It's a pleasure to be here today as a panel member. Being on the west coast is especially significant to me as a member of the American Corn Growers Association, in particular because the largest export market for U.S. corn is Japan. That makes it a special pleasure to be on this program today with Mr. Seyama from the Feed Grain Department of Marubeni America Corporation. His company plays an important role in exporting corn to importers, processors and consumers in our largest world market. How important is Japan as an export market for U.S. corn? Consider this:

• Japan buys from 14 to 15 mmt of U.S. corn yearly
• Japan buys about $1 billion in intermediately processed agricultural products
• Japan buys about $5 billion in consumer-oriented agricultural products

And, let's not overlook other markets in Southeast Asia and East Asia as large markets for U.S. corn. In 1998 South Korea imported 4.4 million tons of U.S. corn and Taiwan regularly imports about 5 million metric tons of U.S. corn.

So, the west coast ports are the shipping point for a tremendous volume of U.S. corn destined for export. That's especially true for me as a Nebraska corn grower, because most of our corn destined for export leaves the country from west coast ports. So the ACGA is especially sensitive to any developments that could put our export markets at risk. That's why genetically engineered crops (GMOs as they're known) present a marketing challenge for U.S. farmers and the U.S. grain industry.

The ACGA has a neutral position on whether farmers choose to plant GMOs or conventional, Non-GMO varieties. Farmers have to make their own choice based on their own farming operations and based on how much they know about the impact of GMOs on our foreign and domestic markets. Personally, I don't allow GMOs to be grown on my farm because I feel they threaten our foreign market share and in so doing have a negative impact on U.S. corn prices. I don't want to be a contributing factor to that problem so I stay with conventional, Non-GMO varieties. Other farmers choose to make a different decision on what they plant, but, at a minimum, we want them to be informed on the marketing impact of the decisions they make. Now, let me make this point clear, lest you think I'm opposed to biotechnology. Let me relate a personal story to you to tell you why I am one of the biggest supporter of biotechnology, especially in medicine! About ten years ago, I was hit with rheumatoid arthritis. That was the summer of 1990 and by 1992 a doctor told me I could very well end up in a wheel chair. After going through nearly all the conventional treatments, including about 700 intra-joint, intra-venous and intra-muscular injections to deal with this disease, something came along. In March of 1999 I became one of about the first 25,000 people in the country to get a prescription for ENBREL, a new drug for the most serious cases of RA. The drug is the result of new biotechnology research and without it I probably wouldn't be standing here today as a panel member. So, I'm a big fan of biotechnology in medicine. However, a very controlled application of medical technology that I administer to myself through two injections each week is a great deal different than genetically engineered crops that are released on millions of acres and into the environment. So, the $50 million public relations campaign launched last week by a coalition of biotech companies that attempts to lump medical biotechnology with ag and GMO crops is quite a stretch in my opinion. I don't know that it will work with the public as that coalition thinks it will.

Back to ACGA's marketing concerns, we also want to provide customers, wherever they are in the world, the quality, variety and type of commodities that they want. We respect to the consumers right to choose! That includes consumers in Japan and other countries that are demanding the labeling of genetically engineered foods.

With respect to the point of customers requesting what they want, I can't recall any foreign or domestic corn customer ever requesting that U.S. farmers start planting and supplying genetically-engineered corn. So, the introduction of GMOs was not a response to importers or consumers requesting such a change. Indeed, it's a direct result of biotech companies introducing those products into the domestic and foreign market without market research on consumer acceptance. Indeed, the first I heard about GMOs was from European importers. That was in 1996, and I was the Executive Director of the Interstate Grain Marketing Commission at that time. So, the first contact about GMOs from a foreign buyer was from a soybean importer in Belgium. They were complaining about GMO soybeans arriving in their U.S origin bean cargoes. Representatives of an American soybean group went to Belgium shortly thereafter and told those importers they should just accept the U.S. version of "sound science" and not be concerned. It wasn't the best marketing strategy for promoting U.S. soybeans. The Interstate Grain Commission response was 180 degrees different. We launched a program to provide Non-GMO soybeans to those importers and shipments have been going ever since. We took the position that the customer is always right and that in order to be successful in both "market development" and actual marketing and sales programs, it was essential to give the customer what they want and respect the consumers right to choose.

This current situation with GMOs reminds of the years of demands and requests from foreign wheat importers to be able to buy cleaned, No. 1 grade U.S. wheat. The U.S. grain industry opposed wheat cleaning and one exporter even told a group of European importers if they wanted that kind of wheat to buy it from Canada. That was the 1980s and I was head of the Nebraska Wheat Board. We launched the "Clean Wheat Initiative" to provide the foreign customer with what they wanted, and so U.S. farmers could compete with the quality of wheat exports from Canada and other exporting countries. But the big grain companies and some of their allied farm and commodity organizations fought us every step of the way, even as their own low grain price farm policy was devastating farmers and losing export business for the U.S. Indeed, U.S. wheat exports dropped from averaging about 1.7 bil. bushels in the early 1980's to about 1 billion today. And, that's going on with the low U.S. prices that are driven by the farm policies put in place by the U.S. Congress since 1985. Those policies are those of the big grain companies and they have failed the U.S. miserably. I'm glad to see the Foreign Ag Service of USDA promoting the installation of grain cleaners at gulf export elevators. They should also consider installing them at interior terminal grain elevators. But, the bottom line is that wheat should be cleaned if the U.S. is to be competitive in world trade. I've been facilitating cleaned grain cargoes every single year since 1986. The U.S. gets that business because the traders I work with are able to clean and ship cargoes that are as good as Canadian. But, the big grain companies oppose any large cleaning initiative that would provide foreign buyers the certainty and choice of getting what they want. It reminds me of the big grain and biotech companies' intransigence about the U.S. being able to give foreign buyers the choice to order GMO or Non-GMO. Apparently, some of those companies are so accustomed to dictating policy they can't think any other way. And, it's hurting our export competitiveness!

So, my remarks include raising this relevant question. 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 called…Farmer 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 customers, domestic or overseas, importers or commodity processors, food companies or consumers, and 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. And, whether its customers in Asia or Europe we have to adhere to the tried and true marketing adage that, "The customer is always right!" They don't have to be right for the right reasons, but they sure can make their point by choosing to spend their consumer food dollars buying the products that they want to feed themselves and their families. Whether it's in Japan or Spain they have that power.

Indeed, as the E.U. representative pointed out in February on the McNeil-Leher News Hour, when discussing the Bio-safety Protocol agreed to in Montreal, Canada 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 confirmed the same week 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…right…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 position of European or Japanese consumers on this issue. And it interrelates to bigger agendas. What about Europe, not just in 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 European and Asian farmers, are 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 as to have European or Japanese farm organizations representing us on issues such as the commodity prices we receive.

But, lets also look at Europe as a market. 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