FOODFOOD

May 2002

SECURITYAND

SAFETY

EconomicPerspectivesVolume 7 An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State Number 2

2

ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVESFood Security and Safety

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE ELECTRONIC JOURNAL VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2

With the increased movement of people and goods around the globe, food security — access to adequate andsustainable food supplies — and food safety have become topics of widespread international interest. What isbeing done to ensure that reliable and affordable amounts of nutritious food are available to the world's growingpopulation and how safe is the global food supply?

Only a small percentage of the world's hungry and malnourished people currently are being reached by foodassistance programs, says Congressman Tony Hall, U.S. Ambassador-designate to the United Nations hunger andfood organizations, in the lead article in this issue of Economic Perspectives. Hasty, stop-gap measures to addressfood security, he says, must be replaced by programs that are crafted, in part, by key stakeholders in affectedcommunities to ensure predictable and stable food supplies appropriate to local conditions.

Hall and other experts begin by asking if food insecurity is a symptom or a cause of poverty. Hall suggests thathungry people are so focused on getting their next meal they cannot take advantage of many traditional routes outof poverty, such as education and alternative agricultural techniques that would, over the long term, help themattain food security. These experts recommend some new approaches, such as direct food assistance for familieswhose children stay in school and legal protection for rural property rights that would encourage farmers to makethe types of investments that would boost food productivity. Others argue that food insecurity is not an issue of ashortfall in food production but rather that governments have neglected agricultural development, made ineffectiveuse of food aid, and, through protective trade barriers, made hunger alleviation more difficult to attain.

There are success stories. Bangladesh, once extremely dependent on food imports, has transformed its devastatedagricultural sector into one of the most productive farm economies in all of South Asia through a globalpartnership between foreign aid agencies, international research institutions, and indigenous non-governmentalorganizations. Greater crop diversification would help further food security in Bangladesh, experts say.

Food security and safety are tightly linked. On one hand, transgenic technology may hold the greatest potential toincrease food production, reduce the use of harmful chemical pesticides, and provide nutritional foods. On theother hand, some argue that the technology, rather than being a hope, represents a new threat to both theenvironment and health. Some argue that the U.S. food safety regulatory structure is the best in the world andensures the safety of both the domestic and export food supply. Others say that as good as this structure is, evenmore food product labeling is needed to let consumers know which products include or exclude geneticallyengineered foods and ingredients.

This issue of Economic Perspectives does not take sides on all of these issues but aims rather to educate foreignaudiences on U.S. policy and on the debate in the United States over food security and safety, raising importantquestions that policy-makers in each country must address in forming future development and environmentalpolicies.

3

ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVESAn Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State

CONTENTS

FOOD SECURITY AND SAFETY

❏ FOCUS

NEW CHALLENGES IN HUNGER 6By Tony Hall, Ambassador-designate to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, World Food Program, andInternational Fund for Agricultural Development; current Member, U.S. House of Representatives; Chairman of the HouseDemocratic Caucus Task Force on HungerEliminating hunger requires broad-based debt relief, global markets open to developing country products, targeted foodassistance, legal protections for the poor, and creative public-private partnerships that complement official developmentassistance.

ENSURING SAFE FOOD 9By Sally McCammon, Science Advisor, Agriculture and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of AgricultureThe United States has the most thorough food safety regulatory system in the world, which ensures that no newproduct is released in the global market without extensive review.

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN BANGLADESH: A SUCCESS STORY 12By Gordon West, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Asia and Near East Bureau, United States Agency for InternationalDevelopmentBangladesh's accomplishments in transforming its devastated agricultural sector into one of the most productive farmeconomies in all of South Asia is a major development success story.

❏ COMMENTARY

GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY 15By G. Edward Schuh, Regents Professor of International Economic Policy, University of MinnesotaAlleviating food insecurity will require governments to reallocate resources in support of agricultural modernization.

BATTLING HUNGER WITH BIOTECHNOLOGY 18By Gregory Conko, Director of Food Safety Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and C.S. Prakash, Professor of PlantMolecular Genetics, Tuskegee UniversityNeedless restrictions on agricultural biotechnology could harm the world's ability to battle hunger in the 21st century.

RICE: WHY IT'S SO ESSENTIAL FOR GLOBAL SECURITY AND STABILITY 22By Ronald Cantrell, Director General, International Rice Research InstituteThe challenge for the plant research community is to tap into the rice genome sequence to produce higher-yielding,more nutritious, and more resistant rice.

4

TWO VIEWS ON FOOD LABELING 26

Consumers around the world should have accurate information about the nutritional contents of their food, but theexact nature of what food labels should include is at the heart of international negotiations. Two opposing views presenta full picture of the shape of the discussion in the United States.

FOOD LABELING IN CODEX ALIMENTARIUSBy Ellen Matten, International Policy Analyst, U.S. Codex OfficeLABELING AND TRACEABILITY OF BIOENGINEERED FOODSBy Kristin Dawkins, Vice President, and Neil Sorensen, Program Associate, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES TO PROTECT FOOD 31By Timothy Willard, Vice President of Communications, National Food Processors AssociationFood processes that retard the deterioration of foods and prolong shelf life make an important contribution to worldfood security.

❏ FACTS AND FIGURES

AGRICULTURAL TRADE 33

AMOUNTS OF ARABLE LAND BY COUNTRY 38

❏ INFORMATION RESOURCES

KEY CONTACTS AND INTERNET SITES 42

ADDITIONAL READINGS 47

Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

5

U.S. Department of StateOffice of International Information Programs

May 2002

The Office of International Information Programs of the U.S. Department of State provides products and services that explain U.S. policies, society,and values to foreign audiences. The Office publishes five electronic journals that examine major issues facing the United States and theinternational community. The journals — Economic Perspectives, Global Issues, Issues of Democracy, U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda, and U.S. Society andValues — provide statements of U.S. policy together with analysis, commentary, and background information in their thematic areas.

All issues appear in English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish language versions, and selected issues also appear in Arabic and Russian. English-language issues appear at approximately one-month intervals. Translated versions normally follow the English original by two to four weeks.

The opinions expressed in the journals do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government. The U.S. Department of Stateassumes no responsibility for the content and continued accessibility of Internet sites linked to herein; such responsibility resides solely with thepublishers of those sites. Articles may be reproduced and translated outside the United States unless the articles carry explicit copyright restrictionson such use. Potential users of credited photos are obliged to clear such use with said source.

Current or back issues of the journals, and the roster of upcoming journals, can be found on the Office of International Information Programs'International Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/journals.htm. They are available in several electronic formatsto facilitate viewing on-line, transferring, downloading, and printing.

Comments are welcome at your local U.S. Embassy or at the editorial offices:

Editor, Economic PerspectivesIIP/T/ESU.S. Department of State301 4th St. S.W.Washington, D.C. 20547United States of AmericaE-mail: ejecon@usia.gov

ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVESAn Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State Volume 7, Number 2, May 2002

Publisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Judith SiegelEditor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jonathan SchafferManaging Editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kathryn McConnellAssociate Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wayne Hall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kathleen HugContributing Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eileen Deegan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Berta Gomez. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martin Manning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patrick Mendis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andrzej Zwaniecki

Art Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sylvia ScottCover Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Min YaoEditorial Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martha Chaconas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judith Siegel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leonardo Williams

Cover Photo: Photri, Inc.

6

Hunger is a cause of poverty, not a symptom of it, saysRepresentative Tony Hall, Ambassador-designate to theUnited Nations hunger and food organizations. Hall says theworld needs to make a stronger commitment to eliminatinghunger. He points to promising new anti-hunger programs,such as the Global Food for Education Initiative, andcreative public-private partnerships.

Since I first held a dying child in my arms duringEthiopia’s 1984-85 famine, the anti-hunger communityhas mounted a series of remarkable efforts to ensure thatsuch a tragedy never again visits our world. The reactionfrom policy-makers and the public has been generallysupportive, but in recent years experts’ responses to thechallenge of feeding a growing world population havecome under increasing scrutiny.

Despite clear evidence of progress, many engaged in thiswork were looking beyond immediate problems to thestructural obstacles to reaching the goal of ending hunger,and were looking for ways around them. Conventionalwisdom was being shaken up, the public was becomingengaged, and approaches shaped by grassroots activists indeveloped and developing countries alike were gettingfresh consideration. The upcoming World Food Summitand the World Summit on Sustainable Development wereexpected to mark the culmination of this process and thelaunch of an era of more enlightened and effective actionagainst hunger and poverty.

Then, on September 11, 2001, this chastening andadapting process was transformed — from grist forconferences into a priority task for the United States.Since that horrible day, Americans have gained a newconviction that the needs of suffering people do notdeserve neglect, pity, or empty gestures, but effectiveattention. It is no longer sufficient to merely recognizeshortcomings in efforts to ease hunger and othersuffering; what matters now is overcoming the hurdles

U.S. foreign aid programs face in getting their intendedresults.

That the terrorists who attacked the United States weren’tthemselves poor isn’t the point; most Americans sense, ata gut level, that misery breeds a contempt that spreadsand risks turning others’ problems and injustices into ourown. The Bush administration has responded withconcern about this breeding ground for terrorists. Early inthe war it arranged food drops in Afghanistan that, whilean imperfect solution, were unprecedented. Most recently,President Bush pledged to increase aid to poor countriessignificantly. While financial support is critical, moneyalone can’t do this job. The problems of poverty arecomplex, and even though the lessons we’ve learned aren’tthe whole answer, they need to be applied. Howevertempting, this is not the time for hasty, stop-gapmeasures, particularly where there is broad consensus onthe reforms needed.

For example, the futility of saddling poor countries withinterest payments that mushroom into a large drain onthe resources they need for future progress is now clear.The push to provide debt relief to some of the world’spoorest nations grew out of an initiative mounted byfaith groups, which brought the dry subject to life forpolicy-makers and bystanders alike. While their spark hasput success within reach, helping countries avoid fallinginto the same traps again will take the sustained attentionof the United States and other governments, as well asinternational bodies. This is painstaking work, not aproblem to be washed away with one debt-for-natureswap, or a big check, or even a wholesale shift fromloans to grants.

Another issue driven by grassroots activists has been theneed for justice in trade and environmental responsibility,particularly as both are shaped by the World Bank andthe International Monetary Fund. The spotlight theyhave shone on these problems has exposed faultyassumptions — such as the link between investment and

❏ NEW CHALLENGES IN HUNGERBy Tony Hall, Ambassador-designate to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, World Food Program, and International Fund for Agricultural Development; current Member, U.S. House of Representatives; Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus Task Force on Hunger

FOCUS

growth (which isn’t always ironclad), or the importance offiscal discipline (which can be counterproductive when itis excessive or badly timed), or the ability of man toignore nature (which too often is a short-lived victory).Too often, these and other flaws in how developmentinitiatives are designed have hindered progress;sometimes, they have left communities in an even moreprecarious position. The lessons learned suggest that earlyand meaningful involvement of stakeholders and otherlocal people is essential to any project’s lasting success.

Statistics add urgency to the relevancy of these lessons forthe fight against hunger. Most disturbing is the fact thatonly 10 percent of the world’s hungry and malnourishedpeople currently are being reached by internationalefforts. The good news is that many of the people beingassisted are part of the 6 million who leave the ranks ofthe hungry each year; the bad news is that, to reach thegoals we set for ourselves at the World Food Summit in1996 — a halving of world hunger by 2015 — fourtimes as many must escape hunger each year.

HOW TO CHANGE OUTCOMES

To change outcomes, we must apply these lessons andrethink our approach to hunger. In the past, it has beenseen as a manifestation of poverty, merely a visiblesymptom of an underlying problem. Viewing hungerinstead as poverty’s cause not only would mirror theimpressions of the poor who are the real experts; it alsomay trigger a more productive response.

One way to start ending the hunger that nurtures povertyis by recognizing that hungry people don’t have theluxury of “the long run.” To survive, they need foodtoday and the security of knowing they will be able tofeed their families tomorrow. If they must focus onscraping their next meal together, hungry people cannotgrab hold of lifelines such as education, or newagricultural techniques, or microcredit assistance. Nor canthey escape the diseases that plague their families evenwhen some individuals escape. As a result, instead ofrisking failure by trying something new, many do whatthey always did. And, as the saying warns, the result isthat they get what they always got: another turn of thevicious cycle of poverty and still more hunger.

The Global Food for Education Initiative, championedby George McGovern, former U.S. ambassador to theU.N. hunger and food organizations, and former U.S.Senator Bob Dole, is a good example of a program

that squarely addresses food insecurity. By providingstudents in developing countries with a solid meal atschool (which often represents most of the day’snutrients), it removes one obstacle to attending classes. Itis not the whole answer, but it has proven effective —starting in our own country, where school lunchprograms begun after World War II exposed a surprisingnumber of Americans who were too stunted by hunger tobe capable soldiers. Begun in 2000 with $300 millionworth of food, the program is a foreign aid program thatcan enjoy sustained public support, an attribute thatdeserves greater respect. Another promising new focus isopening markets to broader participation. Developingcountries are demonstrating more willingness to helpsolve their problems by being active participants in globaltrade. Millions more people in Africa, Asia, and LatinAmerica could lift themselves from hunger and poverty ifunfair practices that shut poor workers out of theinternational trade system were eliminated. Theinternational community, led by the United States,should continue helping developing countries gain accessto new markets and find trade-based, win-win solutions.

And there are tried-and-true approaches, too — fromsupporting microenterprises, to funding child survivaland basic education, to projects that are being adapted tomeet the needs of HIV/AIDS sufferers and AIDSorphans. Often, what’s needed to make traditionalprograms effective is simply a stronger commitment tothem.

PREVENTION

Another scrap of outdated thinking is the notion that“compassion fatigue” undermines support for anti-povertywork. The problem is not that this is wrong; the problemis that it has resulted in a hair-on-fire approach tofighting hunger that has made “fatigue” a self-fulfillingprophesy.

