Milestones 2004

Outreach: States >

FOOD & AGRICULTURE

Acceptance of foods improved through biotechnology continued to rise in 2003 as evidenced by global planting of biotech crops climbing 15 percent to reach a record 167.2 million acres in 18 countries.

BIO uses its food and agriculture booth at trade shows to demonstrate the benefits of biotechnology.

Perhaps the most significant development of the year occurred in September, when the government of Brazil legalized the growing of biotech soybeans for the 2003–04 season. Bootleg biotech soybeans smuggled from neighboring countries have for several years been widely planted in Brazil. Some estimates have indicated that, prior to legalization, more than 70 percent of the crop in the southern soybean-producing regions was composed of illegal biotech varieties.

Other countries planting biotech crops for the first time in 2003 included the Philippines and Spain, both of which approved a biotech corn variety for planting.

Because grains and crops are traded in international markets, establishing uniform, science-based global regulatory standards is a priority for BIO and its members. To achieve this goal, BIO participates in Codex Alimentarius, the food standard-setting body of the United Nations. BIO works closely with the U.S. government and has status as a credentialed international nongovernmental organization at the forum.

In 2003, Codex resolved key safety issues when the Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology produced three reports that establish global standards for risk analysis, along with safety assessments for foods developed through recombinant DNA plants and microorganisms. Chaired by Japan, this is considered the most successful task force in the history of the commission.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

In May, the United States moved to encourage action to end Europe's five-year moratorium on biotech crop approvals by filing a case before the World Trade Organization, the international body designated to resolve trade disputes between countries. In dispute is the European Union's violation of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, which lays out rules to guide countries as they regulate imports of crops and foods in order to safeguard health and the environment. The United States, as well as Argentina and Canada, contend that three actions by the E.U. and its member states have violated the agreement: the imposition of the moratorium, the failure to act on applications for approval of specific products and the imposition by certain member states of bans on approved products.

Recently, some E.U. officials have declared that if the foods are labeled and their ingredients can be traced back to the farm, they will happily grant approvals. On the surface, this policy may sound reasonable, but in practice it is likely to trigger yet another WTO case, this one based on the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. There is no scientific basis to support special labels for all foods derived from crops improved through biotechnology, for detailed examination shows they do not necessarily differ in composition from those produced through conventional or organic methods. And in the United States and other major commodity-exporting countries, the vast channeling of commodity grain streams makes tracing something like the corn syrup in a soda to the farm(s) in Iowa or Nebraska where the corn was produced, even if possible, cost prohibitive.

Referred to as Traceability and Labeling, the E.U.'s rules go into effect in April 2004. U.S. grain groups are warily eyeing the impact on export markets.

Food Aid
President Bush made global headlines in May 2003 with a speech linking the E.U. moratorium to famine in Africa. This was a reference to Zambia's refusal in 2002 to accept food aid in the form of U.S. corn. Zambian leaders cited numerous reasons for their action, ranging from fears of being poisoned to concerns about losing European export markets for Zambian corn after the famine.

The negative effects of the E.U. moratorium are not limited to countries experiencing famine. As U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick noted, "As a major importer of food, Europe's decisions have ripple effects far beyond its own borders. Uganda refused to plant a disease-resistant type of banana because of fears that it would jeopardize exports to Europe."

INFORMATION SHARING

Global outreach included a visit to the Vatican to discuss agricultural biotech issues, such as the potential of biotechnology to lift food production and ease hunger in developing countries. In a trip arranged by the U.S. Department of State, BIO's vice president for food and agriculture, Val Giddings, met with Vatican officials and gave public lectures to the Vatican diplomatic corps and the local community.

FEDERAL ISSUES

Compliance
In 2003, the Biotechnology Regulatory Services Department (BRS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service took several steps toward enhancing regulation and building confidence in the regulatory framework. Two new units will focus on compliance and enforcement, although BRS noted that a 12-year review of industry and academic permits found a compliance rate exceeding 96 percent.

Animal Biotechnology
BIO has hired a director of animal biotechnology to provide member support and guidance as federal agencies consider how to regulate commercialization of transgenic and cloned animals.

In the fall of 2003, the FDA released a draft preliminary risk assessment that found no health or safety issues with food products from cloned animals or their progeny but stopped short of lifting a voluntary moratorium that prevents producers of these animals from marketing them. With additional data, however, the agency could make a final determination in 2004.

The FDA has given no indication when regulatory guidance for transgenic animals will be provided, although a transgenic salmon has been in development for several years and has made significant progress toward clearing regulatory requirements. Full approval for commercial sale is still pending.

ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTIONS

United States
An economic study funded by the Council for Biotechnology Information documented agricultural biotechnology's value both at the farm level and beyond the farm gate. University of Minnesota researcher Ford Runge found that four commercial biotech crops - corn, soybeans, cotton and canola - represented $20 billion in value in the United States in 2002, half of the total $40 billion value of the four crops.

Runge noted that off-farm economic effects are reflected in jobs with above-average wages. In Corn Belt states with higher adoption levels of biotech crops, there are more agriculture and food science jobs than in states with lower levels of adoption. In Iowa, Runge reported, there are 50 such jobs per 100,000 jobs, with an average salary of $52,310 - more than 1.5 times the U.S. average salary of $34,020.

Developing Countries
Farmers in the developing world also are reaping the benefits of agricultural biotechnology, according to the International Society for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), which reported in January 2004 that 85 percent of those employing the technology are small-holding farmers in developing countries, where growth is expected to continue, thanks to the benefits.

For example, in South Africa, where the majority of farmers are women farming fewer than five acres, a grower of biotechnology cotton will spend 12 fewer days in the field spraying her crops with a knapsack sprayer, walk 100 fewer kilometers, carry 1,000 fewer liters of water on her back, and realize about $85 more profit per hectare. Not only will she increase her plantings and realize more income with these time and resource savings, but she will also be able to spend more time with her family.

ISAAA expects that by 2005, more than 10 million farmers in 25 or more countries will plant more than 247 million acres of biotech crops.

Note: 1996-1998 figures are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service.
1999 figures are based on a survey of BIO member seed sales.
2000-2003 figures are based on reports from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.