AS PREPARED

Science, Economy and Protecting the Environment

U.S. Ambassador Joseph M. DeThomas
Estonian Agriculture University, Tartu
November 19, 2003

Thank you Rector-Professor (Alar) Karis for that kind introduction. I am always delighted to visit Tartu and to speak to academic audiences. This is my first opportunity to speak to the Estonian Agriculture University and I am honored to be here.

Next year Estonia will join NATO and the European Union. As you know, with membership come both benefits and responsibilities. One of your new responsibilities will be to think about issues that once may have seemed distant from Estonian concerns. As future leaders of this country, you will need to decide which issues are important to your society and--in those areas--lead the debate. At times you will find you have the possibility to exert influence far greater than the size of your population, land area or GDP might suggest.

You will discover that many of the big issues of the day involve the question of how government protects the public. You will also discover that it is in this area that U.S. and EU perspectives often diverge. We do not disagree on whether government's role is to protect the public. It obviously is. Rather, our disagreements center on how government goes about doing it.

Today I will discuss an issue where the United States and European Union disagree on how best to protect the public - the issue of agricultural biotechnology. The United States Government strives to protect the public based on good science and sound reasoning. But when it comes to biotechnology, I contend that science has taken a back seat in much of Europe. In fact, in the EU there has been a tendency to legislate and regulate based not on scientific conclusions about the benefits and merits of biotechnology, but on what I would call emotion.

Why do I say this? In the United States agricultural biotechnology is a part of life. Every day every American probably consumes some kind of genetically modified food. This year in my country approximately 80 percent of soybeans, 38 percent of corn and 70 percent of cotton were planted with biotech varieties, with impressive results. Foods containing agricultural biotechnology are simply a fundamental part of our diet.

The situation is just the opposite in the European Union. In fact, since the late 1990's the EU has pursued policies that undermine the development and use of agricultural biotechnology. Six member states (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg) have banned the import and marketing of biotech corn and rapeseed approved by the European Union. Although these actions were a violation of European law, the European Commission refused to challenge the bans. In 1998, member states began blocking EU regulatory approval for new agricultural biotech products. This moratorium effectively prohibits most U.S. corn exports to Europe. In addition to breaking EU law, the moratorium clearly breaches World Trade Organization rules. In the EU, farmers do not have the choice to plant biotech seeds. Consumers do not have the choice to buy biotech products.

But the EU itself acknowledges that biotech foods on the market pose no threat to human health. The European Commission's Directorate-General for Research has stated that, "Research on GM plants and derived products so far developed and marketed ...has not shown any new risks to human health or the environment.... Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods." (DG Research Press Briefing, October 8, 2001.) So, the EU's regulators have no scientific basis for blocking the use of agricultural biotechnology. When asked to defend their decision, they simply say, "The public is not ready."

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is no small matter. Billions of dollars and the health of the environment are at stake. Let me explain why. In the United States, the use of a particular biotech soybean called Roundup Ready has resulted in a decrease of herbicide use of more than 13,000 tons a year and saved $1.1 billion in production costs. Biotech corn has brought about a 7,000 metric ton per year decrease in insecticide use. The use of biotech cotton has resulted in an 861 metric ton decrease of insecticide use per year. And virus-resistant biotech papaya saves the Hawaiian papaya industry $17 million per year.

These are obviously enormous cost savings. But, the benefits of biotechnology go beyond the bottom line. In addition to enormous cost savings, using biotechnology provides for massive decreases in pesticide use--with all of the corresponding environmental enhancements--as well as equally dramatic increases in production. The result is crystal clear: benefits flow not only to farmers, but also to consumers and the environment. Considering all of these benefits, EU regulations are putting Europe at a severe disadvantage.

Today I will lay out the arguments on this issue, because as agricultural scientists, future regulators and producers, you will be called upon to lead the debate about agricultural biotechnology.

Some of those against agricultural biotechnology say this new technology is dangerous. Yet, as I stated earlier, we know of no hard scientific evidence that biotech causes harm. More than 223 million hectares of genetically modified crops have been commercially grown over the past 10 years with no documented ill effects on humans, animals or the environment. More than 3200 of your colleagues - esteemed scientists around the world, including 20 Nobel Laureates - have concluded that biotechnology-derived products currently on the market pose no greater risks to human health than their conventional counterparts.

In fact, biotechnology may actually lead to great advances in human health. Today scientists like you are developing a Vitamin A enriched rice variety to help fight blindness caused by malnutrition. Biotechnology may make it possible for plants to produce edible vaccines that will provide low-cost, low maintenance medicines. The technology is now central to research being conducted on diseases such as cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and AIDS. The downsides to biotechnology lie only in the realm of the theoretical and potential. By contrast, the upsides are literal and concrete.

Others say biotechnology is bad for the environment. But, anyone who knows anything about farming knows that, in fact, farming itself is hard on the environment. You can't farm without fertilizer. If you try, you will deplete, and eventually exhaust the soil. Fertilizer run-off pollutes watersheds. Pesticides are toxic to humans and kill desirable bugs along with pests. Herbicides also kill the good with the bad. Irrigation leaves behind salt, which accumulates in the soil, eventually leaving it infertile. And then there is ploughing. This simple act, the cornerstone of farming, causes the run-off that pollutes water systems and kills aquatic habitat, erodes the land, and releases greenhouse gases stored in the soil.

By contrast, genetically modified crops' reduced reliance on chemical inputs means less water pollution. This results in safer water supplies and higher quality drinking water as well as a better environment for wildlife. Higher yielding biotech crops are easing the strain on our land resources, allowing for greater conservation of natural habitats. And energy usage on our biotech crops is lower. Less fuel means less carbon entering the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Herbicide-resistant crops are encouraging the adoption of conservation tillage, especially no-till faming, in many parts of the United States. This reduces the erosion of topsoil and saves energy.

