develop and rely on
international food regulatory standards. The SPS Agreement
specifically refers to food standards set by a United Nations
affiliated organization called the Codex Alimentarius
Commission, which was established in 1962 by the U.N. World
Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization.
Prior to 1995, national governments were free to accept or
reject Codex standards. However, with the ratification of the
SPS Agreement, Codex's role has changed greatly. Article 3.2 of
the SPS Agreement provides that a country employing a Codex
standard, guideline or recommendation is presumed to be in
compliance with its WTO obligations. On the other hand, article
3.3 of the SPS Agreement provides that a country with a
regulatory requirement that results in a higher level of
protection than a Codex standard, guideline, or recommendation
is presumed to have erected a barrier to international trade
unless the country can show that its standard has a scientific
justification. Thus, the SPS Agreement, by encouraging WTO
challenges to a national health standard only when it exceeds
the Codex standard, has a bias leading to a downward
harmonization of health standards. In fact, Codex standards
should be a floor, not a ceiling.
A country that the WTO determines has erected such a trade
barrier must either lower its regulatory requirement or pay an
international penalty. This penalty can take the form of either
compensating the foreign government whose exports to the
country have been limited or permitting that country to impose
trade restrictions on imports from the country that maintained
the higher food safety standard.
Codex has had three meetings since the SPS Agreement was
ratified in 1994. In the first meeting, in 1995, Codex--by a
vote of 33 to 29 with 7 abstentions--approved the use of growth
hormones for cattle. This Codex decision helped the U.S.
Government win a legal battle at the WTO declaring that the
European Union's ban on beef hormones is illegal, but of course
no exports have resulted from this decision. The only thing
that has happened is we have higher food prices in the United
States and social unrest in France, including the burning of
McDonald's Restaurants.
Since that time, the United States has fared even worse. At
the 1997 Codex meeting, the United States lost two key votes.
Codex adopted--by a vote of 33 to 31 with 10 abstentions--an
international safety standard for natural mineral waters that
permits higher levels of lead and other contaminants than the
Food and Drug Administration now allows. Codex also adopted--by
a vote of 46 to 16 with 7 abstentions--an international
standard for food safety inspection that permits self-
evaluation by the company or nongovernmental third-parties,
even though in the United States such food safety inspections
are the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, the
FDA, and the State governments.
The United States avoided losing any recorded votes at this
year's meeting by just acquiescing to six decisions that
provide less protection to consumers than the United States now
requires. At the June 1999 meeting, Codex unanimously approved
residue tolerances for methyl parathion and other pesticides,
even though in August 1999 the Environmental Protection Agency,
as mandated under U.S. law, banned methyl parathion for fruits
and vegetables because of its potential adverse effects on
children.
So, what we now have is the following situation: The EPA
has banned the use of this pesticide; Codex has approved its
use. EPA has told us that they are telling the Mexican
government that they can no longer ship fruits and vegetables
to this country if they use this pesticide. The Mexican
government may say, ``Now, hold on, Codex just approved this
standard. We are going to sue you in the WTO for a trade
barrier.'' If the United States loses that decision with WTO,
then we would either have to change the standard or pay
compensation to the Mexicans.
At this year's meeting, Codex also approved a standard for
natural mineral water that still permits higher levels of lead
and other contaminants than the FDA now allows. Codex also
approved an international standard that does not require
pasteurization of dairy products even though pasteurization is
required generally by the FDA.
Codex also sanctioned the use of five food additives which,
while presumably safe, have not been formally approved by the
FDA for use in this country. Codex also approved an
international standard for the labeling of a composite
ingredient in prepackaged foods that permits it to be listed by
a standardized name without declaring all its component
ingredients if it is less than 5 percent of the food, even
though the FDA requires these components to always be listed in
order to protect consumers who suffer from hypersensitivities.
Codex also defeated attempts to strengthen current Codex
nutrition labeling requirements to make them more akin to the
United States law.