For example, emergency relief once made up about 30percent of the World Food Program’s work, and famineprevention accounted for 70 percent. In recent years, thishas flipped: the dollars to help with irrigation or incomeprojects, which could help people withstand difficulttimes, instead are going to showy and massiveinterventions after a crisis begins. Drought, war, andother triggers for these crises are nobody’s fault, of course.But the siphoning of funds away from prevention hascompounded problems once they begin. The resultingimages frustrate even the most generous donors and make

7

Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002 8

others fed up with what they perceive to be a failure toinvest aid dollars more wisely.

Savvy Americans don’t expect money to solve allproblems, and they do expect to see problems on thenews; but they rightly feel that some results of ongoingefforts should be apparent. “What works” may nevermake breaking news, but those projects are the best hopefor the progress that can combat donor fatigue. To bemost effective, prevention must begin in rural areas,where 75 percent of those experiencing extreme povertylive and where problems are rife. For example, ruralwomen produce 60 to 80 percent of their countries’ food,but own just 2 percent of the land. More needs to bedone to strengthen legal frameworks that enable them toprotect their property and other rights. Another example:improving agricultural productivity will mean findingways that don’t encroach further on fragile lands orfurther stress the supply of freshwater resources — butpoor families’ dependence on farming leaves them littleroom to experiment with new techniques.

PUBLIC-PRIVATE INITIATIVES

A third way to make the changes needed is to tap theprivate sector, which has become an emerging, creativeforce in the past decade. The role played by MicrosoftChairman Bill Gates and his wife Melinda, who haveseeded an immunization project with $750 million, ofmedia mogul Ted Turner, who has contributed $1 billionto the United Nations, and of numerous other donors isremarkable and, hopefully, marks the beginning of a moreactive generation of philanthropists.

This outreach should not stop at funding solicitation,though. Individuals and corporations seem willing toaccept new social responsibilities, but they must beengaged more constructively if innovative approaches areto be found. For example, many corporations probably

can find common ground with activists on rule-of-lawand other issues important both to commerce and civilsociety. More certainty can help carry activists’ messagesof the need for governments to be responsive to theirpeople to powerful audiences in ministries that civilsociety rarely can access.

OLD APPROACHES AREN’T THE ANSWER

For too long, the food needs of a growing populationhave been answered with an assortment of solutions thattended to ignore cultural, political, and religious factors.Countries and their peoples were expected to adapt tothese one-size-fits-all recommendations. Many did, andthe results of a generation of work are, on balance, largelypositive. But there is an unacceptable danger in acceptingresults with serious flaws, or congratulating ourselves forprogress that touches the lives of just 1 in 10 of theworld’s hungry.

The attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzaniain 1998 yielded a new generation of structures capable ofprotecting Americans serving abroad and their colleagues.The attacks in 2001 on our society and our values, whichAmerican embassies around the globe symbolize, ought totrigger an equally sweeping redesign of the programs andpriorities aimed at the 2 billion people who live on lessthan a dollar a day.

Starting this work with a fresh determination to relegatehunger to the world’s history books would be a promisingfoundation for promoting sustainable development andending the desperate need that impoverishes us all. ❏

The U.S. government, with more than 16 years’ experiencein evaluating biotechnology products, has instituted the mostthorough and scientifically-based regulatory system anywherein the world, says Sally McCammon, chief scientist with theU.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant HealthInspection Service. McCammon outlines the roles played bykey U.S. regulatory agencies and their approach to food safetyand to ensuring that the most current scientific informationis available to those regulatory bodies before any geneticallyengineered product is released in the U.S. market.

Few food issues have raised as much interest, particularlyinternationally, as has the safety of genetically engineeredfoods. And few foods have been as thoroughly examined,dissected, tested, and regulated. The fact is thatgenetically modified foods developed in the United Stateshave gone through the most intense regulatory andscientific review that exists anywhere in the world andwould not be found in the U.S. marketplace unlessregulators were completely convinced about their safety.This article reviews the U.S. regulatory process and thekey agencies responsible for the safety of the U.S. foodsupply and, consequently, U.S. food exports.

THE U.S. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

In 1986 the White House issued the CoordinatedFramework for the Regulation of Products ofBiotechnology, proactively establishing a strongcommitment by the U.S. government to the safedevelopment of biotechnology products from thelaboratory, through field-testing and development, andinto the marketplace. Over the last 16 years, the UnitedStates has gained considerable experience in evaluatingthe products of biotechnology for safety. The framework’sunderlying assumption is that the risks from the productsof biotechnology are the same in kind as those of similarproducts — risks to agriculture, the environment, andhuman health. Thus, existing U.S. laws and regulationsfor addressing these risks have been deemed adequate toaddress any risks posed by products developed usingbiotechnology, and no new “gene law” has beenconsidered necessary.

To assure safety, the U.S. regulatory structure is based onrisk rather than process, and its success is due to the factthat regulatory agencies with established credibility andexpertise evaluate these products. Many aspects areevaluated when determining safety. Regulations establishprocedures and criteria by which different types ofproducts are evaluated, including those produced usingbiotechnology, products such as vaccines, plant varietiesfor food, pesticides, animal products, andpharmaceuticals. Certain products of modernbiotechnology can easily be assessed under existingregulations, while other products require new regulations.

The U.S. regulatory agencies that examine plants andplant products intended for use as food are theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food andDrug Administration (FDA) of the Department ofHealth and Human Services, and the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA-APHIS). A new geneticallyengineered plant could be reviewed by one or all three ofthese agencies, depending on the plant and traitengineered into it. For instance, a Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt) gene in a food crop would be reviewed by USDA-APHIS, EPA, and FDA; a plant with modified oilcontent for food would be reviewed by FDA and USDA-APHIS; and modified flower color in a horticultural cropwould be reviewed by USDA-APHIS alone. It can takefive years of field-testing, under USDA-APHIS oversight,for the developer of a new plant variety to evaluate thenew line and to collect the data needed to pass throughthe regulatory system. Another two years may be neededfor USDA-APHIS, EPA, and/or FDA to complete theirreviews. Multiple agencies reviewing the same productfrom different perspectives provide a comprehensivesystem for assuring safety.

The United States has built upon its experience using ascience-based approach to evaluating other products toevaluate the products of modern biotechnology. Science-based means that the review of the product is done usingscientific criteria relevant to that product. The approachis constantly evolving due to new types of products andthe availability of new scientific information. Science is

9

❏ ENSURING SAFE FOODBy Sally L. McCammon, Science Advisor, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

the basis by which regulatory officials can assure andbuild upon credibility, remain current, and assure arational basis for decision-making. Science and the legalprocesses are inextricably linked for regulations thatevaluate biological products.

THE REGULATORS’ ROLES

Under the authority of the Plant Protection Act, USDA-APHIS regulates the development and field-testing ofgenetically engineered plants, microorganisms, andcertain other organisms. USDA-APHIS regulationsprovide procedures for obtaining permission to release(field-test), import into the country, or move interstatewithin the United States. After several years a developermay petition USDA-APHIS for non-regulated status. TheUSDA-APHIS review process evaluates agricultural andenvironmental safety issues. Particular attention is paid toevaluating any changes in agronomic characteristics of thenew plant line. Although usually not related to thechange intended, such unintended changes could impactfood safety as well as agricultural and environmentalsafety. Fortunately, over 98 percent of these “off-types” arediscarded by developers early in the development process.Only the healthiest and well-characterized lines survivethe selection in the subsequent development process andare sent to regulators for evaluation.

To date 53 petitions have been granted and almost 8,000permits and notifications issued for field-testing at almost30,000 sites. Although no petitions have been denied, 21have been withdrawn due to insufficient information orother inadequacies in the application.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act(FFDCA), EPA sets tolerance limits for substances usedas pesticides on and in food and feed, or establishes anexemption from the requirement of a tolerance if such atolerance is not necessary to protect the public health(determined after evaluation by the agency). EPA’sresponsibility is to ensure the safety of pesticides, bothchemical and biological, under the authority of theFederal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA) by regulating the distribution, sale, use, andtesting of plants and microbes producing pesticidalsubstances. Both EPA and USDA-APHIS review manytransgenic plants for agricultural and environmentaleffects.

EPA issues experimental use permits for field-testing of“pesticidal” plants and registrations for commercialization

of these plants. The Bt toxin, which occurs naturally insoil bacterium, is considered a biological pesticide. Forplants containing Bt toxin, the manufacturer mustprepare a resistance management plan as a condition forregistration with the EPA. The plan describes how themanufacturer registering the plant product will assurethat resistance does not build up in affected insectpopulations and reduce the effectiveness of Bt appliedtopically or used through the plant’s genetics. EPA alsoevaluates the new use of herbicides on herbicide-toleranttransgenic plants while USDA-APHIS evaluates theherbicide-tolerant plant.

FDA assesses the food (including animal feed) safety andnutritional aspects of new plant varieties as part of aconsultation procedure published in the 1992 Statementof Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties. FDAexpects developers of new plant varieties to consult withthe agency on safety and regulatory questions under theauthority of the FFDCA. FDA policy is based on existingfood law and requires that genetically engineered foodsmeet the same rigorous safety standards as are required ofall other foods. The FDA biotechnology policy treatssubstances intentionally added to food through geneticengineering as food additives if they are significantlydifferent in structure, function, or amount fromsubstances currently found in food. Many of the foodcrops currently being developed using biotechnology donot contain substances that are significantly differentfrom those already in the diet and thus do not requirepre-market approval.

Although the FDA system currently is voluntary, everynew plant line that is commercialized in the United Stateshas been evaluated by the FDA through this consultationprocess. In public meetings held in 2000 no concernswith the substance of the FDA review were voiced forthose products already reviewed by FDA. In 2001 FDAproposed to make this review mandatory, and it iscurrently studying the almost 100,000 commentsreceived before finalizing this rule.

The FDA’s assessment includes evaluating thecomposition of major nutrients and levels of toxicantsthat many plants produce naturally, and determiningpotential for allergenicity, particularly assessing whetherthe inserted genes are from allergenic sources. Alsoevaluated is whether a new method of food preparationmust be used as a result of the genetic change, or whetherthe food is changed so that it is unrecognizable. The food

10

11Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

safety issues addressed assess whether the food is safe andwholesome.

If there is any material change to the food, then labelingis required. Labeling of food in the United States must betruthful and not misleading. To provide guidance todevelopers of food involving genetic engineering, theFDA also provided draft guidance in 2001 on VoluntaryLabeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or Have Not BeenDeveloped Using Bioengineering.

Transparency is built into the U.S. system at every step,beginning with the initial passage of laws by Congress,and public input is important to assuring that concernsare addressed. Regulations developed to implement theselaws consider all public comments before the regulationsare finalized. Public comment is also invited for decisiondocuments such as environmental assessments and futureevaluations. Comprehensive field-tests, petition databases,and U.S. regulations and regulatory decisions areaccessible at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.

A SCIENCE-BASED REGULATORY APPROACH

Science informs the decision-making process of U.S.regulators at many levels. Regulators evaluating specificproducts use the available published scientific literature,particularly from peer-reviewed journals. Applicants citethis literature in their applications for regulatory approval.The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or otherparts of the scientific enterprise may be asked to identifythe scientific issues and recommend approaches toevaluating particular types of products. Meetings ofscientists can be called to address specific issues, as havepast meetings on Bt, viral recombination, and relevantbiological factors for evaluating crop plants. Informationcan even be requested on specific products. The EPA

meets with its scientific advisory panels. The FDA refersquestions to its Food Advisory Committee. Recently, theNAS reviewed the scientific underpinnings of theregulatory decisions made by USDA. The USDA also hasa Risk Assessment Grants Program that specifically fundsresearch on emerging issues with genetically engineeredorganisms. Regulators use all of this information to assurethat the most current approaches and information areavailable to inform regulatory decisions.

CODEX ALIMENTARIUS

Internationally, the appropriate scientifically basedstandards, guidelines, and recommendations forevaluating the food safety of transgenic products as theymove into the international marketplace are beingdeveloped by the representatives of national governmentsin the ad hoc Intergovernmental Codex Task Force onFoods Derived From Biotechnology under the CodexAlimentarius. The first international Guideline for theConduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived fromRecombinant-DNA Plants as well as the Principles for theRisk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology ,both currently in draft status, are slated for adoption in2003 by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Thesestandards are a milestone in agreement on the approachesto assuring food safety of the products of modernbiotechnology. ❏

Bangladesh's thriving agricultural sector, benefitting from anew global partnership between the people of Bangladeshand foreign aid agencies, international research institutions,and nongovernmental organizations, has become a SouthAsian success story. Further agricultural gains realizedthrough greater crop diversification, free market policies,investments in seed research and irrigation, infrastructuredevelopments, and new approaches to food aid have helpedmove the country to a position of near self-sufficiency in rice,its main crop.

The views expressed herein are those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the views, opinions, or ideas of the U.S.government, the U.S. Agency for International Development(USAID), its management, or those serving within theagency’s Asia and Near East Bureau.

Bangladesh’s accomplishments in transforming itsdevastated agricultural sector into one of the mostproductive farm economies in all of South Asia is a majordevelopment success story. Once racked by famine anddependent on food imports, the country is nowessentially self-sufficient in rice, is emerging as asignificant exporter of high-value agricultural products,and enjoys the second highest percentage growth in percapita income in South Asia. Its success is largely a storyof close cooperation between the government ofBangladesh and its peoples with foreign aid agencies,international research institutions, and indigenousnongovernmental organizations.

THE ECONOMY OF BANGLADESH

Bangladesh has a population of 131 million — about1,007 persons per square kilometer. Almost 26 percent ofits gross domestic product (GDP) comes fromagriculture, including fisheries, which also accounts formore than 13 percent of its export earnings. Over 70percent of the population is directly engaged in farmingor related activities.Within the past few years, Bangladesh has reached self-sufficiency in its main cereal, rice. Rice production

increased from 11.7 million metric tons in 1974 to 23.1million tons in 2000, an average annual increase of 3.6percent. Wheat production climbed from 0.11 millionmetric tons in 1974 to 1.8 million metric tons in 2000.Cereal prices are low and stable, and productioncontinues to increase. The economy also is showing rapiddiversification, particularly in the livestock and poultrysectors.

