Lorna Salzman wrote:
> From List: Biotech Activists (biotech_activists@iatp.org)
>
> Date Posted: 02/08/2000
> Posted by: mritchie@iatp.org
>
> Genetically Altered Crops -Will We Answer The Questions?
> Presentation By Dan McGuire American Corn Growers Association Annual
> Convention Las Vegas, Nevada February 4, 2000
>
> Gary Goldberg took an excellent approach by naming this panel and
> using the question - Will the questions be answered?
>
> I'm beginning my remarks with a question as well.
>
> Isn't it great to live in America, a democracy where we all
>
> have choices? As farmers we expect to have the right to
>
> choose. That's why I'm really proud of the ACGA's
>
> industry leadership in representing corn grower interests on
>
> the GMO issue. Our industry awareness and education
>
> program is appropriately calledÖFarmer Choice,
>
> Customer First. What could be more customer-oriented?
>
> Customer-oriented is an appropriate concept. It truly
>
> does fit when it comes to addressing the issue of genetically
>
> modified commodities. That's because it has to do with
>
> responding to customersÖdomestic or overseasÖimporters
>
> or commodity processorsÖfood companies or consumers
>
> Öand indeed governments and public opinion. From a
>
> farmers' point of view they are all the customer or they
>
> have to respond to the customer. From a U.S. exporters
>
> perspective, the customer most often is the importer.
>
> From an importers viewpoint, the customer may well be
>
> a feed compounder, or grain processor. The grain or
>
> oilseed processor must respond to their customer who may
>
> be food distributors, bakers and manufacturers. These
>
> players in the food marketing chain must respond to food
>
> conglomerates such as supermarkets and restaurants,
>
> who, in turn are responding to consumers. Indeed, as the
>
> European Union representative pointed out earlier this
>
> week on the McNeill-Leher News Hour, when discussing
>
> the Bio-safey Protocol agreed to in Montreal, Canada one
>
> week ago, the E.U. political system is responding to public
>
> opinion and that is indeed a response to the issue of choice
>
> as driven by consumers. Indeed, that perspective was just
>
> confirmed this Monday in the High Plains Journal. They
>
> reported a new survey of 1,000 French adults who showed
>
> overwhelming opposition to foods made with ingredients
>
> derived from genetically modified crops. 75% of those
>
> survey participants wouldn't eat GM foods even if an
>
> independent and qualified food safety agency were to
>
> find they are safe. That same public opinion survey also
>
> showed that 77% of the respondents believed multinational
>
> biotechnology companies would benefit the most and only
>
> 8% believe farmers benefit. So, that EU official has plenty
>
> of evidence to support his claim that the EU government is
>
> responding to the majority public opinion. That would be
>
> consumers. What a concept in a democracy?
>
> You know, for us Americans, who promote the
>
> concept of democracy around the world, it's a little hard to
>
> argue with the European position on this issue. But, what
>
> about Europe, not just on the GMO debate but on the issue
>
> of farm policy, the WTO, etc. Some U.S. government
>
> officials and indeed some U.S. farm and commodity groups
>
> would have us farmers believe that Europe is the enemy in
>
> trade and farm policy disputes. Those groups are
>
> absolutely off base on those issues. Indeed, U.S. farmers
>
> should be so lucky to have European farm organizations
>
> representing us on issues such as the price we receive.
>
> But, lets look at Europe as a market for a minute. You
>
> might think that Europe is some non-entity as an importer
>
> of U.S. ag products or just the big, bad competitor. Well,
>
> guess who was the largest regional market for U.S. feeds
>
> fodder in 1999? It was the European Union. Of course,
>
> feeds includes corn gluten feed and corn gluten meal. On
>
> the basis of individual countries, The Netherlands alone
>
> ranked as our No. 2 world market for feed, second only to
>
> Japan. Last year, the European Union also ranked in the
>
> top 10 markets for U.S. coarse grains. And, lets not forget
>
> about soybeans. Afterall, most U.S. corn farmers also raise
>
> soybeans. In 1999 the European Union was the largest
>
> market in the world for U.S. soybeans. And, since
>
> soybeans are also front and center in the GMO debate, that
>
> has implications for corn and corn gluten. So, lets just take
>
> a closer look at Europe as a market for U.S. ag exports.
