The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001.  Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date.  This site is not updated so external links may no longer function.  Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

David B. Sandalow Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Environment and Science, and Head of the United States Delegation Press Briefing at the Biosafety Protocol Negotiations Montreal, Canada, January 25, 2000

MR. SANDALOW: It is snowing in Washington, but the sun may just be starting to peak through here in these negotiations.

In the past couple of days, countries have worked very hard to address each other's concerns, to understand each other's points of view and to try to reach an agreement by the end of this week. I am very encouraged by the spirit of cooperation in these talks. Countries are working hard, the countries are taking each other's views seriously, and if they continue to do so, I believe we will be able to reach an agreement by the end of this week.

During the past couple of days, we have had important conversations on a number of topics, including the scope of this agreement. It is an issue of tremendous importance to the Like-Minded Group, which ... has put forward a proposal in this area.

We have had important discussions on commodities and the role of commodities in this agreement, and important discussions on documentation as well.

I have been tremendously grateful for the openness of a number of delegations. I have just come from a lunch with the leaders of the Compromise Group, where we had a very good discussion. I have had the opportunity to speak with two European ministers, who also are very interested in engaging and finding what it will take to make a deal. I have had tremendous opportunities to discuss these issues with the Like-Minded Group, as well.

Let me just say a few words about what the United States will be seeking as the rest of the week progresses. We are strongly supportive of a Biosafety Protocol that protects the environment without disrupting world food trade. We believe that such an agreement is possible.

We believe that such an agreement should be built around core principles of information sharing, focusing on bio-engineered products that are meant to be released into the environment, and on capacity-building.

We believe that if countries work hard, address each other's points of view and focus on areas of consensus, we can reach an agreement.

Let me just say a few words overall about biotechnology in closing, and then I'll take your questions.

As we go forward, we should pursue the benefits of biotechnology, not just the risks. Biotechnology offers many important benefits. For example, biotechnology can help us protect the environment. Biotechnology is already reducing pesticide usage in some parts of the United States, particularly where BT cotton is grown.

Biotechnology can help us protect rain forests. By enhancing agricultural productivity, biotechnology can reduce pressure on forests in many parts of the world where forests are being cleared for farmland.

In addition, biotechnology can help us feed poor children. I met a month or so ago, with some research scientists from the public sector research institutes who were expressing great concern about public attitudes on biotechnology because their research to enhance the nutritional contents of foods depends significantly on biotechnology.

Just last week, or a little bit more than a week ago now, new data were released on the prospects for enhancing rice with vitamin A, and that's just the beginning of what this technology can bring to helping to feed poor children around the world.

Biotechnology does present risks as well, and those risks must be responsibly managed. In the United States, we have a regulatory framework that is doing that, and we believe that international instruments are part of the responsible framework for addressing the risks of biotechnology as well.

We hope that, this week, countries assembled here will be able to agree upon a Biosafety Protocol that takes a step forward in that regard.

I thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

QUESTION (Aline Gobeil, Canadian Broadcasting, Radio-Canada): There is a lawyer who is a U.S. citizen, who has filed a suit against the FDA in the US, saying that the assessment of the quality and the security of food containing GMOs is not secure, is not full enough, and saying that in the files of the FDA there are opinions of scientists from the FDA who say that those products should undergo more tests and more analyses ... is it so that the analyses are not complete and that those products can cause some risk?

MR. SANDALOW: I hope you will understand that I am not able to comment on pending litigation. I will comment that I am not aware of any individual in the United States ever having been hurt by bio-engineered food. Our regulatory regime right now is sound and [we are of course open to refining it as warranted]. This is an area where we have a very strong foundation in the United States today.

QUESTION (MS. GOBEIL): The name of the scientist is Dr. Shipling (SP?), if I understand (inaudible) his name, and he was the head of special tests at the FDA.

QUESTION (LOUIS-GILLES FRANCOEUR, LE DEVOIR): Many NGOs and some countries say that since the United States has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, they have no right to be here and to stop countries from negotiating an agreement that would fit them. How do answer that?