Agricultural exports, both bulk commodities and higher-valued processed products, grew by nearly 5 percent overthe last five years. In 2000, the value of shrimp exportsalone was $296.3 million. And unlike the garmentindustry, where the bulk of the export earnings go backout of the country to pay for imported raw materials andmachinery, with agribusiness the value added stays in thecountry.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Much of the success in Bangladesh’s agricultural sectorcan be attributed to the development andimplementation of dry-season irrigated rice. Thirty yearsago, almost all of Bangladesh’s cereal production was fromthe monsoon crop. Now almost half is dry season, madepossible by the development and release by the publicresearch institutions of high-yielding rice varieties adaptedto shorter days and cooler temperatures.

The introduction of this rice was aided by the decision ofthe Bangladesh government not to intervene in themarket. Prices reflected market forces, and the privatesector imported pumps to irrigate dry-season crops. Thefertilizer system was privatized, resulting in a tripling inthe use of fertilizer in 10 years. Bangladesh farmers tookthe challenge by planting and irrigating the new high-yield seed. The entire rural population has benefited:peasant farmers now get two or even three crops per year,and landless peasants find that their income-earningpossibilities have expanded. It was through publiclysupported agricultural research working in tandem withprivate investment for irrigation that made the jump inrice production possible.

12

❏ FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IN BANGLADESH:A SUCCESS STORYBy Gordon West, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Asia and Near East Bureau, United States Agency for International Development

Similarly, organizations like the International RiceResearch Institute (IRRI) and the International Maizeand Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)collaborated with Bangladesh’s agricultural researchsystem to introduce more sustainable and efficient rice,wheat, and maize cropping systems into Bangladesh.

ADOPTING FREE MARKET POLICIES

Bangladesh’s decision, supported by the U.S. Agency forInternational Development, to liberalize its food importpolicy is another important side to the country’s successstory. The government has removed many agriculturalsubsidies, eliminated quantitative restrictions, reducedtariff levels, and created an open-market economy thatmakes agricultural inputs readily available for farmers andguarantees fair commodity prices. Today, Bangladesh’sagricultural sector is the most open and least subsidizedof South Asia.

One of the keys to this success has been the decision bythe government to liberalize the import of food. Over thelast 10 years, private traders have stepped in to importfood grains during times of domestic shortfall, oftendriven by floods. These actions by private traders haveprovided both supply and price stabilization and haveremoved a major financial burden from the government.During fiscal year 1999, private sector food imports toaddress needs arising from the 1998 flood reached 2.26million metric tons, mainly from India. Had thegovernment of Bangladesh imported this grain itself, thetotal fiscal cost would have been about $185 million. Theprivate sector’s share in food imports climbed from zeroin 1991 to 50 percent in 1996 and 100 percent in 2000.

The government of Bangladesh also reoriented its largepublic food distribution system away from massdistribution in favor of a targeted food “safety net”program for the poor. In fiscal year 2000, 85 percent ofpublic food was targeted for the poor, an increase ofabout 46 percent over 1992.

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

One of the major roles played by foreign developmentagencies in Bangladesh has been the financing of ruralinfrastructure, which has made it easier to move productsfrom field to market. During 1995-2000, U.S. financinghelped rehabilitate over 15,000 kilometers of farm-to-market roads, creating jobs and improving year-roundaccess to markets and to basic human development

services. The cost of food transportation has dropped,and freight traffic has increased 94 percent.

Foreign financing also facilitated efforts to improve waterflow, which led to a quicker recession of floodwaters anda subsequent 16 percent increase in agriculturalproduction — by value — in the affected areas.

Rural electrification, aided by funding from foreign aidagencies, has been another important factor in theagricultural productivity gains. During 1977-2000, nearly2.42 million domestic connections were provided andover 80,000 irrigation pumps electrified. The 57 localelectric cooperatives now reach over 20 million ruralpeople. Crop yields are up in electrified villages, as areboth the number of agricultural jobs and the wagesreceived by agricultural labor. The rural electrificationprogram has a 95 percent rate on collection of payments,compared to only 60 percent nationwide.

A GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP

Food security and safety in Bangladesh benefited from theeffort of global partnerships. USAID and the U.S.Department of Agriculture provide wheat, which is soldon the Bangladeshi market for local currency. Fundsraised from the sale of grain are allocated to localdevelopment activities, and the government ofBangladesh uses food grain monetization for its socialsafety net activities. One specific program provides a foodprovision to poor families when they send their childrento school rather than to work. This Food for Educationprogram increases overall educational levels, decreaseschild labor, and provides food to poor families.

Under the local development programs, men and womenin the most food-insecure areas in Bangladesh are giventhe opportunity to work for a wage and/or food throughprograms administered by CARE and World Vision.These programs improve the rural infrastructure andincrease community assets by building environmentallysound, all-season roads. Program participants also planttrees to prevent soil erosion, and poor women areemployed to care for the trees.

Similarly, the United Nation’s World Food Program(WFP) has provided food assistance for nearly 3 millionBangladeshis. Some of these receive WFP rations aspayment for their efforts to reclaim rural roads,community fishponds, plantations, and flood-protectionembankments.

13

14Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

CHALLENGES AHEAD

While there have been impressive successes inBangladesh, important challenges remain. Rates ofmalnutrition in the country are among the highest in theworld, and nutritional standards are poor. Productionfrom dry season farming is leveling off, in large part dueto problems of scale — farms are simply too small tomake possible or feasible the kind of capitalizationnecessary to bring about further significant increases inyields.

A further transformation of Bangladeshi agriculture,mostly in terms of diversifying into higher value productssuch as maize, legumes, livestock, and vegetables, both fordomestic and export markets, is the next logical step forthe country. Rice uses four or more times more waterthan crops like wheat and maize, and the lack of adequatewater will be a major impediment to future agriculturalproductivity. Also, Bangladeshi diets lack essential aminoacids, fats and minerals, and vitamins. By makingproducts such as wheat, fruits, milk, pulses, and meatswidely available at affordable prices, it would helpimprove overall health.

The good news is that there are no major obstacles todiversification and there are a host of new seeds toaddress a broad range of environmental challenges. Theclose cooperation between the government of Bangladesh,the research institutions, and international developmentagencies suggest that Bangladesh can move beyond self-sufficiency and that agriculture and agribusiness are goingto remain the bedrock of Bangladesh’s economy for yearsto come. ❏

15

Governments have neglected agricultural development, usedfood aid ineffectively, and failed to capitalize on internationaltrade to ensure food security, says G. Edward Schuh, RegentsProfessor of International Economic Policy at the Universityof Minnesota. He adds that modernization of agriculture willcontribute greatly to alleviating poverty and, thus, promotefood security. Schuh also is the Orville and Jane FreemanProfessor of International Trade and Investment Policy at theUniversity of Minnesota and co-chair of the U.S. FoodSecurity Advisory Committee.

From June 10 to 13, leaders from nations around theworld will meet in Rome at the World Food Summit plus5 to discuss the progress made since the original WorldFood Summit some five years ago. The results will not beparticularly pleasing, since progress is not as great as wasexpected.

In my view, three issues have contributed to the poorperformance in reducing food insecurity in the recentpast: (1) the neglect of agricultural development both bygovernments in developing countries and by theinternational donor community, (2) the ineffective use offood aid, and (3) the failure to capitalize on internationaltrade as a means to ensure food security.

A basic premise of my thinking is that food security is apoverty problem — the lack of food is due to the lack ofthe means to acquire it. It is not, in general, due to ashortfall in food production. This is the familiar finding ofNobel laureate Amartya Sen from his studies of famines inChina and India.

Another point useful in understanding this analysis is thatfood security problems can be of a short-term or a long-term nature. In other words, people may suffer either fromshort-term fluctuations in their incomes, or they maysuffer chronically from low per capita incomes. The policyprescriptions for these two problems are quite different.

LACK OF ATTENTION TO AGRICULTURALDEVELOPMENT

Both the governments in developing countries and theinternational development community have in recent yearssorely neglected agriculture as a component of theirprograms for economic development. This neglect reflectsan enormous institutional memory loss: back in the 1960sand 1970s such neglect would have been unheard of.

The apparent logic behind this neglect appears to rest on two perceptions. First, observers of the developmentscene note that as an economy grows and per capitaincomes rise, the share that agricultural employmentmakes up of total employment declines, as does the sharethat agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) makes upof total GDP. They conclude from such trends thatagriculture declines in importance as economicdevelopment proceeds, so one can neglect the agriculturalsector.

The difficulty with that argument can be seen byconsidering the modernization of the production of staplefoods by the introduction of new production technologyinto the sector as the basis for agricultural modernizationand development. Staple commodities tend to have lowprice elasticity of demand, with the result that theintroduction of new production technology to the sectorwill result in a lower price for the staple, other thingsbeing equal. That decline in real prices will be equivalentto an increase in real per capita incomes for consumers.This points to the ultimate importance of agriculture inthe development process. It is important becauseeverybody consumes food.

The contribution from modernizing the production offood staples does not stop there, however. It turns out thatpoor-income groups benefit in a relative sense from themodernization of agriculture, in part because low-incomegroups spend a larger share of their income on food thando middle- and upper-income groups. It is difficult to finda sector of the economy in which the benefits of the

COMMENTARY

❏ GLOBAL FOOD SECURITYBy G. Edward Schuh, Regents Professor of International Economic Policy, University of Minnesota

development process will be spread as widely as in thecase of agriculture, and so much in favor of the poor.

Similar arguments can be made about the modernizationof tradable agricultural commodities. In this case, theprice of the commodity does not decline withmodernization. However, the sector becomes morecompetitive in the international economy, and the netresult is either an increase in export earnings or anincrease in savings of foreign exchange earnings. Thebenefits will again be widely distributed in the domesticeconomy, since the foreign exchange can be used either toservice international debt or to finance higher rates ofeconomic growth and development.

There is a certain irony in the finding that food insecurityis not due to shortfalls in food production, but that themodernization of agriculture has such an important roleto play in alleviating food insecurity. The explanation forwhat to some might appear to be an anomalous result isthat agriculture can be a key to more general economicdevelopment of the economy. To be even more specific,the modernization of agriculture contributes towidespread distribution of the benefits of modernizationto consumers, with those benefits distributed in a relativesense in favor of the poor.

INAPPROPRIATE USE OF FOOD AID

Food aid is one component of foreign aid that continuesto garner ample political support in the developedcountries. That support reflects in part the strong politicalconstituencies in the agricultural sectors of the developedcountries. It also reflects an appreciation of the directbenefits of food aid to its ultimate beneficiaries.

Of course, food aid is not without its problems.Academics such as Nobel laureate Theodore W. Schultzand others were at one time fairly critical of food aid,largely on the grounds that it had strong disincentiveeffects for poor producers. At one time those critics madesubstantial progress in addressing these problems, andmuch care was exercised in how the food aid wasintroduced into the economy of the recipient country.

Later, however, the lexicon of foreign aid was enrichedwith the addition of a new word and concept —“monetization.” This new concept referred to the sale ofthe food aid in the market for cash, which in turn wasused for fiscal purposes in general economic developmentprograms. Regrettably, monetization quickly became

popular in the new lexicon, and disincentive effects soondisappeared as an issue of concern. One hardly hears theterm disincentive effects mentioned in today’s policydebates, and monetization has rapidly conquered the day.

Again, there is a serious side to this problem. Thepolitical support for monetization comes largely fromnongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which stilldepend heavily on food aid for their financial resources.Their support for food aid and for monetization isobvious. Their livelihood depends on it — never mindthe consequences for the poor farmer.

The point to be emphasized is that there are other meansof making more effective use of the food aid, and weneed to move in those directions. One such approach isto use the food aid to pay the families of school-agechildren to send their children to school. This willintroduce the food aid into the economy as an increase inincome to very poor families. In so doing, thedisincentive effect will be minimal.

At the same time, children of low-income families areseldom able to go to school, largely because they areneeded to earn the income needed to support the family.In rural areas, these children typically work on the farm.In urban areas, such children typically beg on the streetcorners or sell apples or pencils. In either case, thefamilies need the income the child earns to survive.

The use of food aid to “pay” the family to send the childto school has multiple contributions. The disincentiveeffects are minimal. The child is able to go to school, thusincreasing educational attainment. The health andnutrition of the family is improved. And the per capitaincome of the family is improved.

THE NEGLECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

International trade can be an important means topromote economic development. The sectoralspecialization and division of labor it makes possible leadto increases in per capita incomes. Moreover, it eliminatesthe limit on economic growth and development that is socharacteristic of small countries. Despite the progress ofglobalization and the growth in international trade ingeneral, protectionism continues to be a problem,especially in the global agricultural sector.

The United States and the European Union are especiallyprotective of their agricultural sectors. Moreover, these

16

Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

countries continue to make effective use of dumpingpolicies, in the form of food aid and in the form ofexport subsidies — both explicit and implicit.

The developed countries are not alone in having weakeconomic policies for their agricultural sectors, however.They discriminate against their agriculture by shifting thedomestic terms of trade against their agricultural sectors.This leads to premature migration from agriculture andthe rapid urbanization of domestic economies that onesees all around the world. The result is a failure to takeadvantage of the contribution that international trade canmake in bringing about balance in the flow of exportsand imports, and thus to address the basic food securityproblem through international trade.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Progress will be made in addressing the global foodsecurity problem only as progress is made in alleviatingglobal poverty. Poverty, in turn, will be alleviated only asagriculture is modernized and the benefits of thatmodernization are realized through the liberalization oftrade policies and the opening of national economies.Although increased food production is not the means toalleviate food insecurity problems directly, themodernization of agriculture can contribute mightily inalleviating poverty on a global scale. ❏

Note: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflectthe views or policies of the U.S. Department of State.

17

18

Needless restrictions on agricultural biotechnology wouldharm the world’s ability to battle hunger in the 21st century,say Gregory Conko and C.S. Prakash, co-founders of theAgBioWorld Foundation. They say that the concerns of anti-biotechnology campaigners simply are not supported by thescores of peer-reviewed scientific reports or data from tens ofthousands of field trials.