>
> Here's a few interesting facts to recap: Europe is:
> … The 3rd largest market for total U.S. ag products
> … The largest regional market for U.S. feed and fodder
> … The largest market for U.S. soybeans
> … The 4th largest market for U.S. soybean meal
> … The 3rd largest market for U.S. snack foods
> … The 3rd largest market for U.S. consumer-oriented agricultural products
> in total
> … The largest market for U.S. planting seeds
>
> What's all that mean in terms of dollars over the last few years? Here's
> what the EU bought from us since 1995:
>
> … $8.3 billion in the 1995 fiscal year
> … $8.9 billion in the 1996 fiscal year
> … $8.8 billion in the 1997 fiscal year
> … $8.3 billion in the 1998 fiscal year
> … $6.8 billion in the 1999 fiscal year (just ended)
>
> 1999 represents a drop of $1.5 billion in sales to Europe. Has the GMO
> issue had an impact on that big drop in U.S. export sales value and how
> much? I expect some and you can draw your conclusions but consider this:
>
> … Overall ag export sales value to the EU is down 31% for the Oct.-Nov.
> period in FY 2000
> … Feed and fodder is down 9%
> … Soybean export sales value down 20%
> … Soybean meal export value is down by 68%
> … Snack food export value is off by 36%
> … Total consumer-oriented ag products down by 20%
> … Planting seed exports are off by14% from last year,
>
> the European Union is a very important market and not one that the U.S.
> government or other farm groups should be "beating up"on.
>
> And yes, there might be other reasons why the EU is buying less, but we
> can't ignore these export sales numbers. And, didn't the creators of
> this current farm policy
>
> tell us we had to be "market-oriented?" I'll come back to that issue a
> little later.
>
> You can see why the ACGA has come at this GMO
>
> issue from a marketing perspective. Again, we have to
>
> think "customer-oriented." We also have to think about
>
> what our competitors are doing. And who are those
>
> competitors. In Asia, where our largest markets for corn
>
> are located, that would be China and Argentina.
>
> In Europe it is Eastern Europe and Argentina. Argentina
>
> has always been customer-oriented and a preferred supplier
>
> of corn to Europe.
>
> But, according to USDA-FAS, "only Argentina
>
> can compete in all global markets." A recent FAS report
>
> says, " Years of fiscal reform and improvements in
>
> infrastructure have laid the groundwork for Argentina's
>
> emergence as a serious, year-round and global
>
> competitor in the corn market." And think about what
>
> Brazil is doing by banning Roundup-Ready soybean
>
> planting and exporting. They are responding to Europe and
>
> other soybean customers. I predict they will take part of
>
> U.S. market share. Hell, they already are. Think about
>
> Argentina doing the same thing with corn. Argentina has
>
> gone from having less than 10% of global corn trade in
>
> 1995 to 20% in 1998. They did that while the U.S. had
>
> lowered its price supports and implemented the so-called
>
> "marketing loan" program. Of course Argentina pegs its
>
> corn price to ours so lowering US prices is just a smoke
>
> and mirrors illusion anyway. It's not about increasing U.S.
>
> exports nearly as much as it is about stealing corn from
>
> farmers at disastrously low prices. More about that later.
>
> Back to the ACGA Farmer Choice-Customer First
>
> educational program. It should be obvious to all U.S. corn
>
> growers why the ACGA took an approach from the outset
>
> that would not alienate our global customers. In order to
>
> address both farmer and customer concerns we are
>
> and have been raising the marketing issues of:
>
> … Customer and consumer resistance to GMOs
> … Market availability and segregation
> … Testing and certification right from the farm
> … Cross-pollination and legal liability
> … Seed contamination and seed testing
> … Identity-preservation in the marketplace
> … Labeling and the related concerns
> … Corporate concentration in agribusiness
>
> Those are all important marketing issues and I'm very
>
> pleased to tell you that the ACGA leadership has been
>
> ahead of the curve on alerting all U.S. farmers to what
>
> was coming at them.