MR. SANDALOW: Well, I hope the United States will ratify the Biodiversity Convention. Certainly, the loss of biodiversity is one of the epic environmental challenges of our time, and not being a party to this treaty makes it more challenging for us here. That means we work harder. We must work harder to persuade other countries of our points of view, and that is something we are going to continue to do in the days, weeks, months and years ahead.

QUESTION (MATHIEU PERREAULT, LA PRESSE): Do you think a protocol would help develop the international trade of transgenic crops and food?

MR. SANDALOW: I think that would depend upon a lot of factors, but I think a workable protocol can help establish a framework for the sound management of bio-engineered products around the globe.

QUESTION (CAMPBELL CLARK, NATIONAL POST): There are some here that have said that if there is no protocol, then the realities of the market will hurt exporters of GM foods like the United States and Canada because they will have crops which could include GM foods that are not segregated. Do you consider it a potential barrier to your trade if there is no protocol reached this week?

MR. SANDALOW:.. I will let others speculate on future market conditions, but I will reiterate and emphasize that a sound and workable protocol can help to promote a sound management of risks and benefits of this technology in the years ahead.

QUESTION (MR. CLARK): Did you tell the NGOs today that those market concerns are already something that will have to be taken into account in the (inaudible) negotiations? Do you (inaudible) there is already a growing market reality that importers and that corporations are going to stop accepting foods that could have (inaudible)?

MR. SANDALOW: When we talk with constituents from different groups in the United States we hear statements on market conditions. I would expect that their positions in these protocol negotiations would reflect their understanding of market conditions today and what they believe those market conditions will be in the years ahead.

QUESTION(DAVID McLAUGHLIN, CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION): The head of the Like-Minded Group describes an arrogance that is associated with people that would propose trade in material which has been recombined to invent a new life form as if it's... you're crossing the boundary of what is reasonable for mankind to do without sure knowledge of the impact. I'd like your interpretation of that sentiment which I'm sure is not unfamiliar to you.

MR. SANDALOW: I would like to emphasize that those types of sentiments have been absent in the conversations that we've had since we arrived here in Montreal, and that one of the great strengths of the discussions that we have had is countries are working constructively with each other. Countries are working hard to address each other's points of view, countries aren't pointing fingers or calling names, and I appreciate that greatly. I think it is very helpful and it is important to continue in that vein to reach a successful result on the road.

QUESTION (MR. McLAUGHLIN): Could I ask you to respond to the comment that was made that by promoting material the implications of the introduction of which you don't understand at this point, and no one does, that you're playing God?

MR. SANDALOW: This technology has both potential benefits and potential risks and both of them need to be managed. I think it would be unwise for the world and potentially damaging for millions of people around the world to choke off the development of this technology out of fear. I think we need to take a science-based approach and consider all the benefits and risks as we go forward.

QUESTION (DANIEL SANGER, THE ECONOMIST): As far as Article 5 is concerned, how far is the United States prepared to go on commodities? Would it accept an explicit AIA arrangement for non-seed stock food, animal feed and products, or is it beginning (inaudible) some sort of implicit process?

MR. SANDALOW: I hope you understand if I don't comment on our bottom line with respect to any article in this negotiation, but I will say that the topic being raised is a topic of very serious discussion between the Miami Group and other groups. We are trying to understand their concerns. I believe that they are very seriously trying to understand ours, and that if that continues then we will have a successful result down the road.

QUESTION (MR. SANGER): But it would be fair to conclude that commodities are on the table as far as the United States and the Miami Group are concerned?

MR. SANDALOW: We are having very serious discussions about commodities and how to address the concerns of other groups. Our position is very strong and very firm, and we do not believe that commodities should be part of the AIA provision in this agreement. We are having very serious discussions with members of other groups.

QUESTION (DENNIS BUECKERT, CANADIAN PRESS): At the plenary this morning, the various groups appeared to have difficulty agreeing on what the core issues are. Could you tell me what the core issues are in the American Group, in terms of articles?

MR. SANDALOW: I was not at that discussion so I won't comment on it specifically, but among the core issues that we need to address in order to get to a successful conclusion are the treatment of commodities, documentation, and the relationship between this agreement and other international agreements.