The AgBioWorld Foundation is a nonprofit organization thatprovides information to the general public aboutdevelopments in plant science, biotechnology, and sustainableagriculture.

During the coming decades the world will face theextraordinary challenge of conquering poverty andachieving genuine food security with a very potent newtool: agricultural biotechnology. Skeptics argue thattransgenic plants represent a vast new threat to both theenvironment and human health. However, that view isnot supported by the overwhelming weight of scientificevidence that has been generated over the last threedecades. Furthermore, such criticism ignores the fact thatneedless restrictions on biotechnology could endanger ourability to battle hunger in the 21st century.

Transgenic technology holds the potential to increasefood production, reduce the use of synthetic chemicalpesticides, and actually make foods safer and healthier.These advances are critical in a world where naturalresources are finite and where one-and-a-half billionpeople suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Already,farmers in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere havebenefited from improvements in productivity andreduced use of synthetic pesticides. But the real future ofbiotechnology lies in addressing the special problemsfaced by farmers in less developed nations.

Critics like to dismiss such claims as nothing more thancorporate public relations puffery. However, while mostcommercially available biotech plants were designed forfarmers in the industrialized world, the increasingadoption of transgenic varieties by developing countries

over the past few years has been remarkable. According tothe International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), farmers in less developedcountries now grow nearly one-quarter of the world’stransgenic crops on more than 26 million acres (10.7million hectares), and they do so for many of the samereasons that farmers in industrialized nations do.

PRODUCTIVITY GAINS FROM TRANSGENIC CROPS

Among the most important limiting factors in developingworld agricultural productivity is biotic stress frominsects, weeds, and plant diseases. Transgenicmodifications common in several industrialized nationstarget these same problems and can be easily transferredinto local varieties to help poor farmers in the developingworld. For example, South African farmers are alreadygrowing transgenic pest-resistant maize, and this yearbegan planting transgenic soy. South African and Chinesefarmers have been growing transgenic insect-resistantcotton for several years, and the Indian governmentapproved it for commercial cultivation in the spring of2002. This transgenic cotton, similar to the varieties sopopular in the United States, is expected to boost yieldsby 30 percent or more for Indian farmers, according to arecent article in the Economic Times. It could eventransform India from the world’s third largest producer ofcotton into the largest.

Globally, transgenic varieties are now grown on morethan 109 million acres (44.2 million hectares) inArgentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Mexico,South Africa, and the United States, according to ISAAA.They are even grown on substantial amounts of acreage inBrazil, where no transgenic varieties have yet beenapproved for commercial cultivation. Farmers therelooked across the border and saw how well theirArgentine neighbors were doing with transgenic varieties,and smuggling of transgenic soybean seed becamerampant. The European Union’s (EU) DirectorateGeneral for Agriculture estimates that Brazil is now thefifth largest grower of transgenic crops.

❏ BATTLING HUNGER WITH BIOTECHNOLOGYBy Gregory Conko, Director of Food Safety Policy, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and C.S. Prakash, Professor of Plant Molecular Genetics, Tuskegee University.

MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS

Although this first generation of crops was designedprimarily to improve farming efficiency, theenvironmental benefits these crops offer are extensive.The U.S. Department of Agriculture found that U.S.farmers growing transgenic pest-resistant cotton, maize,and soy reduced the total volume of insecticides andherbicides they sprayed by more than 8 million poundsper year. Similar reductions have been seen in Canadawith transgenic rapeseed, according to the CanolaCouncil of Canada.

In less developed nations where pesticides are typicallysprayed on crops by hand, transgenic pest-resistant cropshave had even greater benefits. In China, for example,some 400 to 500 cotton farmers die every year from acutepesticide poisoning. A study conducted by researchers atRutgers University in the United States and the ChineseAcademy of Sciences found that adoption of transgeniccotton varieties in China has lowered the amount ofpesticides used by more than 75 percent and reduced thenumber of pesticide poisonings by an equivalent amount.Another study by economists at the University of Readingin Britain found that South African cotton farmers haveseen similar benefits.

The reduction in pesticide spraying also means that fewernatural resources are consumed to manufacture andtransport the chemicals. Researchers at Auburn Universityand Louisiana State University in the United States foundthat, in 2000 alone, U.S. farmers growing transgeniccotton used 2.4 million fewer gallons of fuel, 93 millionfewer gallons of water, and were spared some 41,000 10-hour days needed to apply pesticide sprays.

Transgenic herbicide-tolerant crops have promoted theadoption of farming practices that reduce tillage oreliminate it altogether. Low-tillage practices can decreasesoil erosion by up to 90 percent compared toconventional cultivation, saving valuable topsoil,improving soil fertility, and dramatically reducingsedimentation in lakes, ponds, and waterways.

The productivity gains generated by transgenic cropsprovide yet another important environmental benefit:they could save millions of hectares of sensitive wildlifehabitat from being converted into farmland. The loss andfragmentation of wildlife habitats caused by agriculturaldevelopment in regions experiencing the greatestpopulation growth are widely recognized as among the

most serious threats to biodiversity. Thus, increasingagricultural productivity is an essential environmentalgoal, and one that would be much easier in a worldwhere agricultural biotechnology is in widespread use.

Opponents of biotechnology argue that organic farmingcan reduce pesticide use even more than transgenic cropscan. But as much as 40 percent of crop productivity inAfrica and Asia and about 20 percent in the industrializedcountries of North America and Europe are lost to insectpests, weeds, and plant diseases. Organic productionmethods would only exacerbate those crop losses. There isno way for organic farming to feed a global populationexpected to grow to 8 or 9 billion people without havingto bring substantially more land into agricultural use.

Fortunately, many transgenic varieties that have beencreated specifically for use in less developed nations willsoon be ready for commercialization. Examples includeinsect-resistant rice varieties for Asia, virus-resistant sweetpotato for Africa, and virus-resistant papaya forCaribbean nations. The next generation of transgeniccrops now in research labs around the world is poised tobring even further productivity improvements for thepoor soils and harsh climates that are characteristic ofimpoverished regions.

Scientists have already identified genes for resistance toenvironmental stresses common in tropical nations,including tolerance to soils with high salinity and to thosethat are particularly acidic or alkaline. Other transgenicvarieties can tolerate temporary drought conditions orextremes of heat and cold.

ENSURING WORLDWIDE FOOD SECURITY

Biotechnology also offers hope of improving thenutritional benefits of many foods. Among the most wellknown is the variety called “Golden Rice,” geneticallyenhanced with added beta carotene, which is converted tovitamin A in the human body. Another variety developedby the same research team has elevated levels of digestibleiron.

The diet of more than 3 billion people worldwideincludes inadequate levels of essential vitamins andminerals, such as vitamin A and iron. Deficiency in justthese two micronutrients can result in severe anemia,impaired intellectual development, blindness, and evendeath. And even though charities and aid agencies such asthe United Nations Childrens’ Fund and the World

19

20

Health Organization have made important strides inreducing vitamin A and iron deficiency, success has beenfleeting. No permanent effective strategy has yet beendevised, but Golden Rice may finally provide one.

Importantly, the Golden Rice project is a prime exampleof the value of extensive public sector and charitableresearch activities. The rice’s development was fundedmainly by the New York-based Rockefeller Foundation,which has promised to make the rice available to poorfarmers at little or no cost. It was created by scientists atpublic universities in Switzerland and Germany withassistance from the Philippines-based International RiceResearch Institute (IRRI) and from several multinationalcorporations.

Golden Rice is not the only example. Scientists atpublicly funded, charitable, and corporate researchcenters are developing such crops as cassava, papaya, andwheat with built-in resistance to common plant viruses;rice that can more efficiently convert sunlight andcarbon-dioxide for faster growth; potatoes that produce avaccine against hepatitis B; bananas that produce avaccine against cholera; and countless others. One lab atTuskegee University is enhancing the level of dietaryprotein in sweet potatoes, a common staple crop in sub-Saharan Africa.

Admittedly, experts recognize that the problem of hungerand malnutrition is not currently caused by a globalshortage of food. The primary causes of hunger in recentdecades have been political unrest and corruptgovernments, poor transportation and infrastructure, and,of course, poverty. All of these problems and more mustbe addressed if we are to ensure real, worldwide foodsecurity. But producing enough for 8 or 9 billion peoplewill require greater yields in the regions where food isneeded most, and transgenic crops are good, low-inputtools for achieving this.

ELIMINATING NEEDLESS RESTRICTIONS

Although the complexity of biological systems means thatsome promised benefits of biotechnology are many yearsaway, the biggest threat that hungry populations currentlyface are restrictive policies stemming from unwarrantedpublic fears. Although most Americans tend to supportagricultural biotechnology, many Europeans and Asianshave been far more cautious. Anti-biotechnologycampaigners in both industrialized and less developednations are feeding this ambivalence with scare stories

that have led to the adoption of restrictive policies. Thosefears are simply not supported by the scores of peer-reviewed scientific reports or the data from tens ofthousands of individual field trials.

Mankind has been modifying the genetic makeup ofplants for thousands of years, often in ways that couldhave had adverse environmental impacts and thatroutinely introduced entirely new genes, proteins, andother substances into the food supply. Food-gradetomatoes and potatoes are routinely bred from wildvarieties that are toxic to human beings, for example. Butplant breeders, biologists, and farmers have identifiedmethods to keep potentially dangerous plants fromentering the food chain.

The evidence clearly shows there is no difference betweenthe practices necessary to ensure the safety of transgenicplants and the safety of conventional ones. In fact,because more is known about the genes that are moved intransgenic breeding methods, ensuring the safety oftransgenic plants is actually easier. But the public’sreticence about transgenic plants has resulted in extensiveregulations that require literally thousands of individualsafety tests that are often duplicative and largelyunnecessary for ensuring environmental protection orconsumer safety. In the end, over-cautious rules result inhyperinflated research and development costs and make itharder for poorer countries to share in the benefits ofbiotechnology.

Perhaps more importantly, restrictions on transgenicplants and onerous labeling requirements for biotechfoods have caused many governments to blockcommercialization — not out of health or environmentalconcerns but because of a legitimate fear that importantEuropean markets could be closed to their exports. As lastyear’s United Nations Development Report acknowledged,opposition by European consumers and very strict legalrequirements in European Union member nations haveheld back the adoption of transgenic crops inunderdeveloped nations that need them.

Furthermore, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,adopted in January 2000, will tend to reinforce thesecounterproductive policies because it permitsgovernments to erect unwarranted restrictions based onthe Precautionary Principle, the notion that evenhypothetical risks should be enough to keep newproducts off the market, regardless of their potentialbenefits. Thus, EU nations can restrict imports of

21

transgenic crops from both industrialized and lessdeveloped nations, no matter how much scientific datahave been presented showing them to be safe, becauseopponents can always hypothesize yet another novel risk.

Admittedly, advocates have to take the public’s concernsmore seriously. Better sharing of information and a moreforthright public dialogue are necessary to explain whyscientists are confident that transgenic crops are safe. Noone argues that we should not proceed with caution, butneedless restrictions on agricultural biotechnology coulddramatically slow the pace of progress and keepimportant advances out of the hands of people who needthem. This is the tragic side effect of unwarrantedconcern.

AN IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT TOOL

Ultimately, biotechnology is more than just a new anduseful agricultural tool. It could also be a hugelyimportant instrument of economic development in manypoorer regions of the globe. By making agriculture moreproductive, labor and resources could be freed for use inother areas of economic growth in nations where farming

currently occupies 70 or 80 percent of the population.This, in turn, would be an important step in the journeytoward genuine food security.

The choice is clear. Innovators must proceed with duecaution. But as a report jointly published by the UnitedKingdom’s Royal Society, the National Academies ofScience from Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and theUnited States, and the Third World Academy of Sciencecontends: “It is critical that the potential benefits of[transgenic] technology become available to developingcountries.” It is also critical that industrialized countriesnot stand in their way. ❏

Note: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflectthe views or policies of the U.S. Department of State.

Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

22

There is not enough land, water, or money to produce all therice the world’s growing population needs, says RonaldCantrell, director general of the International Rice ResearchInstitute in the Philippines. The challenge for the plantresearch community, he adds, is to develop efficient and freelyavailable ways to tap into the rice genome sequence toproduce higher yielding, more nutritious, and more resistantrice.

What’s so special about rice production? Put simply, noother economic activity feeds so many people, supports somany families, is so crucial to the development of somany nations, and has more impact on so much of ourenvironment. Rice production feeds almost half theplanet each day, provides most of the main income formillions of poor rural households, can topplegovernments, and covers 11 percent of the earth’s arablearea.

But there is something else about rice that many may seeas even more impressive and important. That is theenormous success we have had in using rice to improvethe lives of world’s poor and deprived. By providing ricefarmers with options and new technologies — and sohelping them boost production — extraordinary thingshave been achieved. In much of Asia, plentiful, cheap ricehas been the propelling force behind the region’seconomic, political, and social stability. Rice has kept thecontinent nourished, employed, and peaceful.

THE ASIAN MIRACLE

The true Asian miracle hasn’t been stunning economicdevelopment; it’s been keeping people fed and societiesstable.

This vast continent grows — and eats — more than 90percent of all the world’s rice on more than 250 milliontiny farms, with most Asians eating rice two or threetimes a day. Half of every harvest never even leaves thefarm: it feeds the family that planted it. Hundreds ofmillions of poor people spend half to three-fourths of

their incomes on rice — and nothing else. For thesepeople, rice anchors their precarious lives.

Farmers have grown an astounding 2.5 percent more riceeach year since 1965. This “extra rice” feeds an additional600 million people and has helped us stay neck and neckwith the ever-growing demand. Increasingly bountifulrice harvests from the late 1970s through the late 1980s— mainly thanks to high-yielding modern varieties, moreirrigation, and more access to credit — have accountedfor nearly four-fifths of this growth. The result? Astunning drop in the real price of rice.

