1:00 P.M. EDT
MS. NISBET: Welcome, everyone. I would like to welcome U.S. Agricultural Secretary Ann Veneman. Secretary Veneman will be participating in this afternoon's Action Against Hunger and Poverty Summit at the UN and has kindly agreed to stop by and give us a preview of the program.
After opening remarks, questions will be taken. Please state your name and affiliation. We'll start with questions from Washington and then come back to New York. Thank you.
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Thank you. Okay. Well, first, I'd like to thank you all for coming this afternoon and I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to talk with you before today's Action Against Hunger and Poverty Summit. This meeting is being held in conjunction with the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. More than 40 heads of state and government will be attending. Brazilian President Lula da Silva called the meeting to increase efforts to address poverty and hunger.
Today, at the United Nations, I will reaffirm the U.S. commitment to reduce by half the number of hungry people by the year 2015. World leaders made commitments at Monterrey to fight poverty through development based on good governance, solid institutions, effective health systems, a vibrant private sector, open trade and investment, and effective science and technology. Leaders agree that each country has the primary responsibility for its own development and that developed countries would provide additional resources to support their efforts to improve governance and growth.
The Monterrey consensus is beginning to work. Many developing countries are making bold reforms and developed countries are supporting these efforts. Total official development assistance worldwide has risen nearly 30 percent since 2000, and is set to rise even further as countries turn their Monterrey pledges into actions. U.S. assistance has already risen by 50 percent since the year 2001, and more is planned.
The United States has responded by creating the Millennium Challenge Account. It provides for an additional $5 billion per year core development assistance by the year 2006 to countries committed to govern justly, invest in their people and promote economic freedom.
Clearly, the U.S. commitment to ending hunger and poverty is strong. Here in the United States, our domestic food assistance programs -- school breakfasts, school lunch, food stamps, summer feeding and child care -- touch the lives of millions of Americans every day. And these programs, which are administered by our department, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have served as models for international hunger programs far beyond the borders of the United States.
The U.S. is the world's largest provider of food aid and the leading contributor to the World Food Program.
Earlier this year, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Food for Peace Program. This program helps millions of people in developing countries each year. This year, we provided over $112 million in food aid to help nearly 950,000 people in Darfur.
These domestic and international hunger programs are only part of the solution to food insecurity. Increasing agricultural productivity is another important tool to overcome the challenges that we face. Science and technology have the potential to raise agricultural productivity, improve water management, increase income and, ultimately, improve nutrition and health.
And that's why I hosted a Ministerial Conference and Exposition on Agricultural Science and Technology, in California last year. This historic conference, which energized scientists and policy makers alike, has been a catalyst for follow-up activities around the world. If linked to sound policies, science and technology can play a critical role in the fight against hunger and poverty.
We have also worked with the G-8 partners to intensify our focus on agricultural productivity. President Bush and President Lula both are committed to this fight and their appeals for an end to hunger have reinforced the commitments made by other world leaders. However, any approach that fails to heed the lessons of our experience with development and foreign assistance and merely calls for more resources is bound to fail.
However, the report prepared for today’s summit should have given more attention to practical steps to sustain growth. There is too much emphasis on schemes such as global taxes to raise external resources. Global taxes are inherently undemocratic and implementation is impossible.
Foreign aid is important, but only one supportive element in a successful development strategy. Trade is another key ingredient. The United States is committed to a successful conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda in the World Trade Organization. A comprehensive agreement in agriculture would open up new markets to farmers around the world.
Fighting hunger and poverty is a complicated task. At today's summit, we will continue to search for solutions that will bring freer, more productive societies and the best hope for a more peaceful, prosperous and secure world.
Now, before I begin to take your questions today, I know there are probably several of the reporters here representing the Japanese news outlets I saw on the list, and that you're interested in the ongoing discussions on beef trade. So I thought I would just simply answer your question before you ask it. (Laughter.)
We are continuing our discussions with Japanese officials about the terms of resuming trade. Any public discussion about the talks would be inappropriate and unproductive, so I will not be commenting on the details of the discussions. The U.S. remains committed to negotiating trade issues based on science and we look forward to the day when we can again provide the Japanese consumer with U.S. beef.
So, with that, I am happy to take your questions. And I can see that my anticipation must have been well founded with the reaction that I got.
MS. NISBET: If you wouldn't mind starting out with Washington, can we check to see if Washington has questions?
MS. ROBINSON: We don't have any right now.
MS. NISBET: Okay, great. If you do in the interim, just let us know.
MS. ROBINSON: Thank you.
MS. NISBET: So we'll come back to New York. Just remember to state your name and affiliation -- just the initial round -- then after that it's not necessary. We'll take an initial question.
