text: WTO Listening Session
  Memphis, Tennessee
  June 16, 1999
  MR. BOGARD:
  Thank you very much to Earl and the panel. I certainly thank you for your indulgence today
  and you have been very attentive which I'm sure everyone here appreciates. It's been a
  long day and I'll be brief. I want to address an issue that concerns me. I am a licensed
  farmer in Arkansas. I also have business in Southeast Asia that are rice related in the
  last five years. Principally in Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia (inaudible.) I have an
  operation in the Western half of (inaudible.) So the issue I want to address today is how
  when we go to the table and trade and you look at Thailand, for example, we look at an
  import situation that Thailand is exporting out in the U.S. somewhere upwards of 450
  thousand tons this year of what will principally be (inaudible) and Jasmine rice. Now it's
  interesting to see the correlation when we look at IMF dollars the rise in their exporting
  capabilities in the United States. Having been inside their system and seen how it works,
  I know they have many hidden subsidies. The farming population as you know represents
  considerably less than five percent of our population. However, when you to into a country
  like Thailand over 50 percent of the population work directly with agriculture with rice
  being a predominant factor in their system. They subsidize seed; they subsidize
  fertilizer; they subsidize chemicals, both pesticide as well as herbicide and (inaudible)
  used.
  So when we go to the table and we negotiate positions, we must be aware of the fact
  that every time we put an IMF dollar for which we fund, we the United States fund a
  principle portion of that dollar, then we are indirectly subsidizing their production
  agricultural systems. Now they have increased their production through technological
  advances, which we have also. I would cite to you their recent development of a
  nonphotosensitive variety of this particular product so popular here in the U.S., Jasmine
  rice. They hope to increase their production to over one million tons in 2002. They could
  not do this without our indirect assistance in the production of agriculture.
  Now I'm not here trying to tell you that you need to redirect our foreign policy
  through this particular panel, but I am saying to you that these are issue are very
  sensitive and they directly affect our American agriculture. Final point, Thailand has the
  highest herbicidal residue content in their food products than any country in the world.
  We do not make them test and produce a certificate in a country where we are so health
  conscious, and the average consumer is so aware of what we, production agriculture, may or
  may not use in terms of and (inaudible) in terms of what we spray our grain products with.
  I think it makes very little sense for us to subsidize indirectly a system that exports
  into our country large volumes of grain while we have historically low prices today and do
  not have to adhere to the same environmental standards, whether it be phytosanitary
  conditions or test for herbicidal residue or (inaudible) residue in their products and
  have to label them. Certainly on cigarette we have read the label. I would say to you that
  any level of herbicide residue that is as high and rated the highest content in the world,
  it's something that certainly should be a negotiating tool when we look at cross trade.
  When there are no facts (inaudible) taxes or duties and tariffs a very, very small
  amounts
  of tariffs on a place where (inaudible). Yet, when I sell them a product over there, I
  have to pay 27 percent. So it makes little sense when we're dealing with countries,
  developing nations, whose populations the vast majority of which work in production
  agriculture and we represent such a small portion, we have to be realistic in what the
  issues. We're not going to change the Asian culture or mind set necessarily, nor are we
  going to change, in my opinion, the European's determination to seek out underdeveloping
  nations by subsidizing exports. However, we can be smart about how we cross trade, what
  the line should be in terms of the issues that are raised, and I thank you very much.
  MR. SCHUMACHER: Very briefly, I wasn't aware that on the issue of the
  chemical residue?
  MR. BOGARD: Yes.
  MR. SCHUMACHER: How do you indicate that that is just generally
  specifically Jasmine rice imported in the country?
  MR. BOGARD: I was being specific to rice. Let me tell you, I worked in
  a field study with the Department of Agriculture in Thailand in conjunction with the Rice
  Research Institute beginning in 1994 running through '97. There were no restrictions --
  for example, airborne spores and airborne fungus are common in the U.S. called blasts
  (phonetic). It's very common in the tropical regions of Thailand. Jasmine rice is one of
  the most susceptible varieties in the world of blasts, okay? We are restricted to a very
  small number of products that we spray on our rice for blasts, for protection, plant
  protection. We are also restricted from the timing of that because of the residue and the
  fungicide with can be harmful if applied to their harvest. It may be maybe carried over on
  the grain for consumption. There are no restrictions. I've seen it in Thailand and Vietnam
  both. I have seen them apply ten times. I've seen them apply it up to five days before
  harvesting, even though that made little or no economic sense. My point is there are no
  restrictions. They're using heavy metals. The gentleman from Louisiana that referred to
  DDT? That's common. They have snails in Thailand and throughout Southeast Asia they're a
  big, big problem for them. They're like the army worm in the U.S., so to speak. The way
  they eradicate snails is with DDT. Other pesticides that have been restricted for use here
  25, 30 years ago, it's a common practice there.