This cheap rice is the single most important contributionrice research and new farming technologies have made inAsia. American researchers have found that thedevelopment of improved rice varieties between 1970 and1995 had a substantial impact in four major areas. Theirfindings indicate that were it not for the development ofimproved rice varieties:

• Rice prices for consumers could have been up to 41 percent higher.

• Rice-producing nations would be importing up to 8 percent more food.

• Millions of hectares of forests and other fragileecosystems would have been lost.

• Between 1.5 and 2 percent more children would havebeen malnourished in developing countries.

Such achievements are truly impressive, and it should bereassuring to many that rice research — and the way itprovides options and new technologies to farmers andconsumers — can supply proven solutions to solve theworld’s environmental, food safety, and security problems.

It’s also crucial to note that in achieving these successes,we have helped build capacity and provided training inmany of the world’s poorest nations. To give just oneexample, in Cambodia the dreaded Khmer Rouge leftonly one agricultural scientist alive, slaughtering all other

❏ RICE: WHY IT’S SO ESSENTIAL FOR GLOBAL SECURITYAND STABILITYBy Ronald Cantrell, Director General, International Rice Research Institute

scientists involved in rural work. But as of 2001, not onlydid that previously impoverished nation achieve basicfood security, it also opened the Cambodian AgriculturalResearch and Development Institute — an essentialbulwark against future famine and deprivation.

FOUR MAJOR CHALLENGES

While we may have a gotten a few things right so far,millions of the world’s rice farmers and consumers stilllive in poverty and destitution. What’s urgently needednow is a renewed effort and commitment, where we usethe lessons of the past to solve the looming crisis of thefuture. Four of the biggest problems facing us with riceproduction — arguably the most important economicactivity on the planet — can be summed up quite simply:not enough land, labor, water, or cash.

Not enough land because so many of the world’s best ricefarms are being converted for other activities, such as toaccommodate more profitable agriculture, to enablefactory construction, or to handle spreading urbansprawl. In turn this has pushed rice farmers into morefragile lands, which in many cases include our lastremaining areas of rainforest or other preciousenvironments.

Not enough labor because rice farming is hard,unrewarding work. Most of the world’s millions of ricefarms are too small to justify or pay for mechanization.And increasingly in the many countries that haveachieved food security, factory work is far more attractive than breaking your back ploughing a field inthe midday sun.

Not enough water because with traditional, irrigated ricefarming, it could take up to 5,000 liters of water toproduce just one kilogram of rice. Already research hashelped to considerably reduce this amount, but many ricefarmers are increasingly being told they must cut backeven more as they watch their water supplies be suckedaway, usually to ever-expanding cities.

While each of these problems presents huge challengesthat will take the very best science has to offer to findsolutions, it is the fourth problem — poverty — that isperhaps the most daunting of all. In many ways the rice-producing nations of the world have solved their first andmost important problem — they have ensured that theircitizens have enough to eat.

But we all should partly share the blame for our failure toachieve a second, equally important goal — that is, to liftthe world’s rice farmers and consumers out of the povertyand squalor in which they have been trapped for so long.While this is the bad news, the goods news is thatexciting new strategies and tools are emerging to help usdeal with poverty — perhaps the most intractabledevelopment problem of all.

THE BURGEONING HYBRID RICE INDUSTRY

To many outsiders one of the most striking aspects of riceproduction is the fact that such a huge and importantindustry has so little real private sector activity. Only 6percent of the world’s rice crop is traded internationally,and only in recent years have a small number of bigcompanies involved in agriculture started to invest morein rice. Crop protection firms have been active for manyyears, but this is the only sector of the rice industry withany major private sector presence.

Therefore, one of the most exciting developments in riceproduction from the private sector’s point of view hasbeen the ongoing spread and development of a hybridrice industry. Hybrid rice cultivars can out-yield modern,semi-dwarf inbred varieties by more than 20 percent; lastyear they covered about 15.5 million hectares — or halfof China’s rice area — contributing 57 percent of thecountry’s total rice production. The average hybrid yieldis 6.9 tons per hectare, against 5.4 tons per hectare forinbred varieties. From 1976 to 2000 in China, thecumulative cultivated area under hybrid rice totaled 271million hectares, with the total increase in grainproduction output at 400 million tons.

In Vietnam, more than 480,000 hectares of hybrid rice iscultivated, while 200,000 hectares were planted in Indiain 2001. The Philippine government has been one of themost committed to hybrid rice technology, in the hopethat it will help to finally provide the nation with itslong-cherished goal of rice self-sufficiency.

THE BIOTECHNOLOGY DEBATE

But while hybrid rice may have gotten some of theprivate sector interested in rice for the first time, it is, ofcourse, biotechnology and its potential impact on somany aspects of rice production that generates the mostexcitement and controversy. The challenge for all thoseinvolved in the biotechnology debate in relation to rice isto ensure that the interests of rice farmers — most of

23

24

whom remain illiterate and uneducated — are fairly andproperly represented, while ensuring that they are notdeprived of exciting new options they themselves wantand need.

While it is essential that traditional varieties andtraditional farming practices — for example — becarefully protected and preserved, this should not be atthe expense of new technologies and options. Many haveexpressed concern that modern high-yielding rice varietiesnow dominate rice production at the expense oftraditional varieties, thereby reducing the planet’sbiodiversity. But when researchers successfully use thelatest tools of science to produce an exciting new ricevariety resistant to a troublesome disease or pest, farmersshould have the option to use it, not be made to thinkthey should use only their traditional varieties for the sakeof biodiversity.

More exciting, new options — such as pest-resistantvarieties, rice crops that can grow in salty water, andplants better able to resist drought — will be developedby the private sector, and it is vital that these newopportunities reach those who need them most. At thesame time, the interests of rice farmers and consumersmust be protected and, more importantly, be betterunderstood.

Clearly there is a role for private sector research inrelation to rice and biotechnology, but this cannot andshould not be at the expense of farmers and consumers,especially in relation to their health and the environment.However, two well-known examples — “Golden Rice,” orrice enriched with vitamin A, and the decoding of therice genome by different groups — amply demonstratethe great potential of biotechnology and, at the sametime, bog it in controversy.

While societies in Europe, North America, and Japanhave the freedom to debate the pros and cons of theirdevelopment and consumption of genetically modifiedorganisms, it would be wrong for such debate to impedebasic research to study whether such technologies are safe,sustainable, and suitable for the rice-producing nations ofthe developing world. Such countries must be allowed theright to make their own decisions on biotechnology,which they cannot do if access to such technology isdenied to them.

An excellent example of the perils of the biotechnologydebate is vitamin A rice. The International Rice Research

Institute (IRRI) considers rice enriched with vitamin Athrough genetic modification to be an exciting newoption provided by biotechnology. However, manymonths of research are still required to establish whetherthis so-called Golden Rice will ever make it into thebowls of rice consumers.

Even before we get to questions on food safety, we mustfind out if rice enriched with vitamin A will yield well, ifit will be resistant to pests and diseases, and if it willaffect other functions of the rice plant. Then there are still more important questions to be answered inrelation to food safety, consumer acceptability, andbiodigestibility.

However, such is the media hype over Golden Rice thatthe debate is increasingly focused on whether it should beallowed on consumer tables, when we still have notanswered far more basic production and developmentquestions. Unless common sense prevails, vitamin A ricemay be an idea proposed and rejected, even before weknow if it is possible.

DECODING THE RICE GENOME

As for the decoding of the rice genome, clearly it signals anew era not only in the sharing of knowledge for thebenefit of mankind by the private sector but also in theuse of science to help the poor. However, it is importantto stress that despite the great significance of thesequencing work announced by two groups on April 5 ofthis year, a complete understanding of the rice genomehas still not been reached.

The information we have now will be combined with acomplete rice genome sequence being compiled by thepublic International Rice Genome Sequencing Project(IRGSP) coordinated by the Japan Rice GenomeProgram. This finely detailed IRGSP sequence — whichwill have an error rate of less than 0.01 percent — isexpected to be published by the end of this year and willbecome the gold standard for all future investigations ofgenetic variation in all crops, not just rice. Knowing thesequence of specific genes will allow us to tap into thenatural genetic variation of almost any crop species.

Although achieving food security in any country requiresa multitude of social and economic solutions, the newknowledge derived from genomics research will make avitally important contribution. The challenge ahead forthe plant research community is to design efficient, freely

25Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

available ways to tap into the wealth of rice genomesequence information we now have to address productionconstraints in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Perhaps like no other crop, therefore, rice needs a strong,well-resourced public research effort. Public institutionslike the IRRI are firmly focused on maintaining theirroles as “honest brokers” — ensuring that rice farmersand consumers get the best deal and the best optionsoffered by science and the private sector, while helpingcompanies find ways to get the returns they need tosupport the further development of their activities andthe rice industry.

To give just one, crucially important, example, the nextstep after the decoding of the rice genome will be to startto identify gene functions in rice. Which gene gives riceits color? Its flavor? Makes it grow well in water? Ormakes it grow well when it doesn’t rain? Once thesefunctions have been identified they can be patented.

ADDRESSING REMAINING PROBLEMS

IRRI’s role here as a broker is clear. Even though suchgene function research will require a major investment,this should not prevent poor farmers from having accessto any important breakthroughs. It is understandable

that, if left to the private sector, the focus will be ongaining a return on such research. But, clearly, the firstpriority should not be profit, but what will best help themillions of poor rice farmers of the world prosper anddevelop.

As we continue to grapple with the problems of notenough land, labor, water, and income for the world’smost important economic activity, it’s clear that,ultimately, we will have the knowledge, skills, and toolswe need to solve them. Perhaps the real challenge will notbe in finding the answers, but in ensuring that thetechnologies and opportunities that in many cases arealready taken for granted in developed world agriculturecan finally reach the rice farmers of the developing world.Doing this will require resources, commitment, andvision. The Green Revolution showed that rice researchcan help solve even our biggest and most difficultproblems. What we need now are the same resources,commitment, and vision to finally solve the big problemsthat remain. ❏

Note: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflectthe views or policies of the U.S. Department of State.

26

By Ellen Matten, International Policy Analyst, U.S. Codex Office

International trade in food increased dramatically in the20th century. At the same time, countries independentlyadopted different sets of food laws and standards, givingrise to trade barriers that have been of increasing concernto food traders.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) wascreated in 1962 by two United Nations organizations —the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and theWorld Health Organization (WHO) — as a result ofthese concerns. Organizers felt that if all countriesharmonized their food laws and adopted internationallyagreed standards, such issues would be dealt withnaturally. Through harmonization, they envisaged fewerbarriers to trade and a freer movement of food productsamong countries, which would benefit farmers and theirfamilies and help reduce hunger and poverty. Codex hasbecome the major international mechanism forencouraging fair international trade in food whilepromoting the health and economic interests ofconsumers.

Codex has special relevance to the ever-expanding globalfood market. The advantages of having universallyuniform food standards to protect consumers are evident.

(continued on next page)

By Kristin Dawkins, Vice President, and Neil Sorensen,Program Associate, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

The United States has long been the world’s preeminentleader in the development of food safety laws andregulations. In 1902 the U.S. Congress appropriatedmoney to study the effects of chemical preservatives andcolors on digestion and health. Public support for federalfood and drug laws has been growing ever since.

In 1906 President Theodore Roosevelt signed the WileyAct, making it illegal to distribute any mislabeled oradulterated foods or drugs. In 1943, in U.S. v.Dotterweich, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that theresponsible officials of a corporation and the corporationitself may be prosecuted for violations of food and druglaws. The 1954 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Actestablished the Delaney Clause, which banned pesticideresidues or food additives that had been found to becarcinogenic in animals. President John F. Kennedy in1962 called on Congress to develop a Consumer Bill ofRights that included the right to safety, the right tochoose, the right to be heard, and the right to beinformed. In 1966 the United States passed the FairPackaging and Labeling Act, requiring that all consumerproducts in interstate commerce be honestly andinformatively labeled. With respect to conventional

(continued on page 29)

Few food issues have elicited as much controversy as has labeling. While all agree that consumers around the world should haveaccurate information about the nutritional content of their food, the exact nature of what food labels should include is at theheart of international negotiations within the Codex Alimentarius Commission — a joint body of the Food and AgricultureOrganization and World Health Organization charged with reaching common agreement on key food safety issues.

Two opposing views follow to provide a full picture of the shape of the discussion in the United States. Ellen Matten,international policy analyst in the U.S. Office of Codex, argues that labels that show the country of origin of individualingredients of food would be burdensome — particularly for developing country exporters — and provide no additional safetybenefits to consumers. She also suggests that labels on genetically engineered foods, where there is no evidence that thecomposition, nutritional value, or intended use of the food has been altered, have the potential to be perceived by manyconsumers as a warning that the product is unsafe. Kristin Dawkins and Neil Sorensen of the Institute for Agriculture andTrade Policy say that the lack of information on the long-term health effects of genetically engineered foods argues formandatory labeling.

FOOD LABELING INCODEX ALIMENTARUS

LABELING AND TRACEABILITYOF BIOENGINEERED FOODS

TWO VIEWS ON FOOD LABELING

27

The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary andPhytosanitary Measures (SPS) and the Agreement onTechnical Barriers to Trade (TBT) both encourage theinternational harmonization of food standards. A productof the Uruguay Round of multinational tradenegotiations, the SPS agreement cites Codex standards,guidelines, and recommendations as the preferredinternational measures for facilitating international tradein food. Codex standards have become the benchmarksagainst which national food measures and regulations areevaluated within the legal parameters of the UruguayRound Agreements.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission established theCodex Committee on Food Labeling in 1965. Thecommission recognized that food labeling is the primarymeans of communication between the producer and sellerof food on one hand, and the purchaser and consumer onthe other. The committee tackles tough issues wheremultiple labeling regimes may cause barriers to trade.Issues currently before the committee include country oforigin labeling, labeling of foods derived from modernbiotechnology, and misleading food labels.