The United States' acquiescence to these Codex standards
means that it may be only a matter of time before current EPA,
FDA, and USDA regulations are challenged as trade barriers by
countries invoking the Codex standards as evidence that United
States regulatory requirements are unreasonably high. This
process is unacceptable. Food safety and consumer protection
must not be sacrificed in the name of harmonizing regulatory
requirements and facilitating trade.
Now, the administration has told Congress that it is
pleased with what happened with Codex. There is a letter, dated
August 16, which I have given to the staff and would like to
have made part of the record.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Without objection.
[The above-mentioned document was unavailable at
presstime.]
Mr. Cohen. It is a letter from the Deputy USTR Director
Susan Esserman to Congressman Pallone----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Mr. Cohen, if you could summarize your
statement.
Mr. Cohen. Sure--saying that they are pleased with the
results of Codex this summer even though the Codex decisions
undermine our safety regulations.
We urge that this Committee not be pleased with these
threats to U.S. food safety and that you take the lead in
telling the administration that the SPS Agreement should in
fact be changed in Seattle.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Wheeling.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG WHEELING, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BROOKS
TROPICALS
Mr. Wheeling. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. My name is
Craig Wheeling. I work for Brooks Tropicals. Our company grows
tropical fruit, like avocados, limes, papayas, and mangos.
Our main problem is harmful pest introduction. All our
fruit is vulnerable to pest introductions like fruit fly.
Furthermore, effective sprays either may not exist, or may not
be approved for use by EPA. A good example of our problem is
bacterial citrus canker, or avocado seed weevil where there is
no cure short of destroying the host tree.
Our firm supports improved trade. Indeed a good portion of
our company's business revolves around marketing fruit from
Latin American and Caribbean countries. But, Florida is
currently suffering a rash of pest infestations. In the 1990's,
we had two infestations of citrus canker, one of which is going
to cost over $170 million to eradicate, and currently threatens
both the citrus and lime industries. Canker is currently one
mile north of our commercial lime growing area. We, as a
company, will spend over $300,000 to combat canker this year
with no commensurate added revenue.
Other pest introductions include oriental fruit fly, found
in May 1999; Med fly, found in 1990, 1997, 1998; citrus leaf
miner, found in May 1993; brown citrus aphid, found in November
1995; citrus psyllid, found June 1998; citrus long horned
beetle, found 1999. In the interest of time, I will delete the
rest of them, but the list does go on and is considerable. Some
of these are very serious economic pests of concern like Med
fly and the canker which can destroy or cripple an entire
industry.
Producers of fruits and vegetables throughout the United
States have also experienced severe crop losses due to
undetected pests on imported produce. The costs to the States
and most importantly to growers are enormous. The above list
does not lend growers confidence that our borders are being
protected from pests. Where are these pests coming from? Why
are new exotic pests showing up at an unprecedented rate?
At the same time that pest introductions in Florida have
mushroomed, trade and travel have increased without due
consideration to safeguarding our borders. For instance, during
a similar period to the pest infestations I just described,
trucks carrying Mexican produce through Nogales have increased
by 62 percent to 150,744 annually. Fresh produce has nearly
doubled. The USDA APHIS, PPQ web site states that ``the sheer
volume of trade means about 70 percent of the trucks sail
through the Nogales entry gates without anyone from any agency
inspecting any cargo at all.''
The systems approach has been used to justify liberalized
fruit importation rules in the United States. This is a
statistical model predicting likely infestations through a
quantitative risk assessment. But we believe there are problems
with the use of the model. Dr. Jan Nyrop, associate professor
of Entomology at Cornell University, analyzed the risk
assessment used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
Mexican avocado entry. He concluded that the Monte Carlo
simulation is not needed and only provides a veil of analytical
objectivity. The data upon which parameters for the model were
estimated are either non-existent or not adequately documented.
The results of the model cannot be accepted with any level of
confidence.
The systems approach was used on Sharwil avocados in Hawaii
in 1990. The USDA then discovered, contrary to the model, that
Sharwil avocados were on tree hosts to fruit fly. Mexico has
been allowed to ship avocados into 19 northern U.S. States for
two seasons using the systems approach. Prior to this
allowance, a major area of concern with the model was that it
would be impossible to restrict distribution of the fruit to
these 19 States.