QUESTION: Hi, my name is (inaudible) Tokyo newspaper. So my question is about the beef trade.
SECRETARY VENEMAN: I just answered it.
QUESTION: Kyodo News reported today so the U.S. Government has proposed to Japan informal talks on beef trade, that U.S. will accept Japan's policy of waiting, testing for cattle up to 20 months old with some provision to lift the ban on beef imports. Is it true or not?
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Again, I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the negotiations, and that really is -- I knew that there were going to be questions on this issue because I know it's very timely, but I think it's counterproductive to the negotiations to comment on the specifics of the negotiations. I think both sides are very desirous of getting an agreement and there's been a lot of discussions going on, but I don't think it's appropriate to discuss the specifics at this point.
Yes.
QUESTION: Adriana Sadeanu, Captial Weekly Romania. Is this (inaudible) as you mentioned (inaudible) helping countries, each of them, as is not enough (inaudible)? So how do you think that in terms of future agriculture agenda of the U.S. or agriculture policy in the U.S., how do you think that these match with the idea of opening the market and allowing to the goods of poor countries to come into the market? And here, of course, I am referring to (inaudible) of subsidies, subsidies that every country (inaudible) encouraging to protect their markets.
So how do you think that these two different things (inaudible) poverty, but we want (inaudible) but, on the other hand, you have to deal with your (inaudible) policy internationally (inaudible).
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Right. I think that's a very good question and I think it is very related to the topics that we're discussing today. As I said in my opening statement, three years ago next month, in November of 2001, the world was successful in launching a new round of global trade negotiations under the WTO in Doha, Qatar. The Doha Development Agenda, as it is called, is the round that is taking into account most clearly the issues relating to development needs and the developing world.
Now, with regard to opening markets, we believe that through these negotiations they should provide greater market openings. I think it's important to recognize that the United States, when it comes to food and agriculture, is one of the most open markets in the world. Our average tariffs for global food -- for food and agriculture in the United States is about 12 percent, on average. That average globally for food and agriculture, the average tariff, is 62 percent. So, as you can see, the U.S. is quite a relatively open market.
Now, with regard to subsidies and market access, we have put on the table a very comprehensive proposal that says that we will reduce subsidies if other countries do the same. Now, it's important to recognize that both the European Union and Japan subsidize at much greater rates than does the United States and we want to see an equalizing -- we want the countries that subsidize more to come down more. Likewise, we want to see countries with the highest tariffs come down more.
And we believe that more open markets will be of tremendous benefit to the developing world because, obviously, trade helps economic development. But one of the things that I think is important when you look at global agriculture and being able to participate in the global trading system is that many in the developing world don't have the infrastructure to trade. And that's a key issue.
And so one of the things that the United States has been very committed to is helping to develop that infrastructure, be it sanitary and phytosanitary systems so that countries can meet the requirements of countries that they want to export to. That's been a big issue. And all of that will assist in enhancing the global trading system.
On the other level, we have been very engaged in this whole issue of global hunger, and that's been an issue that we've addressed initially through the World Food Summit five years later in Rome, in 2002. And we said at that time that we need to stay on target to reduce the number of hungry people by half -- this is an international commitment -- by the year 2015.
At that conference -- and I represented the United States at that conference -- I announced that we would hold an international conference on science and technology to address how do we use science and technology to address -- to combat global hunger. That conference was held in Sacramento a year ago June, in June of 2003. It was one of the most widely attended conferences at a ministerial level ever outside the UN context: 119 people at ministerial level -- agriculture, science and technology, health, environment, trade ministers -- a whole range of people were there, and about a thousand participants overall.
Out of that conference came a great amount of enthusiasm for looking at how do we use science and technology, whether it's the smallest technologies like basic irrigation technologies that might help in some of the poorest areas of the world, to things like biotechnology.
One of the primary speakers, and I think one of the speakers that had one of the most significant impacts at that conference was Dr. Norman Borlog, who is known as the father of the Green Revolution. He made a very strong statement at that conference that said that Africa, in particular, has missed the Green Revolution, it cannot afford to miss the Gene Revolution, and talked about the need to really look at all of these new technologies to address the issue of hunger.
We had a great amount of enthusiasm following that conference. We have now had two follow-up conferences this year, one in Costa Rica for sort of the Central American countries, and one in Burkina Faso. One of the significant things about the Burkina Faso conference in West Africa is that it had -- several ministers and four heads of state attended this conference and they all addressed the issue of how African is going to really address biotechnologies and new technologies.
And they basically said we know now that it's not a question of if we are going to utilize these technologies, it's how can we most effectively utilize them? And so they now want to jointly establish a center for biotechnology research. There's already research going on that's being tested in Africa for products like cassava, which is a basic staple in many parts of Africa, and they need disease-resistant varieties, they need drought-resistant varieties. This will help feed the world in the future.