  Now I'm not saying to you that we should go over there and tell them that, you can't
  use this anymore because if it's economically feasible for them to consume that in their
  domestic society, so be it. But what I am saying to you is for them to bring that same
  product here in the United States, and it began on the eastern seaboard, but to increase
  the involve for funding indirectly were giving them for production agriculture and then
  for them not to even have to check or relate what it's been sprayed with or determine what
  the levels of residue are is ludicrous. We would be hauled up before a federal judge if we
  were to subject our customers here in the U.S. to that sort of a product. In fact, if we
  did that, our products would be quarantined and we would not be allowed to sell them and
  would have to be disposed of in some sort of incinerator.
  So to bring mass quantities into this country under those conditions and not be very
  aware of that, you raise these sort of issues further creates, quote, unquote an unlevel
  playing field. I thank you very much.
  MR. MANNING: I would like to thank all of the presenters. You have
  stated your case very clearly and have addressed the topics that were under consideration
  and we're indebted to you. We're also indebted to the panel for coming today and to the
  Tennessee Department of Agriculture for hosting this arrangement. Do we have any closing
  remarks from the Department of State?
  MS. WINTON: Only to thank all of the presenters for making their
  statements. I took very careful notes and will bring back all 20 statements to the
  policymakers as we prepare for the next round. So thank you all.
  MR. MANNING: The U.S. Trade Representative?
  MS. CUMMINGS: Again, my thanks and it's always a pleasure to get out
  of Washington and both for substance and also for a change of venue and I appreciated the
  opportunity to hear your comments. I thought they were all well articulated and of
  substance and as Amy said, we will take it back to the USTR and hope to continue the
  dialogue back in Washington when your representatives come through. Thank you very much.
  MR. MANNING: And from the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Schumacher,
  do you have any closing remarks?
  MR. SCHUMACHER: I think we should give Earl -- he's the dean and he
  was very patient today with us. I want to thank him for doing a wonderful full job.
  MR. MANNING: Commissioner Wheeler, as we noted earlier had to leave,
  but Louis do you have and parting words for the Commission.
  MR. LOUIS: Let me assure you that I'm here I'm not going to talk long
  in the interests of time, but I do want to say a lot of thank yous. Thank you our staff,
  Joe Hanes and his folks who have done all the hard work to make this happen. Mr. Manning
  has been mentioned as the dean of our ag journalism in this part of the world. He's also a
  distinguished southern gentleman, which we take very seriously down here. I recall about a
  month ago being at a political rally. A lot of us can relate to that perhaps up here. The
  moderator had a calendar saying something interesting about an elected official followed
  by an elected official followed by an elected official. By the end of the day all that was
  left to say was everything has been said but not everybody has had a chance to say it. So
  that was a good talking session. I think today was a good listening session and I
  appreciate our friends from Washington who have come down to Tennessee to listen. That
  doesn't happen that often. I think today we had a lot of diverse opinions, a lot of
  diverse economy, a lot of diverse agriculture and forestry. Hopefully you will take back
  some strong themes and messages and we appreciate that. Our state seal in Tennessee has
  two prominent words on there, agriculture and commerce. That made sense 200 years ago.
  Commerce was reflected by a river boat because all the markets were down river. I guess in
  a big world they're down river (inaudible). But a lot of opportunities in my hometown of
  Addison, Tennessee, in Robertson County. Folks that latch together (inaudible) in the back
  country and send that down river and stopped here in Memphis or made its way to New
  Orleans. A lot of value has been added since then but trade was important then and it's
  important now. Hopefully 200 years from now we're all successful in our negotiations the
  successful, agriculture and commerce will still make sense. So we appreciate your
  attendance and patience, your willingness to participate. Have a good strip, a safe trip
  home. Thank you. (Session concluded at approximately 4:30 p.m.)
  Last modified:
  Friday, November 18, 2005