In the first season, the Department of Agriculture alleges
that Wal-Mart violated the Plant Protection Act by receiving
Mexican fruit outside of the designated 19 States. Six States
outside of the legal area are believed to have received illegal
fruit during the first season. In the second season, five other
distributors shipped Mexican fruit outside the 19 State area,
one shipment of which went to Florida where a scale insect was
found, which in Florida is an actionable pest. Using a systems
approach based on inaccurate inputs is equivalent to the old
computer adage of garbage in, garbage out.
A further problem in trade negotiation is pesticide
regulation. Currently, we do not have a level playing field.
For instance, Mexico is allowed, or had been allowed, to export
avocados to the United States with parathion residue. Parathion
is an acutely toxic pesticide that may pose chronic effects
including nerve and muscular degeneration, depression, memory
loss, and disorientation. It is associated with bird kills
since the 1950's and 52 accidental fatalities in the United
States from 1965 to 1980. Most U.S. uses of parathion were
canceled in 1991; however, Mexico has been allowed to export
avocados to the United States with a residue of parathion on
the fruit.
In summary, as trade has exploded, pest infestations have
become a huge problem, especially to subtropical farmers who
are near ports of entry. U.S. producers are severely restricted
on what pesticides they can use, and new U.S. pesticides tend
to be very expensive. They have a very tough time fighting new
pests, some of which can destroy our farms if they become
established. We believe that successful trade discussions must
address these two problems.
Thank you.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Wheeling.
I would like to enter into the record, without objection,
the opening statement of Mr. Radanovich, and we welcome you to
our Subcommittee today, and also the statement of Mr. Michael
Wooten, the director of Federal Government Affairs of Sunkist
Growers.
[The above-mentioned statements were unavailable at
presstime.]
I would like to apologize to our Ranking Member, Mr.
Menendez, for not allowing him the opportunity to properly
introduce his constituent, Dr. Day, from Rutgers.
Mr. Menendez. Well, you did an excellent job, Madam Chair.
I look forward to his testimony.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Dr. Day, we will enter your statement into the record as
well.
STATEMENT OF PETER DAY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AGRICULTURAL
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY, COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Mr. Day. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Peter Day,
and I am the director of the Biotechnology Center for
Agriculture and the Environment at Cook College, Rutgers, the
State University of New Jersey.
The purpose of my statement is, in brief, just to set the
stage for a discussion of the issues surrounding genetic
manipulation as they affect trading concerns. By way of
introduction, let me say that plant breeders have always been
concerned with increasing yield, improving quality, and
extending the ability of crops to withstand the environmental
extremes of temperature, humidity, and attacks of pests and
diseases.
Improvements in agricultural technology have maximized the
efficient use of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides,
irrigation and cultivation methods, and machinery, together
with genetic improvements to the crops themselves. All this
technology has sustained a steady yield increase of between 1
to 2 percent a year for the major crops. Genetic improvement
has been responsible for about 50 percent of these increases.
Conventional plant breeding includes a major element of
chance. Each new variety is similar to a hand of cards dealt at
random from a shuffled deck. A breeder can stack the odds by
carefully choosing the parents of each cross he makes, but the
random assortment of genes, and the chromosomes that carry
them, means that the outcomes are unpredictable. Finding the
best combinations in conventional breeding depend on the
breeder's art and skill in selection in early generations of
testing.
Genetic manipulation [GM] has provided the opportunity to
make directed genetic changes. It is carried out by introducing
foreign DNA into already successful varieties of crop plants
with the object of selectively improving them one character at
a time. Although the techniques are still elaborate and
expensive, they have now been applied to more than 60 different
crops and cultivated plants. Unlike sexual hybridization, it is
not restricted by barriers between species.
To a large extent, the newly added characters have been
designed to appeal to the farmer and not the consumer. They
reduce farmers' losses, lower his costs, reduce pesticide
pollution of his land and water but have so far done little to
benefit the consumer directly in terms of higher quality,
reduced prices, or enhanced availability. This is not to say
that there isn't a great deal of work directed to this end, but
it has not yet paid off.