So I think when we look at the issue of global agriculture, we look at the issue of global hunger, we need to not only -- we need to look at the issue of trade and we need to look at the issue of capacity building and we need to look at the issue of how to address hunger, and we think through science and technology is one of the most important ways.
Sorry for the long answer, but --
QUESTION: Carole Vaporean, Reuters. Can you say whether or not (inaudible) President Bush's agenda tomorrow with the Japanese Prime Minister and (inaudible)?
SECRETARY VENEMAN: I think that the issue will probably be discussed, though not in great detail, as I said last week to some reporters. My anticipation is that, you know, they will recognize the importance of the issue but they won't be the negotiators.
QUESTION: So you don't expect an announcement, then, from that?
SECRETARY VENEMAN: I don't anticipate one at this point.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Can you assure (inaudible)? Is it enough to say that U.S. beef is safe and (inaudible).
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Without hesitation, U.S. beef is safe. We -- and I hope, since you live here, you eat U.S. beef. (Laughter.) But I think it's important to recognize since we had the finding of a single case of BSE in this country in December of 2003, we've taken very aggressive actions.
The most important action that you can take with regard to protecting public health is removal of what's called "Specified Risk Materials" from the animals. We announced that and -- with and effective rule on January 12th, just a couple of weeks after the find.
We have a substantially increased surveillance program, we've tested over 50,000 animals in the last three or four months, and -- but again, from the perspective of human health, what we did with regard to removal of the, what we call the SRMs is the most important thing.
And I think it's very important to recognize what has happened here in the United States with regard to consumer confidence. We have not seen any decline in the consumption of beef in this country. People have confidence in the actions that we've taken. And without hesitation I can say that the Japanese consumer should have confidence in the actions that we've taken as well.
QUESTION: Barbara Borst with Associated Press. On the question of technology and science and their contributions, there have been some of the technological advances in (inaudible) that met with considerable resistance in Europe and in some parts Africa, notably Zimbabwe, but not (inaudible) to that. Can you speak to that issue? Clearly there is a lack of consumer and (inaudible) confidence both in the foods produced and in the question of ownership of genetically altered materials.
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Well, again, I think that -- I think one of the problems in Europe is a lack of confidence in regulatory systems as it impacts food. And so consumers have been reluctant to accept some of these new technologies.
I think if you look at what's happened in the United States, we've seen an increasing amount of what we produce in terms of corn and soybeans and cotton, for example, with biotech varieties. Primarily these are varieties that require the use of less chemicals to produce the product. So what's been the outcome of that?
You know, environmental benefits: Water quality has improved in the areas, for example, around cotton fields where you're using biotech varieties. But I think the promise of biotech goes much beyond that. For example, I think I talked just a few minutes ago about the importance of some of the initiatives that we're looking at in Africa where the need in some of these areas is for varieties that will resist disease, that will resist drought, that will be more suitable to the climate where it is being grown and so there are research on basic commodities such as the cassava, which is specific to Africa.
In addition, there are products like that, the Vitamin-A enriched rice, which helps with the night blindness. So there are health benefits that can be bred into some of these products through biotechnology.
I think the promise is enormous. It is enormous in terms of feeding the world in the future. At the same time, we have to make sure that we have strong regulatory systems, that people are looking at all of the varieties, the impacts. I think we've established a strong regulatory system in this country. We're working with other countries to make sure that the regulatory systems are appropriate. We're doing a lot of joint research.
For example, we work, in our department, with the 1890's universities, the Historically Black Colleges, and we've got several partnerships with Historically Black Colleges and African countries on biotech initiatives to specifically address some of the African basic staple commodities. So -- and as I -- the reason I used the example of the Burkina Faso Conference and what the heads of state said at that conference all accepting the promise of biotech and how is it best we incorporate it is because I think there's been a significant shift in the attitudes of a lot of African countries just in the past year or so as they have recognized that there is research that's truly going to help them produce product that's going to help them feed their people. And that's the critical issue.
We had, in our department at one point we had a biotech event, and we had an African farmer from South Africa who was utilizing biotech cotton now and he was talking about what the increase in yield and productivity has meant to his ability to just support his own family as someone who really was living at a very poor level and now is able to live much better.
So again, I think there's tremendous promise. And I think more and more countries and international organizations are beginning to look at these technologies as holding tremendous promise for the future.
QUESTION: The question of ownership of genetically modified seeds, for example, and that has a potentially different kind of impact.
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Well, there are a number of issues that come up with ownership and the intellectual property is important in terms of the companies that produce some of these things. On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of work that's going on where discoveries are being made and it's being made available publicly, for example, the Vitamin-A enriched rice has been a publicly available product.