Biotechnology's detractors say it is bad for humankind and therefore should not be introduced in the developing world. Ladies and gentlemen, although we live in a world of unprecedented prosperity, 800-850 million people around the world are malnourished. More than 200 million of these are children. Another 1 - 1.5 billion people have only marginally better access to food. Last year several African countries were experiencing food shortages even more severe than normal due to floods, drought and civil war. But in light of the global scare campaign against genetically modified foods, several of these countries hesitated to accept U.S. food aid. This aid consisted of the same food that Americans eat every day. While the developed world may have the luxury of entertaining emotionally charged critiques of genetically modified foods, those 800 - 850 million hungry people do not.

There is no doubt that food shortages will continue to be a fact of life in Africa and other developing regions in the future. The United Nations estimates the earth's human population will grow by more than 40 percent by the year 2050. Feeding all those people will require the world's food output to at least double. Without biotechnology's enhanced productivity, the world will have to encroach on vital habitats such as tropical rainforests in order to grow enough food to feed itself.

Some say biotechnology is too new to be trusted. In fact there has rarely been a new product or technology that hasn't had someone try to block its very existence. Public debates about safety of new products are a good thing, something we should all strongly support. But for centuries such debate was often based less on science than on the politics of the time. Even some of the now most ubiquitous products endured centuries of persecution.

And actually, biotechnology is anything but new. Through selective breeding over the last 10,000 years our ancestors have modified the shape, color and chemical content of almost every plant we consume today. Nectarines are genetically altered peaches. The large tomatoes we eat today are actually distant relatives of the earth's first tomatoes - small fruits the size of grapes first found in South America. And the first potatoes were actually toxic to humans. Humans have always altered plants to suit consumer preference or enhance desired characteristics, such as resistance to disease and insects or tolerance to drought.

Those against biotechnology say the science is impossible to regulate. Make no mistake, the United States regulates biotech. The Food and Drug Administration, an institution with more than 9,000 employees and a budget of over $1 billion, regulates in a transparent and science-based manner. Our federal regulatory agencies, including the FDA, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency rigorously evaluate new agricultural biotechnologies to ensure efficacy, consumer safety and animal health. They also make decisions on both voluntary and required labeling. All genetically modified products must be as safe as the traditional foods in the market or our regulatory agencies will remove them from the market and sanction those who market them.

Those against biotechnology say when it comes to this form of science you can't trust the scientists and regulators. In a certain sense, this argument is understandable. For too long regulators, and the scientific community itself, have done a poor job of communicating with the public. In the aftermath of crises such as the Chernobyl accident, or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or Mad Cow Disease), it is not surprising that the public confidence in scientists, regulators and the safety of their food supply is shaken.

One can understand that blind faith in technology is not good. I argue that what is needed is good science, presented by scientific institutions that have the public's trust. We can't let our regulators be affected by those with an agenda who would whip up public fear and paranoia in an effort to hijack the process of regulation.

And finally, many have said the United States itself is hypocritical when it comes to regulation to protect the public. They argue that the U.S. position on stem cell research is inconsistent with its position on biotechnology. I understand why they see it that way. There is currently a heated debate about the future of stem cell research going on in my country. But there is a big difference between genetically modified crops and stem cell research - and that is in the area of the ethical treatment of human begins. Stem cell research touches an ethical line that I don't believe is even approached with biotech engineering.

Today I have listed for you the arguments for and against biotechnology. But, as scientists at one of the premier agricultural universities in Europe you probably know these better than I. Today, in a sense, I am "preaching to the choir." But I did not choose to talk about biotechnology here only because I knew I would face a friendly audience. Those of you who know anything about me know that I am not afraid of a challenge. No, I came here today specifically to present you with a challenge.

Even though the benefits of biotechnology are clear, no one should be forced to produce or consume genetically modified food. But as for these products' very existence, the United States believes that in the face of scientific information that biotechnology produces great good without harm, citizens should be able to decide for themselves whether to buy and consume these products. There should be choice. That is, we believe the market should decide. But the market can't decide without good information. And that is where you come in.

Estonia has a well-earned reputation as a dynamic leader in high technology. Here in Tartu, there is a cell phone in nearly every ear and a computer at nearly every fingertip. Your high tech reputation extends to the area of biotechnology. Your genome project is just one area in which Estonia is leading the way in this field. The world trusts your scientific know-how and instincts.

As scientists, regulators, and future leaders of this country, those sitting before me have a valuable role to play in the debate over biotechnology. It is you who will provide the good science that will give countries all over the world the confidence to adopt or reject biotech advances. As future regulators and producers, you must fall back on your scientific training as you make decisions on how to regulate and what to produce.

It won't be enough just to conduct experiments and let your findings speak for themselves. The future scientists in this room must exit the lab and enter the public debate. The future regulators and producers before me must also be prepared to demonstrate a clear sense of leadership. You will have to adapt your communication methods to openly address science and technology developments with the public. This won't be easy because the general public does not understand the technical details of your work. You need to explain it to them in language they will understand.

Today, my challenge to you, as Estonians who are entering a new era and seeking a role to play in the powerful and prestigious institutions you are joining, is to take a look at the areas where your country can lead. The debate over agricultural biotechnology is one of them - a field where your country can have an influence far greater than its geographical or economic size. As students at this university, you are being trained to manage your country's agricultural resources while protecting your environment and population. You will have a vital, public role not only to provide the good science your country's citizenry needs to form opinions and make decisions about the big issues of the day, but, also to lead the debate on these issues.

Thank you.