Some consumers are now concerned about the risk of eating
GM foods, both to themselves and the environment. In Britain,
the debate has become strident, in part, because the British
public was sensitized by the recent mad cow disease epidemic
and their perception that they might have a risk of contracting
Creuzfeldt-Jakob syndrome, and more recently, by the
unfortunate communication to the media of a poorly designed and
inconclusive experiment with genetically manipulated potatoes.
The work, carried out at the Rowett Research Institute in
Scotland, involved trials in which rats were fed potato tubers
from plants engineered to express an insect repellent protein
from snowdrop. It was not subject to peer review in a journal
before the authors went public. They claimed that rats fed GM
potatoes for 10 days and then sacrificed showed minor gut
abnormalities and other defects. A letter making similar but
more modest claims was published in the Lancet on October 16,
just a week ago. This letter has been met with a storm of
protest from knowledgeable scientists.
Here in the United States, a number of thoughtful and
responsible people would like to see GM foods labeled to allow
consumers a choice. However, processors, and marketers are
concerned over the cost and inconvenience of separating GM from
non-GM produce after the farm gate and especially when the
harvested product, like soybean, is used in many different
kinds of food and food products. To many of us, this seems
illogical when there is no convincing evidence that GM food is
harmful. We may note that the refusal of most organic farmers
to grow GM crops means that some consumers will have some
choice. However, the cost is to forgo the benefits of GM crop
protection.
One major company, Dupont, has responded to the difficulty
of exporting GM soybeans to Europe by announcing the release of
a herbicide resistant soybean produced by mutation and
selection in tissue culture rather than by transformation.
There are also important ways in which GM technology can
improve our crops that don't involve introducing foreign DNA.
Congress, thorough the National Science Foundation, is
supporting major research on sequencing the entire DNA of corn,
for example, and there are similar programs in place for rice
and wheat. This information is going to provide extremely
efficient methods for testing the progenies of conventional
crop plant breeding programs for winning combinations of DNA
sequences and the characters of greatest interest to farmers
and consumers alike.
Although at times we are embarrassed by the surpluses that
our support policies generate, which the needy cannot afford
because of the high cost of transportation and distribution, we
have to remember, nevertheless, that the world's population
reached 6 billion last week, that it is expected to continue to
9 billion in about 20 years from now, and until we find
socially acceptable means of bringing global population growth
under control, we need to explore every conceivable way to
sustain food production in the face of shrinking land, water,
and fossil energy resources. Genetic manipulation will be a
very important tool in this enterprise.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much.
Mr. Wheeling, I have some questions for you. Please tell us
what would happen to and what would be the impact on your
business, and indeed the tropical fruit industry in south
Florida as a whole, if the citrus canker disease or some
similar harmful pest is not eradicated and actually becomes
established in your groves? What is the citrus canker spread to
the entire citrus industry, and can you venture a guess as to
the economic impact and the impact on you, your employees, your
industry in our area and to the Nation?
Mr. Wheeling. Sure. The impact on the lime industry in
south Florida, we would probably lose the production from about
3,000 acres. In some form or another, there are about 1,000
people who depend on those 3,000 acres for their livelihood. Of
even greater concern would be the spread to the citrus
industry, in general, in Florida. I talked with Andy Levine
yesterday, and he indicated that the export grapefruit industry
alone employees, he estimated, 120,000 people, and the total
citrus industry's impact is $6 billion annually on an economic
basis. So, the impact of a disease like canker could be most
serious.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. And what do you think USDA should be
doing on such a destructive disease or pest, as found in our
Nation?
Mr. Wheeling. I personally believe that USDA should move as
rapidly as possible to eradicate the disease.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Are you satisfied with the progress?