QUESTION (MR. BUECKERT): Do you have any sense that the Miami Group is isolated, it is sort of this group of six countries against the rest of the world? Do you get that feeling sometimes?

MR. SANDALOW: I don't. I read in the press that characterization, but I don't, and I would just give you one example. There was a proposal from the Like-Minded Group with respect to the inclusion of pharmaceuticals in this agreement. I want to emphasize that -- this was yesterday -- we are taking all proposals from the Like-Minded Group extremely seriously and trying to understand how to address their concerns, and none are being rejected out of hand, just as no proposal from any group is being rejected out of hand. I think it is fair to say that the opposition to that proposal from negotiating blocs, other than the Like-Minded Group, was fairly widespread.

I think any international agreement is the product of countries from around the world coming together and agreeing, and no individual negotiating bloc drives any particular negotiation -- that this negotiation, like other multilateral negotiations, will succeed if all countries can come together and address each other's concerns.

QUESTION (CHANTAL SRIVASTAVA, SOCIETE RADIO-CANADA): You were referring earlier to a science-based approach. I'd like to know a couple of things regarding what you specifically mean regarding that type of approach. I would like to know first what you have in mind and how you see that coping with the economic interest of scientific data coming from the industry.

MR. SANDALOW: I think it is important that decisions on these topics be based on science, and be based upon a full consideration of all the available data. It is important that they be based upon risk-assessment procedures, and this protocol can advance international understanding and cooperation in risk-assessment procedures. It is also important that science be applied in risk-management procedures, as well -- and this protocol can play a very important role in that regard.

QUESTION (CHERRY FARROW, UK, BIRDS MAGAZINE): Can you explain to me what the problem is for the United States on Article 8 on precautionary principle? What is it that makes the wording, as I have (inaudible), so unacceptable to (inaudible)?

MR. SANDALOW: Let me be clear that the United States strongly supports precaution, and that position is reflected in our approach to these negotiations. It is reflected in our specific comments on the text of this agreement. The Miami Group, of which the United States is a member, supports the reference to precaution in Article 1 of this agreement, and that is a specific formulation that has a background in history internationally... for those of you who are not inured in this, it comes out of the Rio Earth Summit and the Declaration of Principles of the Rio World Summit.

We don't think it is wise to start renegotiating wording on the precautionary principle in the context of this agreement. The agreement of the Rio World Summit on a precautionary approach is a good one and should be reflected in this agreement.

That said, I want to emphasize that we believe that precaution is appropriate in addressing biotechnology, as well as many other areas. We believe we should proceed with precaution, but we believe we should proceed.

QUESTION (ADRIAN BEBB, EARTH MATTERS): (inaudible) of the nitty-gritty of the arguing starts when you start trading off precautionary principles against things like how this protocol fits into the WTO. The European Union has made it very clear that they want to see the basic protocol on the same level as the World Trade Organization rules, and I wonder if you could explain what the American position is, if you support that as well.

MR. SANDALOW: There has been a lot of confusion about this topic, so I would like to clarify our position. The United States and our Miami Group allies believe that this agreement should make clear the intention of governments not to renegotiate the WTO. I'll say that differently. Governments have said they are not renegotiating the WTO here in Montreal, and this agreement should make that clear.

At the same time, we do not call for, we do not support language that would subordinate this agreement to the WTO. The Biosafety Protocol and the WTO have equal status. We are not calling for language that would say anything different than that.

QUESTION (CAMPBELL CLARK, NATIONAL POST): Just to go back to the precautionary principle, we're talking about the formulation... could you just explain to us what you think the burden of proof should be in that regard and how much prerogative and how much evidence should be (inaudible)?

MR. SANDALOW: The core point is that precaution should be part of a scientific approach. It should not be a substitute for a scientific approach, and governments should not regulate in the absence of scientific evidence. So precaution needs to be part of a science-based approach.

Thank you.

[end of document]

|| Biodiversity and Conservation |
Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs |
U.S. Department of State | Disclaimers ||