I'm not exactly sure what some of the research that's going on, for example, with some of the commodities that help Africa, but I think many of those are going to be more widely available and not require the kinds of fees for the genetics and so forth.
When we look at some of these issues, the other thing that I didn't mention before that has been enormously important to both plant and animal and the understanding of what we can do with them is just the whole field of genomics. Being able to map the genomics of plants and animals allows you for the future to really figure out what can be enhanced to help, for example, create the disease resistance or the drought resistance and so forth.
So I think that the whole field of genomics is another area that a lot of people don't understand has tremendous benefits to these technologies for the future and tremendous benefits to feeding the hungry for the future.
QUESTION: Ryo Tamada, TV Asahi. This question is on beef exports again. Please bear with us.
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Do you want me to read my statement again? (Laughter.)
QUESTION: This question is on impacts, again, please bear with us.
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Thank you.
QUESTION: We understand that you can't go into any specifics, but it has been said that the U.S. was asking for a export resumption for beef that was produced from cows that was 24 months and younger. On this point, have you made any concessions towards the Japanese Government?
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Again, I am not going to get into the specifics. I will tell you that, you know, we are trying to -- we have approached these discussions all along with the idea that whatever is done should be based on good, scientific evidence.
So one of the things that we did with our Japanese counterparts is we established a set of three technical meetings in May, June and July. And those discussions really went through a lot of the issues -- what we were doing in this country, the various kinds of tests, what the international standards are, and what the international organizations are saying.
I think we've tried to really utilize not just our country and yours, but also looking at, you know, the OIE, which is the international standards setting body for animal health as we've tried to work through this issue. So again, I can't comment on the specifics, but I can say that we are trying to come to a consensus -- an agreement that's based on science and information -- scientific information that we have on this disease.
As you know, it's a relatively new disease to the world, so there's still a lot to know. But at the same time, it's important that we all look to what the whole, the Internet, the world has told us about this disease as we make decisions.
QUESTION: (Inaudible). You say the scientific data, scientific background to talk about issue itself is (inaudible). And I understand that 30 months old is the line where scientists can say this is old enough or this is young enough. And according to what I (inaudible) says that the 20-month is the line to distinguish which, without any test be okay to import to Japan. How do you, how could you make a comment on the 20 month line? Or do you -- are you confident about that?
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Again, I'm not going to make a comment on the specifics of this negotiation. I mean, again, we're trying to come up with an agreement based on science. The 30 months has been a generally recognized age at which it's very unlikely than an animal would have the disease.
Now, keep in mind again what I said in response to an earlier question. When you removed the Specified Risk Materials, that is the most important thing you can do in terms of protecting public health. And all of the tests that we do, these tests are not public health tests, they're animal disease tests. These tests don't even show up anything until you're four or five months away from actually showing clinical signs of the disease. And so you can't test for an animal that might, several years down the road, develop the disease. I mean, because you just can't -- you can't test in that way.
So again, if you're talking about protecting public health, the most important thing is the removal of Specified Risk Materials.
QUESTION: So you are sure that all U.S. (inaudible) take the SRM?
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Yes, I mean that's --
QUESTION: I mean all the beef that go to Japan.
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Well, I mean, that's another point of the discussion, so I'm not going to comment on the specifics of the discussions with Japan.
MS. NISBET: In the interest of time, I think there might be other questions off the topic of beef and I just wanted to make sure, since we have Secretary Veneman here today, others might wish to pose questions on other Agricultural topics. So if anyone has a question outside of this subject, please.
QUESTION: Haruo Nakamura, TV Asahi. I would like to know who is going to be responsible if actual, it's issue, it's proved to be in the way or not (inaudible) just journalists speaking in terms of the law or legislation, who is going to be responsible at the end of the day (inaudible) to test whatever you discover (inaudible).
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Well again, the biggest problem with BSE has been in Europe. I mean, that's where the most cases have been. We have taken steps in the United States since BSE was discovered in Europe and as we saw the progression of the disease to do everything that we can to avoid the disease in this country, and if it were here, which we found one case, that it would avoid spreading.
And the most important thing in terms of keeping the disease from spreading is to ban ruminant-to-ruminant feeding. And that was the biggest problem that spread it in Europe. And also that was a difficulty when it was discovered in Japan as well. So you know, I think it's very important to recognize that countries of the world have international experts on these issues and they're working together to find the scientific answers.
MS. NISBET: Thank you Madam Secretary for taking the time to be with us and good luck with the summit today --
SECRETARY VENEMAN: Well thank you. Thank you for -- thank you all for coming today. I appreciate the time you've taken.