>
> We could have acted like other farm and commodity
>
> groups and taken the arrogant attitude that foreign and
>
> domestic buyers would just have to take GMOs whether
>
> they wanted it or not. That would have been the ultimate
>
> anti-marketing, anti-farmer strategy. I'm really glad we
>
> didn't fall that agribusiness trap and carry water for them.
>
> Everything we predicted would happen on this issue has.
>
> What happened at the WTO meeting in Seattle was just as
>
> predictable as what happened last week in Montreal on the
>
> Bio-safety Protocol. The U.S. policy makers, genetic firms,
>
> multinational agribusiness giants and those farm and
>
> commodity groups who made the mistake of lining up on
>
> that side of the issue are not serving the interests of U.S.
>
> farmers. The attitude that consumer and environmental
>
> groups have no place in this public debate is outrageous.
>
> Those groups have a right at the table and the ACGA
>
> recognized that long ago.
>
> That brings me back to issue that began withÖthe
>
> issue of democracy. That all important issue of choice.
>
> As farmers, imagine if the same giant agribusiness firms
>
> that tried to ram their GMO agenda down the world's
>
> collective throat tried to dictate the price of grain. Imagine
>
> if they went to the U.S. Congress and forced a farm policy
>
> on you that you didn't want. Imagine if they used their
>
> massive profits and political power to force a law through
>
> the U.S. Congress without even so much as one public
>
> hearing in the House of Representative Agriculture
>
> Committee. Imagine if such a farm policy forced you to
>
> produce more grain than the market could absorb and
>
> forced you to try to make up in volume what you're losing
>
> in price and that surplus kept price low. Imagine if such a
>
> policy was really not about benefiting either farmers or
>
> consumers but just about corporate profits for greedy
>
> agribusiness giants. Just use your imagination for a
>
> minute and imagine if they called such an undemocratic
>
> program "Freedom to Farm." And then imagine if a
>
> bunch of U.S. farm and commodity groups helped them
>
> pass that law. It wasn't your imagination, it really did
>
> happen.
>
> Now apply that same kind of arrogant, agribusiness
>
> agenda to the GMO issue on a worldwide scale.
>
> That's what's been going on so it's understandable that
>
> consumers around the world would be more than a little
>
> suspicious of what the real agenda is here.
>
> Just as the 1996 "Freedom to Farm" law failed to
>
> increase U.S. exports or market share for corn or other
>
> grains, the agribusiness strategy on GMOs has also failed
>
> U.S. farmers. It is threatening our export markets at a time
>
> when we can't afford any further downward pressure on
>
> price. That's why we can't afford to let that same crowd
>
> control the agenda again, either on a new farm policy or
>
> on the GMO debate. One would hope they learned some-
>
> thing from Seattle, from Montreal and if nothing else from
>
> the failure of their farm policy, but don't count on it.
>
> In closing, I commend all the ACGA officers, our
>
> President Keith Dittrich, our CEO Gary Goldberg and our
>
> David Senter and Associates for sorting through all of
>
> these issues as they developed. The ACGA is on the right
>
> side all the way. Whose side would that be? That would
>
> be the farmers' side and the consumers' side. Isn't it great
>
> that we're on the same side as we should be. Bringing
>
> farmers and consumers together in a democratic way is the
>
> ACGA way. Come to think of it, Isn't that supposed to be
>
> the American way, after all? Thank you.
>
> Lorna Salzman
> Box 775
> East Quogue, NY 11942
> 718-522-0253; 516-653-3387
> fax: 718-522-0253 (call first)
> lsalzman@aba.org
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:00:23 EST