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING

Many countries have a “country of origin” labelingrequirement for food products sold in their country. Inthe existing Codex General Standard for the Labeling ofPrepackaged Foods, there is a requirement for country oforigin labeling where its omission would mislead ordeceive the consumer. Most countries, including theUnited States, already have in place regulatoryrequirements for country of origin labeling of food.

Discussions are currently taking place in the CodexCommittee on Food Labeling (CCFL) about whether toexpand current requirements and mandate that countryof origin labeling include labeling ingredients ofcomposite foods. Some countries feel this would beburdensome, impractical, and provide no additionalbenefit to the consumer. And there is no evidence towarrant these changes because of food safety concerns.

Expanding country of origin labeling requirementsbeyond the origin of the food to the food’s ingredients isparticularly troublesome to some countries, including theUnited States. Ingredients may be sourced from suppliersin different countries during different times of the year orfrom multiple countries and then commingled. Variationsin ingredient availability as well as quality affect usage

and manufacturing decisions by food companies.Ingredient manufacturers, brokers, and food processorsand manufacturers would be required to segregateingredients from different countries in order to ensureproper compliance with ingredient origin labelingrequirements and to maintain a myriad of labels tocorrespond to every possible mix or combination ofsources of ingredients. This would be particularlyburdensome for less developed countries.

Because of this, work on international harmonization ofrules of origin has been under way for several years in theWorld Trade Organization (WTO), with technicalassistance from the World Customs Organization, as partof the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin concluded in1994.

Existing international trade rules under the WTOAgreement on Technical Barriers to Trade prohibittechnical regulations — including labeling requirements— from creating unnecessary obstacles to internationaltrade. Regulations may not be more restrictive thannecessary to fulfill certain identified legitimate objectives.Expanded mandatory country of origin labelingrequirements would most likely create an unnecessaryobstacle to trade with no legitimate or internationallyrecognized justification.

LABELING OF FOOD DERIVED FROM MODERN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Perhaps the most complex and controversial labeling issuein the international arena is the labeling of foods derivedthrough modern biotechnology. Within the CodexCommittee on Food Labeling there appears to beconsensus that labeling is needed for foods derived frommodern technology when there are significant changes incomposition, nutritional value, or intended use and it isimportant to provide such information to consumers.The CCFL has achieved a consensus on the labeling ofallergens in foods derived from modern biotechnologyand believes that such provisions provide considerableassistance to and protection for consumers. However,there is no consensus among Codex countries about amandatory process-based labeling of foods derived frommodern biotechnology.

Some countries believe that a mandatory process-basedlabel on genetically engineered food may be perceived bymany consumers as a warning label that the product isunsafe, and therefore could be misleading and

Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

inappropriate as a mandatory international guideline.Foods derived from biotechnology are not inherently lesssafe than other foods.

These same countries are concerned that the text of draftguidelines the committee is developing fails to address thepractical implications that must be considered bycountries before mandatory process-based labeling isimplemented. More specifically, the text fails to addressmany technical matters that are as yet unresolved and arepotentially problematic in the implementation of suchlabeling. The United States believes that the CCFLshould more carefully and more thoroughly explore andconsider the numerous and potentially problematicimplications of any process-based labeling beforerecommending such an approach for an internationalstandard.

MISLEADING FOOD LABELS

Consumers around the world increasingly have access tonew food products and information about food. Whilethis is generally positive, it has raised concerns thatconsumers could be mislead by food labels. This topic isvery important to Codex because of the potential formisleading food labels to adversely affect both consumerhealth and food trade. Truthful but misleadingcommunications may lead consumers to make incorrectinferences. Both the presence and absence of informationare relevant to whether labeling is misleading.

The influence of culture is particularly important inunderstanding why consumers in different countriesinterpret identical communications differently. Culturecan be defined as the values, preferences, and acceptablerules of behavior of a group — such as people within acountry or region — that are handed down from onegeneration to the next. Cultural differences influence the

type of inferences, if any, that consumers make when theyprocess a label statement, symbol, or image. Therefore, acommunication may result in misleading inferences inone culture but not in another. For example, consumersin one culture might perceive terms such as “premium”and “best” to imply superior quality, while consumers inanother culture might disregard such terms because theyview such statements as typical promotionalexaggerations.

Misleading communications often involve statements,symbols, or images that are literally true but leadconsumers to make false inferences. The interpretation ofmisleading claims may be affected by factors such asculture, knowledge and education, and labelcharacteristics. A label that is misleading to one group orculture may not be misleading to another. Labels can bemisleading because a material fact has been omitted,confusing language or symbols are used, consumers makeincorrect inferences to an attribute that is the subject of aclaim, consumers make incorrect inferences tounmentioned attributes, or an endorser is improperlyused. Misleading representations on the food label can beprevented, for example, by requiring additionalinformation, by establishing standards, or by prohibitingrepresentations that are judged inherently misleading.

In the future, Codex and the CCFL will continue toelaborate recommendations, guidelines, and standards inthe area of food labeling in response to their mandate toimprove communications between food producers andsellers, and purchasers and consumers. Perhaps then somebarriers to trade will be removed and a freer movement offoods among countries will take place, which will be ofbenefit to farmers and their families and help reducehunger and poverty. ❏

28

(Dawkins/Sorensen, from page 26)

foods, the Food and Drug Administration has effectivelyimplemented this law.

The significance of U.S. leadership in food safety issuesshould not be underestimated, nor should the role of theUnited States as the world’s leader and innovator insound policies toward biosafety and consumer protectionbe diminished. Now more than ever, the United Statesshould follow the path it inaugurated long ago andinstitute the most comprehensive and stringentregulations possible to protect the health and safety ofevery American, and ultimately of everyone in the world.

ENSURING ADEQUATE PROTECTIONS

With advances in agricultural biotechnology, it wouldbehoove the United States to enhance existing foodregulations and launch across-the-board pre-market safetytesting, labeling, and traceability requirements for all foodproducts and animal feed. We are at the threshold of anew era in which scientists have broken the boundaries oflife forms and can extract, add, and manipulate geneticinformation in infinitely conceivable ways. With theseabilities comes an even greater responsibility to ensurethat adequate protections for the food supply aremaintained and to limit the possibility of any negativeconsequences that may result from the introduction offoreign genetic material. If we choose not to track theinputs and constitution of food and feed, we will not beable to correct potentially dangerous outcomes ordetermine sources of contamination, let alone complywith the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the bodyresponsible for compiling the standards, codes of practice,guidelines, and recommendations that constitute the“food code” — or Codex Alimentarius — for the WorldHealth Organization (WHO) and the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.The commission recommends that the “presence in anyfood or food ingredients obtained through biotechnologyof an allergen” from soybeans, milk and milk products,and many other foods known to be allergenic be labeledas such. The commission also recommends thatgenetically modified foods be subject to risk managementconsiderations in accordance with the draft Codex Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived fromModern Biotechnology before consideration for commercialdistribution.

The standards for safety assessment are characterized by acomparison between bioengineered whole foods or theircomponents relative to the traditionally cultivatedvarieties. The standards attempt to take into account bothintended and unintended effects to identify new oraltered hazards and changes in key nutrients. Riskmanagement practices should, the draft standards say, at aminimum include the verification of conclusions aboutthe absence or the possible occurrence, impact, andsignificance of potential consumer health effects, andshould monitor changes in nutrient intake levels todetermine their human health impact.

Further, the Codex Draft Guidelines for the Conduct ofFood Safety Assessment of Foods Derived From RecombinantDNA Plants states that “animal studies cannot readily beapplied to testing the risks associated with whole foods,which are complex mixtures of compounds, oftencharacterized by a wide variation in composition andnutritional value.” The guidelines continue to say that“detecting any potential adverse effects and relating theseconclusively to an individual characteristic of the foodcan therefore be extremely difficult.”

THE FDA AND SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE

In stark contrast to the draft Codex guidelines, the U.S.Food and Drug Administration (FDA) performs safetytesting only on animals, particularly mice. The resultinginformation is used to justify the doctrine of substantialequivalence, which, according to a 1992 Federal Registernotice, means that the FDA regulates bioengineered foodsby applying rules identical to those governing plantsdeveloped by traditional plant breeding. A jointFAO/WHO report by the Expert Consultation on FoodsDerived from Biotechnology in June 2000 definedsubstantial equivalence much differently. The report’sauthors concluded that the notion of substantialequivalence is only a starting point, and that “furthersafety assessment will be focused on establishing the safetyof the differences in the new product such that the safetyof the food can be established.”

In 2001 the European Union (EU) abandoned thedoctrine of substantial equivalence, opting for morestringent scientific risk assessment. Actions to be carriedout by the new European Food Authority now coverenvironmental risk and human and animal health andsafety, and its opinions will be shared with the public forcomment. The EU then has a democratic procedure bywhich a majority of member states within the European

29

Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

Food Safety Authority Regulatory Committee vote toauthorize or refuse a product.

The FDA’s Voluntary Labeling Guidelines indicate thatmore than 50,000 comments about its policy regardingthe safety and labeling of bioengineered foods have beenreceived, and the vast majority of the comments are infavor of mandatory disclosure of genetically modifiedfoods. The guidelines dismissed concern about thepossible long-term consequences of bioengineered foodson health and the environment, concluding that “thecomments were mainly expressions of concern about theunknown.” That being said, the FDA’s strategy for safetyassessment and risk management has not attempted tosubstantiate the material facts of bioengineered foods andfood safety. Furthermore, the FDA claims that“appropriately validated testing methods are not currentlyavailable for many foods,” when, in fact, rapidquantitative tests are now common and inexpensive.

Many major U.S. trading partners have instituted labelingregimes for genetically modified foods and feed. Mostnotably, the European Union and China will requirelabeling and stringent traceability requirements,threatening the livelihoods of U.S. farmers and businesseswho have already suffered as a result of the lack ofregulatory oversight of biotechnology.

PRESCRIPTION FOR THE UNITED STATES

In sum, the United States should adopt a comprehensivepre-market safety testing, labeling, and traceability regimefor bioengineered foods and feed to protect the healthand safety of its citizenry and the environment and toensure continued trade with our major economicpartners. The United States has the responsibility tocontinue its leadership role in the development of soundpolicies for food safety around the world. In the case ofgenetically modified foods, the United States is quicklyfalling behind.

The doctrine of substantial equivalence should beabandoned, and the safety assessment and riskmanagement strategies contained in the draft principlesand guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius Commissionshould be formally adopted by the U.S. government andexpanded upon. ❏

Note: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflectthe views or policies of the U.S. Department of State.

30

31

Food processes that retard the deterioration of foods andprolong shelf life make an important contribution to worldfood security by providing consumers with foods whose safetyand nutritional quality are unquestioned, says TimothyWillard, vice president of communications for the NationalFood Processors Association. Williard discusses suchtechnologies as aseptic packaging, irradiation, ultra-highpressure processing, pulse light and ultraviolet light, as well asseveral food safety management systems.

Any discussion of the world’s food supply — and ofproviding safe and nutritious food to consumers in allnations — should emphasize the importance of foodsafety, as well as the critical role of food processingtechnologies, in ensuring food security and safety for theworld’s chronic hungry.

A primary goal of food processing is to retard thedeterioration of foods and prolong shelf life. Manyprocesses — canning, for example — transformperishable foods into products that are stable, nutritious,and safe for years.

The food processing industry shares a common goal bothwith U.S. government food agencies and withinternational bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius ofensuring that consumers are provided with safe andnutritious foods and that the laws and regulationsgoverning food and food safety are based on soundscience. It is science — applied to the production,processing, packaging, and distribution of foods — thatallows us to produce safe, wholesome, and nutritiousproducts. A science-based approach to global foodsecurity should include the entire food chain, from farmto table, and effective consumer education on food safety.

Cooperative efforts between the food industry andnational and international regulatory bodies are critical. Itis in everyone’s best interest that the status and credibilityof these agencies are enhanced. We must educateconsumers on the rigorous safety activities undertakenboth by the food processing industry and by theregulatory agencies so that they have confidence in thesafety of the food supply.

Too often food safety is not included in discussions ofworld food security. In industrialized nations, theadequacy and safety of the food supply often is taken forgranted by consumers. In developing countries, however,having an adequate and safe food supply — particularlyfor children — is a critical issue.

Food processing in all its various forms bringsimmeasurable benefits in terms of availability, shelf-life,and safety. This is important for safely feeding nations inwhich spoilage and other forms of damage anddeterioration pose serious problems. Moreover, sinceprocessed products of all types retain their nutrients foran extended time, they are often the best way to providecountries experiencing chronic food shortages with anadequate supply of nutritious products.

FOOD PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

New food processing technologies can help enhanceworld food security and food safety. New technologiesalready in use — and some now moving from theresearch stage to implementation — include thefollowing:

• Aseptic (germ free) packaging, which greatly increasesthe safe shelf life of various foods without requiringrefrigeration. The uses of aseptic packaging are expandingfrom beverages into semi-solid foods such as stews. Thesedevelopments in aseptic packaging are the result of strongcollaborative efforts between U.S. and Europeanresearchers.

• Food irradiation, not a new technology but oneincreasingly used by both industrialized and developingcountries, can reduce post-harvest loss of agriculturalproducts resulting from insect infestation or microbialspoilage. Irradiation is also an important food safety toolbecause it destroys food-borne pathogens such assalmonella and E coli. And it can extend the shelf-life ofperishable fruits, vegetables, meats, and poultry.Irradiation is a safe and economical technology that hasbeen approved in more than 40 countries around theworld and endorsed by international bodies such as theWorld Health Organization (WHO).

❏ PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES TO PROTECT FOODBy Timothy Willard, Vice President of Communications, National Food Processors Association

• Ultra-high pressure processing, in which food is packedin a flexible pouch and exposed to high-pressureatmosphere — the equivalent of 100,000 times thepressure of air in the Earth’s atmosphere. High pressureprocessing pasteurizes a product, making it safer andshelf-stable. A U.S.-Mexico joint research processdeveloped a shelf-stable guacamole mix that is nowcommercially available in both countries.

