The American Soybean Association (ASA) today outlined for members of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Risk Management, Research, and Specialty Crops, that international agreement on biotechnology is needed to help new products feed a burgeoning world population.

ASA President Mike Yost, a soybean and corn producer from Murdock, Minn., outlined eight steps for biotechnology trade reform that are required to prevent the escalating disruption of U.S. exports of soybeans and other crop. In the three years since commercial introduction of genetically modified crops, agricultural biotechnology has become the defining issue in how the world will feed itself in the next century. The ASA has serious concerns as to whether or not regulatory and trade decisions will be based on scientific evidence.

"At stake in this debate are global markets developed for 50 years by U.S. farmers whose livelihoods now depend on maintaining access to them," Yost said. "Also at stake is the viability of the basic rules of international trade, which are guided by science-based determinations. For U.S. soybean farmers, and for producers of other biotech crops, these stakes couldn’t be higher."

Biotechnology, Yost said, will drive the reinvention of U.S. agricultural production and marketing system in a relatively short period of time. In the case of soybeans, acreage planted to glyphosate-tolerant varieties could reach 40 million acres this year, which is more than half the expected U.S. production in 1999. As varieties with quality differences are brought forward in the future, production, processing and transportation infrastructure will need to accommodate the need to identity preserve them.

"From the perspective of the individual producer, however, the arrival of agricultural biotechnology is an unqualified triumph of modern science," Yost said. "Varieties already available are reducing farm input costs, and, in some cases, improving yields. The beauty of the system is that, to be accepted by farmers, a biotech variety must either reduce production costs or increase crop value by more than its increase in cost over conventional varieties."

These benefits are equally clear to producers in other countries, as well. Farmers in Canada, Argentina and Australia have avidly accepted biotech soybean, corn and cotton varieites. However, in other countries, including Europe and the developing world, grower enthusiasm has taken a back seat to the concerns of consumers and environmentalists. One of the major issues is whether consumers have the right to know if food products include ingredients from biotech crops, and the right to choose alternative products that do not. This issue led to a prolonged debate over whether, and how, to label products containing ingredients derived from biotech crops and whether these crops should be segregated from traditional varieties.

Yost emphasized that while ASA fully supports new soybean technology, acceptance of new varieties must be tempered by recognition that the realities in the European Union (EU) and elsewhere, at least for now, are very much different than our own.

"Due to the need for new biotech soybeans to receive clearances not only in the U.S. but also in key export markets, ASA has asked biotech companies not to introduce biotech soybean varieties for commercial production in the U.S. until they receive approval for importation into the EU and other major markets," Yost said. "Until such clearances are obtained, we have insisted that companies develop and implement an effective identity preservation program to keep unapproved varieties out of export channels."

ASA is calling for action in these eight areas:

• The EU needs to adopt a much more transparent and efficient process for approving new biotech varieties.
• The Administration needs to engage the EU in an effort to reach agreement to recognize each other’s procedures for approving and commercializing biotech crops and products.
• The United States must ensure that rules to be written by the Codex Alimentarius Commission governing biotech labeling and trade are science-based.
• Rules governing biotech trade need to be included in the next WTO round. WTO rules must supercede the rules of any other international treaty or agreement.
• The EU and other countries must accept that there is no scientific basis for requiring segregation or labeling of biotech varieties that have been determined to be substantially equivalent to conventional varieties in terms of safety, nutrition, and composition.
• Biotech crops or "commodities" that are to be used for feed or food rather than seed production must continue to be excluded from any Biosafety Protocol.
• Biotech and seed companies must seek and obtain clearances for new varieties in both the U.S. and in major export markets, before these varieties are commercialized in the U.S.
• Governments, food companies and retailers, biotech and seed companies, scientists, and producers must help inform consumers that biotechnology is a tool that will enable us feed a burgeoning world population in a more environmentally friendly manner.

U.S. soybean producers depend on foreign markets for 50 percent of their production, in the form of soybeans, soyoil or meal, or livestock products. Soybean producers simply cannot afford to jeopardize these markets. So while ASA fully supports biotechnology, grower acceptance of new varieties must be tempered by recognition that the realities in the EU and elsewhere, at least for now, are very much different than here in the U.S.