Mr. Wheeling. Absolutely not. In terms in citrus canker, my
memory indicates it was 1994 or 1995 we had 17 square miles of
citrus canker, and that has grown to over 500 square miles of
quarantine area, and now we have a $170 million problem. So, I
believe we should have moved much more rapidly before the
spread of canker.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. What would you say is at the root of the
problem when you talk about the diseases that are coming in? Is
it our trade policies? Is it the interpretation of the
policies, their enforcement, or all of those? And do you
believe that there is a disconnect between our agencies and the
inspectors, the commitment to the safety of imported products,
and the goals of our trade agencies?
Mr. Wheeling. I believe it is probably a combination of
factors, and I know the inspectors work awfully hard and try
and do a great job, but I think the sheer volume of trade is
just overwhelming our inspection system. Also there are
probably problems in how we negotiate with other countries and
the basis for allowing items into this country.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, Mr. Wheeling.
Mr. Menendez and the Members, if you will excuse me, I am
going to speak on trademark issues on the floor, and I would
like Mr. Radanovich to Chair the rest of the hearing, and I
hope I am able to come back. Thank you so much.
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Madam Chairlady.
Let me thank all the witnesses for their testimony, but I
would like to focus on Dr. Day's testimony, if I can.
Dr. Day, is there anything that we know of scientifically
that establishes the GMO's as being dangerous for human
consumption in terms of any scientific basis?
Mr. Day. The short answer to that is no. There was an
interesting case where a soybean was bred by introducing a gene
from a Brazil nut to increase the content of a limiting amino
acid, methionine, to make it more valuable as potential cattle
food. Before that variety was released, fortunately the
responsible company recognized that there are people who are
allergic to Brazil nuts, and the engineered soybean was tested.
It was indeed an allergen to sensitive people, and the sensible
decision was made to cease any further work on it.
I think that indicates that companies responsible for
genetic engineering are taking the right attitude and are
safeguarding the public's interest.
Mr. Menendez. And that would be true virtually of any
product development. Whether it be a pharmaceutical industry or
whether it be of any other product development, you would take
into consideration the potential reactions that someone could
have with the use of your product.
Mr. Day. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Menendez. But beyond that specific example, which in
any event was caught and contained before it ever got to the
public by the company, we know of no sound science that would
dictate in fact that GMs are necessarily harmful.
Mr. Day. I think that is true, and, furthermore, we do have
one rather interesting example where harm was done to the
public by a product of a conventional plant breeding program, I
am referring to a potato variety that was released 20 or 25
years ago for resistance to a fungal disease named late blight.
The name of the potato variety was Lenape, named after an
Indian tribe from New Jersey. That variety had to be withdrawn
because the tubers contained an unusually high level of the
alkaloid, solanine, which made some people sick after eating
the potato, even when it was cooked. Ever since then new potato
varieties are routinely examined to establish that the levels
of solanine alkaloid in the tubers falls below the nationally
accepted standard.
Mr. Menendez. Now, you said in your testimony that while
this pursuit of GMO's have not necessarily translated to any
consumer benefit, they have translated to farmer benefits.
Would it not be fair to say that if in fact we reduce farmers'
losses, if we lower farmers' costs, and if in fact we reduce
pesticide pollution of the land and the water, that ultimately
that is a consumer benefit?
Mr. Day. Very definitely; of course it is. It is simply one
that isn't appreciated immediately in the produce section of
the market.
Mr. Menendez. Right.
Mr. Day. Except for price, of course.
Mr. Menendez. Right. Last, the majority of the witnesses
here have been focused--and of course with great concern--over
the introduction of insects and other potential bacteria and
viruses into the United States from abroad. But is not one of
the potential benefits of GMO's to add characters of resistance
to insects and plants that would ultimately resist such
invasions from abroad?
Mr. Day. Indeed, it is, Mr. Menendez, and this is a focal
interest of my colleagues in the center I direct at Rutgers;
that is to identify and prove novel methods of controlling the
ravages of insects such as we have heard of this afternoon--
fungal, bacterial, and viral diseases.
Mr. Menendez. And my last question would be, are you aware
of any of our European trading partners involved in GMO
technology pursuits unique to the United States or have they
been pursued in Europe?