• Pulse light, a process in which foods are exposed tohigh-intensity light — many times the intensity ofsunlight — that “surface sanitizes” food products such asfruits, vegetables, and non-ground meats.

• Ultraviolet light (UVL), which is being used topasteurize food products such as fruit juices. Juices exposedto UVL can be pasteurized without heat treatment (such ascold pasteurization), rendering the juices safer and, incertain cases, eliminating the need for preservatives.

• Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)systems, a cutting-edge food safety managementtechnology, which identify the critical control points infood production and correct potential safety problemsbefore they occur. HACCP embraces the use of basicsanitation and food preparation practices that allow forthe manufacture of safe, wholesome food. For example,the proper handling of ingredients and thorough cleaningof equipment after foods have been processed helps foodcompanies to control the use of any ingredients to whichcertain consumers may be allergic (such as nuts or milk)and to ensure that they are not inadvertently included,even in trace amounts, in food products in which theirpresence is not intended.

SELECTING APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES

While the gains from these new technologies areimpressive, it is important to point out that oldertechnologies or approaches to food safety can pay strongbenefits in advancing food safety and security indeveloping nations. The introduction of traditionalprocesses such as canning can dramatically enhance foodsafety in countries where such technologies or practicespreviously have not been widely used. For example, mostcanned tuna sold commercially in the United States isprocessed and canned in Thailand, whose food industryand national economy have benefited mightily from theestablishment of wide-scale commercial canningoperations. In developing nations, the focus should benot on finding the newest technology to enhance food

safety, but on adopting the most appropriate technologygiven the country’s needs and resources.

Also, it can be difficult to establish and use moreinnovative food processing technologies in developingcountries because of the need for clean water for the safemanufacture of foods, processes for ensuring the safety ofraw ingredients used, and adequate education in foodsafety, for workers in food plants. These considerationsinvolve larger societal challenges in developing countries— in the country’s education system, for example, or inits water supply infrastructure.

Food safety research should be a collaborative processinvolving both developed and developing countries. Wemust involve various scientific organizations and varyingperspectives in addressing food safety issues and inresearching methods to enhance food safety and foodsecurity worldwide

Obviously, proper consumer education programs are partand parcel of new science-based processes. Consumersmust understand the benefits of pesticides, biotechnology,and irradiation if we are to achieve the world’s foodsecurity goals.

Food processing, and its attendant food safety benefits, isan exportable technology. As this technology istransferred and more countries around the world becomeinvolved in food processing, they will be able to providesafer, shelf-stable products for their citizens, therebycontributing much to their own food security. Suchnations also may eventually be able to export processedfood products themselves, thus not only enhancing theireconomic status and involvement in world trade but alsocontributing to overall world food security.

The U.S. food processing industry is fully prepared tohelp educate consumers and government officials aroundthe world about current and new food processingtechnologies and to provide technical and operationalassistance to countries willing to support the food securitygoals of the world.

Note: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflectthe views or policies of the U.S. Department of State.

Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002 32

33

FACTS AND FIGURES

❏ AGRICULTURAL TRADE

World Trade in Agricultural Products, 2000 — $558 billionTop 15 Agricultural Exporters and Importers, 2000

Exporters Value World share$1,000,000 percent

United States 70.87 12.7France 36.52 6.5Canada 34.79 6.2Netherlands 34.14 6.1Germany 27.76 5.0Belgium 19.86 3.6Spain 16.88 3.0United Kingdom 16.67 3.0China 16.38 2.9Australia 16.37 2.9Italy 16.09 2.9Brazil 15.47 2.8Thailand 13.28 2.4Argentinaa 11.97 2.2Denmark 10.94 2.0

Total Above 15 357.98 64.2

Importers Value World share1,000,000 percent

United States 66.69 11.0Japan 62.19 10.3Germany 41.54 6.9United Kingdom 32.49 5.4France 30.39 5.0Italy 29.39 4.9Netherlands 20.90 3.5China 19.54 3.2Belgium 18.52 3.1Spain 16.98 2.8Canadab 15.27 2.5Korea, Republic of 12.99 2.1Hong Kong, China 11.73 —

retained imports 6.52 1.1Mexicob 11.06 1.8

Importers Value World share1,000,000 percent

Russiac 9.87 1.6

Total Above 15 394.32 65.2

a 1999 instead of 2000b Imports values at f.o.b. (free on board) where the seller pays for having goods packaged for shipment from a certain f.o.b.point.c Includes World Trade Organization (WTO) Secretariat estimates.

Source: WTO Trade Statistics 2001.

Agricultural Products Share In Trade, 2000Share in Total Merchandise, Percent

Exports Imports

World 9.0 9.0North America 10.0 5.9Latin America 18.4 9.0Western Europe 9.4 10.0Central/Eastern Europe/

Baltics/Former Soviet Union 8.9 10.7Africa 12.9 15.1Middle East 2.4 13.1Asia 6.5 9.4

Source: WTO Trade Statistics 2001.

34

35

U.S. Agricultural Exports by Region(millions of dollars)

2001 2002 est.

Western Europe 6,779 7,000European Union 6,267 6,600

Belgium-Luxembourg 626 —France 352 —Germany 906 —Italy 508 —Netherlands 1,397 —United Kingdom 1,051 —Portugal 138 —Spain, incl. Canary Islands 591 —

Other Western Europe 512 400Switzerland 422 —

Eastern Europe 191 200 Poland 83 —Former Yugoslavia 34 —Romania 24 —

Former Soviet Union 1,029 1,300Russia 823 1,100

Asia 22,321 23,100West Asia (Mideast) 2,194 2,100

Turkey 569 600Iraq 8 —Israel, incl. Gaza and West Bank 436 —Saudi Arabia 470 500

South Asia 571 700Bangladesh 105 —India 294 —Pakistan 97 —

China 1,884 2,300Japan 8,953 9,000Southeast Asia 2,923 2,900

Indonesia 879 900Philippines 836 800

Other East Asia 5,796 6,100Korea, Republic of 2,552 2,800Hong Kong 1,253 1,300Taiwan 1,985 2,000

(continued)

2001 2002 est.

Africa 2,125 2,100North Africa 1,467 1,500

Morocco 120 —Algeria 211 —Egypt 1,008 1,100

Sub-Sahara 659 600Nigeria 233 —South Africa 108 —

Latin America and Caribbean 11,572 11,600Brazil 219 200Caribbean Islands 1,399 1,300Central America 1,185 1,100Colombia 442 400Mexico 7,289 7,600Peru 182 —Venezuela 416 400

Canada 8,011 8,500

Oceania 473 500

Total 52,783 54,500

Based on fiscal year beginning October 1 and ending September 30. Austria, Finland, and Sweden are included in theEuropean Union.

Source: Agricultural Outlook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, March 2002.

36

37

Import Tariffs by Processed Food Sector, Percent

Meats Dairy Veg. oils Sugar Otherproducts and fats

Canada 28.0 214.8 8.6 4.9 14.1United States 4.7 42.5 4.3 53.4 11.4Mexico 48.5 37.5 19.2 4.1 17.9Rest of Americas 14.9 20.4 13.9 17.0 15.7Australia/

New Zealand 3.8 3.0 2.6 1.4 5.1Japan 48.8 287.0 6.6 116.1 38.3Rest of Asia 16.2 18.9 31.6 18.4 20.5 European Union 11.3 6.5 5.1 36.2 9.2

Source: How Would Food Markets Be Affected By Liberalizing Trade in Processed Foods? Working Paper,U.S. International Trade Commission, August 2001.

Import Tariffs by Farm Sector, Percent

Rice Wheat Other Oil Sugar Veg., Live- Wool,Grains Seeds Crops Fruits, stock Silk

Nuts

Canada 0.0 62.8 8.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 17.7 2.3United States 4.9 2.6 0.6 17.7 0.7 4.7 0.7 0.9Mexico 15.0 67.0 38.4 3.1 23.0 17.9 10.2 8.2Rest of Americas 19.6 5.8 11.2 6.7 11.1 13.0 7.7 10.8Australia/

New Zealand 0.8 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.0 1.7 0.3 0.6Japan 409.0 249.2 20.2 76.4 0.0 44.9 26.1 54.7Rest of Asia 3.8 15.5 130.8 64.8 7.7 24.8 9.2 13.3European Union 43.1 10.7 8.3 0.0 110.8 5.5 4.2 0.0

Source: How Would Food Markets Be Affected By Liberalizing Trade in Processed Foods? Working Paper, U.S. InternationalTrade Commission, August 2001.

38

Amounts of Arable Landby Country

(hectares per capita)

1979-81 1997-99

Afghanistan 0.50 0.32Albania 0.22 0.17Algeria 0.37 0.26Angola 0.41 0.24Argentina 0.89 0.69Armenia -- 0.13Australia 2.97 2.69Austria 0.20 0.17Azerbaijan -- 0.21Bangladesh 0.10 0.06Belarus -- 0.61Belgium, Luxembourg 0.08 0.08Benin 0.43 0.29Bolivia 0.35 0.24Bosnia and Herzegovina -- 0.13Botswana 0.44 0.22Brazil 0.32 0.32Bulgaria 0.43 0.52Burkina Faso 0.39 0.32Burundi 0.22 0.12Cambodia 0.29 0.32Cameroon 0.68 0.42Canada 1.86 1.51Central African Republic 0.81 0.54Chad 0.70 0.48Chile 0.34 0.13China 0.10 0.10

Hong Kong, China 0.00 0.00Colombia 0.13 0.05Congo, Dem. Republic 0.25 0.14Congo, Republic 0.08 0.06Costa Rica 0.12 0.06Côte d'Ivoire 0.24 0.19Croatia -- 0.32Cuba 0.27 0.33Czech Republic -- 0.30Denmark 0.52 0.44Dominican Republic 0.19 0.13Ecuador 0.20 0.13Egypt 0.06 0.05El Salvador 0.12 0.09Eritrea -- 0.12Estonia -- 0.80Ethiopia -- 0.16Finland 0.50 0.42

39

1979-81 1997-99

France 0.32 0.31Gabon 0.42 0.28Gambia, The 0.26 0.16Georgia -- 0.15Germany 0.15 0.14Ghana 0.18 0.20Greece 0.30 0.26Guatemala 0.19 0.13Guinea 0.16 0.12Guinea-Bissau 0.34 0.26Haiti 0.10 0.07Honduras 0.44 0.25Hungary 0.47 0.48India 0.24 0.17Indonesia 0.12 0.09Iran 0.36 0.27Iraq 0.40 0.23Ireland 0.33 0.29Israel 0.08 0.06Italy 0.17 0.15Jamaica 0.06 0.07Japan 0.04 0.04Jordan 0.14 0.05Kazakhstan -- 1.99Kenya 0.23 0.14Korea, Dem. Republic 0.09 0.08Korea, Republic 0.05 0.04Kuwait 0.00 0.00Kyrgyz Republic -- 0.28Lao, People's Dem. Rep. 0.24 0.17Latvia -- 0.75Lebanon 0.07 0.04Lesotho 0.22 0.16Liberia 0.07 0.06Libya 0.58 0.37Lithuania -- 0.79Macedonia -- 0.29Madagascar 0.28 0.18Malawi 0.25 0.19Malaysia 0.07 0.08Mali 0.31 0.45Mauritania 0.14 0.20Mauritius 0.10 0.09Mexico 0.34 0.26Moldova -- 0.42Mongolia 0.71 0.56Morocco 0.39 0.32Mozambique 0.24 0.18

40

1979-81 1997-99

Myanmar 0.28 0.21Namibia 0.66 0.49Nepal 0.16 0.13Netherlands 0.06 0.06New Zealand 0.80 0.41Nicaragua 0.39 0.51Niger 0.62 0.49Nigeria 0.39 0.23Norway 0.20 0.20Oman 0.01 0.01Pakistan 0.24 0.16Panama 0.22 0.18Papua New Guinea 0.01 0.01Paraguay 0.52 0.42Peru 0.19 0.15Philippines 0.11 0.08Poland 0.41 0.36Portugal 0.25 0.19Puerto Rico 0.02 0.01Romania 0.44 0.41Russia -- 0.86Rwanda 0.15 0.10Saudi Arabia 0.20 0.18Senegal 0.42 0.25Sierra Leone 0.14 0.10Singapore 0.00 0.00Slovak Republic -- 0.27Slovenia -- 0.09Somalia 0.15 0.13South Africa 0.45 0.36Spain 0.42 0.35Sri Lanka 0.06 0.05Sudan 0.64 0.56Swaziland 0.30 0.17Sweden 0.36 0.31Switzerland 0.06 0.06Syria 0.60 0.31Tajikistan -- 0.12Tanzania 0.16 0.12Thailand 0.35 0.25Togo 0.77 0.52Trinidad and Tobago 0.06 0.06Tunisia 0.51 0.31Turkey 0.57 0.40Turkmenistan -- 0.33Uganda 0.32 0.24Ukraine -- 0.65United Arab Emirates 0.01 0.03

41Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

1979-81 1997-99

United Kingdom 0.12 0.10United States 0.83 0.64Uruguay 0.48 0.38Uzbekistan -- 0.19Venezuela 0.19 0.11Vietnam 0.11 0.07West Bank and Gaza -- --Yemen 0.16 0.09Yugoslavia 0.73 --Zambia 0.89 0.54Zimbabwe 0.35 0.27

Low Income 0.22 0.18Middle Income 0.18 0.22Lower Middle Income 0.13 0.20Upper Middle Income 0.34 0.29High Income 0.46 0.40East Asia, Pacific 0.12 0.10Europe, Central Asia 0.16 0.59Latin America, Caribbean 0.32 0.27Middle East, North Africa 0.29 0.20South Asia 0.23 0.16Sub-Saharan Africa 0.32 0.24Europe EMU 0.23 0.21

Source: World Development Indicators, 2002, The World Bank.