Mr. Day. No, in fact, you could argue that in some respects
our European trading partners are somewhat two-faced, because
the majority of cheese that they eat is of course made with
recombinant chymosin. So, they are already eating something
that is genetically manipulated.
Mr. Menendez. And they love their cheese. Thank you.
Mr. Radanovich [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Wheeling, I have got a question of a representative
from California, and when you are talking about the canker that
is introduced itself into your area of the country, is it
mainly with the Argentine citrus that this originates from? Is
this what you are discussing?
Mr. Wheeling. The belief now is that the canker is an Asian
strain of canker, and possibly was introduced near the Miami
Airport in 1992. The first detection was on a tree that the
scientists have dated back to about that period of time. The
thought is it was a possible hitchhiker from a tourist,
possibly through the airport, but that is just one theory.
Mr. Radanovich. Not origins in South America, but rather
Asia?
Mr. Wheeling. What I have been told by the scientists is
the DNA looks like an Asiatic strain.
Mr. Radanovich. I see, OK. That is all the questions I
have.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. I regret I wasn't here for the first panel. I
have a question I would like to read.
At the same time, I would like Mr. Wheeling's reaction to
it, because it relates to the citrus industry which is relative
to the business he represents.
During the past couple of years, there has been a marked
increase in the number of exotic pests and diseases entering
the United States--Africanized killer bees, fire ants, Asian
long horn beetles, the glassy-winged sharpshooter, which I am
not personally familiar with, and the various species of
destructive fruit flies that seem to be regularly entering my
state of California. As I think we are all aware, we have
suffered over 26 separate fruit fly infestations in California
this year alone. These include a variety of species--
Mediterranean, Mexican, Oriental, and olive--and this year the
guava fruit fly was detected.
Each of these infestations in agricultural trade disrupting
quarantines. Both the pests and the quarantines pose an
economic threat, and then also cause us to adopt expensive
eradication programs at both the Federal and State level.
The question I have is why are we suffering these
infestations with such regularity? Where are the pests coming
from? And why are the phytosanitary agencies that are in the
Department of Agriculture--the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, APHIS, and the Plant Protection and
Quarantine, PPQ--seem to be unable to prevent these
developments? Do we lack necessary funding and manpower in
those agencies? What else can Congress do to help those
agencies do their job? It is possible that the Department of
Agriculture would conclude that they have the budget resources
to do the job, in which case, why aren't they doing the job,
and why are being inundated with these various exotic pests?
In particular, I think we should be alarmed that some of
our trading partners, such as Korea, area losing confidence in
USDA and its ability to assure the phytosanitary security of
agricultural exports from the United States. This is
demonstrated by the refusal of Korea to lift its quarantine on
San Diego, Orange, and Riverside County, because they are
concerned about the fruit fly entering and affecting their own
citrus. I would like to know what we can do to reassure our
trading partners that we are doing everything necessary to
control these pests?
Mr. Wheeling, perhaps you have a comment.
Mr. Wheeling. I think--I am not a statistician, but I think
you should be able to draw some conclusions between the rise in
trade and the rise in pest infestations in Florida, and I am
worried that we are not enforcing the laws at our border and
stopping these pests as they come in. I think we need more
enforcement at the border, and I also think we need to take a
very rigorous examination of any new proposals for entering
their fruits and vegetables into the United States and look
very, very hard at the possibilities of those fruits and
vegetables bringing in hitchhikers with them and causing very,
very serious problems to the growers. The citrus canker is a
horrible problem, and if it is not controlled, is going to cost
society an enormous amount of money.
Mr. Sherman. I realize that you have got a business to run
where you may not know the answer to this, but as there has
been this sharp increase in citrus imports to the United
States, has there been a concomitant increase in the funding of
the agencies that are supposed to inspect this imported citrus?
Mr. Wheeling. I would have to decline to answer that,
because, as you say, we just have our little business in
Florida, and I wouldn't know the answer to that.
Mr. Radanovich. If I may interject, there has been a
decline in the funding.
Mr. Sherman. A decline in the funding.