U.S. Agency for International Developmentwww.usaid.gov/hum_response/

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Serviceaphis.usda.gov

Economic Research Servicewww.ers.usda.gov

Economics and Statistics Systemusda.mannlib.cornell.edu

Food and Nutrition Information Centerwww.nal.usda.gov/fnic

Food Safety and Inspection Servicefsis.usda.gov/index.htm

Foreign Agricultural Service/Food Aid Programswww.fas.usda.gov/food-aid.html

Grain Inspection, Packers and StockyardsAdministration

usda.gov/gipsa/

National Agricultural Librarywww.nal.usda.gov

U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesFood and Drug AdministrationCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutritioncfsan.fda.gov/list.html

www.FoodSafety.govwww.foodsafety.gov

U.S. House of Representatives Committee onAgriculture agriculture.house.gov

U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, andForestryagriculture.senate.gov

42

INFORMATION RESOURCES

KEY CONTACTS AND INTERNET SITES

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

AgWeb.comAgWeb.com is an online news service for farmers,ranchers, and growers.www.agweb.com

American Farm Bureau FederationThe American Farm Bureau Federation is the largest farmorganization in the United States with more than 5million members in the U.S. states and Puerto Rico. Itsmission is to undertake programs that will improve thefinancial well-being and quality of life for farmers andranchers.www.fb.com225 Touhy AvePark Ridge IL 60068Tel: (847) 685-8600Fax: (847) 685-8896

Bread for the WorldBread for the World is a nonpartisan advocacy networkon domestic and international hunger issues. Its partnerorganization, Bread for the World Institute, carries outresearch and education on the causes of and solutions forhunger.www.bread.org50 F St NW Suite 500Washington DC 20001Tel (202) 639-9400Fax (202) 639-9401

ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH ORGANIZATION

43

Center for Agricultural BiotechnologyThe Center for Agricultural Biotechnology (CAB) is oneof five research centers of the University of MarylandBiotechnology Institute. CAB’s mission within the field ofagricultural biotechnology is basic and applied research,education and training, and economic development.www.umbi.umd.edu/~cab/5115 Plant Sciences BldgUniversity of MarylandCollege Park MD 20742-4450Tel (301) 405-1581Fax (301) 314-9075

Center for Food and Nutrition Policy The mission of the center is to advance rational, science-based food and nutrition policy through research,outreach, public service, teaching, and communications.The center conducts seminars and conferences presentedglobally for corporate executives and senior public policy-makers on issues related to food and nutrition. It alsoconducts a graduate program that awards master’s degreesin public policy.www.ceresnet.orgVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University1101 King StAlexandria VA 22314-2944Tel (703) 535-8230Fax (703) 535-8234

CropLife AmericaCropLife America promotes the environmentally sounduse of crop protection products for the economicalproduction of safe, high-quality, abundant food, fiber, andother crops.www.croplifeamerica.org1156 15 St NW Suite 400Washington DC 20005Tel (202) 296-1585Fax (202) 463-0474

Food and Agricultural Policy Research InstituteThe Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute(FAPRI) provides economic analysis for policy-makers,opinion leaders, and stakeholders in U.S. agriculture.FAPRI programs are conducted cooperatively by IowaState University’s Center for Agricultural and RuralDevelopment (CARD) and the University of Missouri-Columbia.www.fapri.orgwww.missouri.eduIowa State University578 Heady HallAmes IA 50011-107Tel (515) 294-1183Fax (515) 294-6336University of Missouri-ColumbiaColumbia MO 65211Tel (573) 882-2121

Freeman Center for International Economic PolicyThe Freeman Center focuses on global economic issues,monetary issues, the international competitiveness ofagriculture, economic integration of the WesternHemisphere, and economic reform.www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/freeman/Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public AffairsUniversity of Minnesota301 19 Ave SMinneapolis MN 55455Tel (612) 626-0564Fax (612) 624-9084

Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Program on FoodSafety and AnalysisA main goal of the program is to inform legislators,community leaders, corporate officials, and journalistsabout the importance of risk analysis in the promotion ofa safe food supply. www.hcra.harvard.edu/food.html718 Huntington AveBoston MA 02115-5924 Tel (617) 432-4497/4345Fax (617) 432-0190

44

National Food Processors AssociationThe National Food Processors Association (NFPA)represents the U.S. food processing industry on scientificand public policy issues involving food safety, nutrition,technical and regulatory matters and consumer affairs.NFPA members produce processed and packaged fruit,vegetable, and grain products, meat, poultry, and seafood

products, snacks, drinks and juices, or provide suppliesand services to food manufacturers. www.nfpa-food.org1350 I St NW Suite 300Washington DC 20005Tel (202) 639-5900Fax (202) 639-5932

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Cairns GroupThe Cairns Group is a coalition of 18 agriculturalexporting countries that account for one-third of theworld’s agricultural exports. Members are: Argentina,Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, CostaRica, Fiji, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand,Paraguay, the Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, andUruguay.www.cairnsgroup.org

Codex Alimentarius CommissionThe Codex Alimentaris system presents an opportunityfor all countries to join the international community informulating and harmonizing food standards and ensuringtheir global implementation. It also allows them a role inthe development of codes governing hygienic processingpractices and recommendations relating to compliancewith those standards.www.codexalimentarius.net/U.S. Manager for CodexU.S. Department of AgricultureFood Safety and Inspection ServiceRoom 4861 South Bldg1400 Independence Ave SWWashington DC 20250Tel (202) 205-7760Fax (202) 720-3157

Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR)The Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) is an association of public and privatemembers in more than 100 countries. CGIAR was createdin 1971 to mobilize cutting-edge science to reduce hungerand poverty, improve human nutrition and health, andprotect the environment. CGIAR’s research agendaincludes the entire range of problems affecting agriculturalproductivity and links these problems to broader concernsabout poverty reduction, sustainable management of

natural resources, protection of biodiversity, and ruraldevelopment. www.cgiar.orgCGIAR SecretariatThe World BankMSN G6-6011818 H St NWWashington DC 20433Tel (202) 473-8951Fax (202) 473-8110

Convention on Biological DiversityOne of the key agreements adopted at the 1992 EarthSummit in Rio de Janeiro was the Convention onBiological Diversity. This pact among the majority of theworld’s governments sets out commitments formaintaining the world’s ecological underpinnings in anenvironment of economic development. The conventionhas three main goals: the conservation of biologicaldiversity, the sustainable use of its components, and thefair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use ofgenetic resources.www.biodiv.orgSecretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity393 Saint Jacques St Suite 300Montreal Quebec CanadaH2Y 1N9Tel (514) 288-2220Fax (514) 288-6588

European Commission Directorate-General forAgriculturewww.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture

45

Food and Agriculture OrganizationThe Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, founded in 1945, has a mandate to raise levelsof nutrition and standards of living, to improveagricultural productivity, and to better the condition ofrural populations. FAO is one of the largest specializedagencies in the United Nations system and the leadagency for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and ruraldevelopment. An intergovernmental organization, FAOhas 183 member countries plus one memberorganization, the European Community.www.fao.orgSecretariat of the Joint FAO/WHOFood Standards ProgrammeFood and Agriculture OrganizationViale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome Italy Tel 39(06) 5705.1Fax 39(06) 5705.4593

International Food Information Council Foundation(IFIC)IFIC collects and disseminates scientific information onfood safety, nutrition, and health and works withscientific experts and through partnerships to helptranslate research into understandable and usefulinformation for opinion leaders and ultimately,consumers. IFIC focuses primarily on U.S. issues andparticipates in an informal network of independent foodinformation organizations in Europe, Asia, Australia,Canada, Japan, and Latin America.www.ific.org/food1100 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 430Washington DC 20036 Tel (202) 296-6540Fax (202) 296-6547

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute(IPGRI)IPGRI is an international research institute with amandate to advance the conservation and use of geneticdiversity for the well-being of present and futuregenerations. It is a center of the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR).www.ipgri.orgVia dei Tre Denari 472/a00057 MACCARESE (Fiumicino) ItalyTel (39) 06 6118406Fax (39) 06 61979661

International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)IRRI is a nonprofit agricultural research and trainingcenter established to improve the well-being of farmersand consumers, particularly those with low incomes. It isdedicated to helping farmers in developing countriesproduce more food on limited land using less water, lesslabor, and fewer chemical inputs, without harming theenvironment. www.irri.orgDAPO Box 7777Metro Manila PhilippinesTel (63-2) 845-0563/845-0569Fax (63-2) 845-0606

International Service for National Agricultural Research(ISNAR)Founded in 1979 and headquartered in The Hague, theNetherlands, ISNAR assists developing countries improvethe performance of their national agricultural researchsystems and organizations by promoting appropriateagricultural research policies, sustainable researchinstitutions, and improved research management.www.isnar.cgiar.orgPO Box 933752509 AJ The HagueThe NetherlandsTel 31-70-3496100Fax 31-70-3819677

Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD)Agriculture, Food and FisheriesOECD is an international organization that helpsgovernments deal with the economic, social andgovernance challenges of a globalized economy. OECDministers of agriculture support the long-term objectiveof substantial progressive reductions in support andprotection, have adopted a set of shared goals for theagro-food sector, and recognize that OECD’s analysis isan essential contribution to the understanding ofagricultural policies and their international impacts. www.oecd.orgwww.oecdwash.org2001 L St NW Suite 650Washington DC 20036-4922Tel (202) 785-6323Fax (202) 785-0350

46Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD)Agricultural Market Access Database (AMAD)AMAD results from a cooperative effort by Agricultureand AgriFood Canada; the European Commission,Agriculture Directorate-General; the Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations; theOrganization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment; the World Bank; the United NationsConference on Trade and Development; and the U.S.Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.www.amad.org

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development(UNCTAD)Standing Committee on Poverty AlleviationAt UNCTAD VIII, held in Cartagena, Columbia, in1992, a Standing Committee on Poverty Alleviation wascreated to contribute to national and international effortsto prevent, alleviate, and reduce poverty, particularlywhere it is more acute, as well as to formulate relatednational and international policies.www.unctad.org/en/subsites/povall/pamain.htm

World Aquaculture Society (WAS)WAS was founded to improve communication andinformation exchange among aquaculture interest groups.was.org/main/FrameMain.aspDelaware State UniversityDepartment of Agriculture and Natural Resources1200 N Dupont HighwayDover Deleware 19901-2277Tel (302) 857-6436Fax (302) 857-6430

World Food Program (WFP)Established in 1963, WFP is the United Nations’frontline agency in the fight against global hunger. In2000, WFP fed 83 million people in 83 countries,including most of the world’s refugees and internallydisplaced people.www.wfp.orgVia C.G.Viola 68Parco dei Medici00148 Rome ItalyTel 39-06-65131Fax 39-06-6513 2840

47

Charles, Daniel. Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money,and the Future of Food. Cambridge, Massachusetts: PerseusPublishing, 2001.

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Agricultural Policy Reform in the WTO: TheRoad Ahead. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, May 2001.

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Changing Structure of Global FoodConsumption and Trade. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Agriculture, May 2001.

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Food Aid: How Effective in Addressing FoodSecurity? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, February 2002.

Economic Research Service, U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Policy Options to Stabilize Food Supplies: ACase Study of Southern Africa. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Agriculture, May 2001.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). AgriculturalBiotechnology for Developing Countries: Results of anElectronic Forum. Rome, Italy: FAO, 2001.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Report of theTwenty-Seventh Session of the Committee on World FoodSecurity: Rome 28 May - 1 June 2001. Rome, Italy: FAO,June 23, 2001.

General Accounting Office (GAO). International Trade:Concerns Over Biotechnology Challenge U.S. AgriculturalExports. Washington, D.C.: GAO, June 2001.

Hanrahan, Charles E. Agricultural Export and Food AidPrograms. Washington, D.C.: Congressional ResearchService, January 2001.

Hanrahan, Charles E., Geoffrey S. Becker, and RemyJurenas. Agricultural Trade Issues in the 107th Congress.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service,December 2001.

Hanrahan, Charles E. U.S.-European Agricultural Trade:Food Safety and Biotechnology Issues. Washington, D.C.:Congressional Research Service, January 2001.

Larson, Alan. U.S. Resolved to Harness Full BiotechPotential. Washington, D.C.: Office of InternationalInformation Programs, U.S. Department of State,Washington File, April 12, 2002.

Liefert, William. Changes in Agricultural Markets inTransition Economies. Washington, D.C.: EconomicResearch Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,February 2002.

Mendis, Patrick. “Food Security, Agricultural Subsidies,Energy, and the Environment: A Process of 'Globalization'in Sri Lanka.” Brentwood, Great Britain: Energy andEnvironment, vol. 12, no. 1, 2001.

Pardey, Philip G., ed. The Future of Food: BiotechnologyMarkets and Policies in an International Setting.Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy ResearchInstitute, 2001.

Pinstrup-Anderson, Per and Ebbe Schioler. Seeds ofContention: World Hunger and the Global Controversy OverGM Crops. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 2001.

Segarra, Alejandro E. and Jean M. Rawson. Mad CowDisease: Agriculture Issues. Washington, D.C.:Congressional Research Service, March 2001.

Tsigas, Marinos. How Would Food Markets Be Affected byLiberalizing Trade in Processed Foods? Office of EconomicsWorking Paper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. InternationalTrade Commission, August 2001.

Tsigas, Marinos. Market Access Liberalization for Food andAgricultural Products: A General Equilibrium Assessment ofTariff-Rate Quotas. Office of Economics Working Paper.Washington, D.C.: U.S. International Trade Commission,October 2001.

ADDITIONAL READINGSON FOOD SECURITY AND SAFETY

Economic Perspectives • An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State • Vol. 7, No. 2, May 2002 48

United Nations Development Program. HumanDevelopment Report 2001. Cary, North Carolina: OxfordUniversity Press, 2001

U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA AgriculturalBaseline Projections to 2011. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Agriculture, February 2002.

Vogt, Donna U. Food Biotechnology in the United States:Science, Regulation, and Issues. Washington, D.C.:Congressional Research Service, January 2001.

Vogt, Donna U. Food Safety Issues in the 107th Congress.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service,November 2001.

FOODFOOD

May 2002

SECURITYAND

SAFETY

EconomicPerspectivesVolume 7 An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State Number 2