Mr. Radanovich. Yes, yes.
Mr. Sherman. Shifting to another subject, as we deal with
genetically engineered and modified organisms, I am a bit
concerned that this Committee and some of the pro-trade
sentiments, which I have voiced not infrequently, have been now
used to tell the Europeans that they should not label GMO's, if
they chose to do so, in a non-discriminatory way, a way that
did not discriminate against American-produced products as
opposed to European-produced products.
I would note for the record here that we have an awful lot
of mandatory labeling which could not meet the standard of
proving that it was scientifically necessary. For example, when
I buy a product, it tells me what the carbohydrate content is,
different types of fat, etc., and you could argue that some of
the facts disclosed on a mandatory basis are, while correct,
irrelevant. I know there are certain vitamins which I don't
know if we have proven scientifically are necessary for human
health, and yet many consumers would like to believe that those
are helpful vitamins, would like to know whether their food
products include them.
I don't know if any of our panelists have a comment, but I
am certainly concerned that in the name of free trade and
treating American exports fairly, that we will be telling the
Europeans not to disclose things that their consumers would
want to know. Then we ourselves could not--no State in the
United States could then force such a disclosure, and the
beneficiary is not fair trade but rather non-disclosure to
consumers. I think it is up to each individual consumer to
decide whether they want to eat GMO's or not and would be very
concerned if we are using our international power to tell
people in other countries not to disclose the type of food that
their consumers are being asked to consume.
Mr. Cohen, do you have a comment?
Mr. Cohen. Yes, thank you. On the nutrition labeling, the
European Union has in fact stated that it believes that our
mandatory nutrition labeling is a trade barrier. They have not
yet sued us under the WTO, but every year they announce that
that is their belief.
If I can just say something about the general GMO issue, I
don't believe it is exactly analogous to pharmaceuticals,
because the regulatory structure is different. In this
country----
Mr. Sherman. I am not talking about pharmaceuticals.
Mr. Cohen. Oh, well, the previous colloquy dealt with it.
Mr. Sherman. Oh.
Mr. Cohen. The drug companies have to prove that a drug is
safe and effective before the FDA allows its use. For GMO's, it
is self-policing by the industry, and the fact that none of us
knows of any scientific basis for being nervous about the
safety, may simply mean that the companies have not revealed it
to the FDA. The FDA does not apparently have the power to
require disclosure; it is just a completely voluntary self-
reporting system by the companies. While the one company did
withdraw the product, we don't know whether other companies in
the pursuit of profit have refused to reveal derogatory
information, because obviously if it was revealed, they
couldn't sell it. We just don't know at this point.
Mr. Sherman. Now, we don't even argue that the Europeans
would have the right to allow their grocery stores to put up a
sign saying ``not genetically engineered food,'' or ``We don't
sell any genetically engineered food,'' or ``Everything on this
aisle is not genetically engineered.'' Is that correct? The
issue is whether they can force a positive disclosure to
something is genetically engineered?
Mr. Cohen. I don't know what the administration's precise
position is on GMO's. In the context of beef hormones, I do
know something about that, because in trying to resolve the
beef hormone dispute, there was a proposal of labeling. The
United States was willing apparently to accept labeling that
said that the beef came from the United States. The European
Union wanted the beef to say that it was produced with
hormones. There was no meeting of the minds on that, and we
ended up with a trade war.
Mr. Sherman. So, the Europeans were willing to go with a
system under which both European and American beef produced
with hormone would have an identical label that said,
``Produced with hormone.''
Mr. Cohen. Correct.
Mr. Sherman. And the United States rejected that----
Mr. Cohen. Correct.
Mr. Sherman [continuing]. Believing that exporting to
ignorant consumers was a right guaranteed under various trade
agreements.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Radanovich. You are welcome. Any other questions?
Mr. Menendez.
Mr. Menendez. No, thank you.
Mr. Radanovich. I want to thank the panel for your
presentations and at this time we will adjourn the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 2:43 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
OCTOBER 26, 1999
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7606.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7606.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7606.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7606.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7606.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7606.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7606.007