Dr. Murphy.

ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Question for Ms. Price. On your last point, were you suggesting it's not fair in terms of -- I thought I heard you say in terms of process? Were you also saying in terms of outcome or are you still on the process?

MS. THOMPSON-PRICE: Well, as a panelist, it's currently constituted -- the way the panel becomes constituted is the individuals who are on the select list of panelists. First of all, when you look at that list, it's -- one could argue that it's not entirely balanced, then the dispute panel only has three members on it and the process is closed to the public. There's no way that the public can offer an amicus brief, so it's not an open process in any way, shape or form from beginning to end.

There's no appeal. It overrides sovereignty of our Legislator, our elected representatives to do our local, state and national business. It overrides the Supreme Court. And I don't think there's anyway that we can construe fair trade to mean that a dispute panel, which is really a panel that is settling disputes, economic disputes, but which have a great impact on the sovereignty of our country, should be allowed.

So rather than -- I think what's important here and what our group is trying to do is to not get into specifics of the different sectors of trade agreements, at this point, but to try to bring the general public an understanding of what some of the overriding principles are and what kind of impact that has on our society and our democracy.

CO-MODERATOR JONES: Dr. Murphy.

ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: On your point about the closed nature of the panel process, as you probably know, it's our -- we're fully in agreement with you on that. In fact, you heard the President, I believe in his May '98 address to the Second Ministerial Conference, advocate complete transparency of the process, with the provision of amicus briefs, et cetera. And that has been our position in the WTO as you probably know.

The issue lies not with our problem here. It's our trading partners who have resisted this temptation. We have some support, but some countries that surprise us are opposing us, so we are -- it is still a high priority for us, because we recognize what you're saying and it's important for the credibility of the process that it be open. We appreciate that completely and that's why it is a basis of our position, so we have to continue to work in that direction.

MS. THOMPSON-PRICE: Well, I appreciate that. I would just like to say that we have been told that MAI like agreements will not appear in the WTO. MAI having been defeated, we find MAI like agreements popping up in the Africa Trade and Development Bill, I mean things sort of amorph. And so I just -- I understand what Clinton said, I follow what President Clinton said.

CO-MODERATOR JONES: Anymore questions?

Dr. Murphy.

ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Could I just -- it might be worthwhile just clarifying also on your point about sovereignty. In the process, the country need not take the action that the panel says that it should take. It does have the option of saying we reject that and we'll instead pay compensation. So it's not, in that sense, the decision of the panel doesn't override your domestic law. You can choose to maintain your domestic law as it is. And, indeed, in some cases countries have chosen to do that.

So, in that sense, the ruling of the panel does not overrule the laws of the land or the decisions of elected officials, I just wanted to clarify that.

MS. THOMPSON-PRICE: Well, I understand that as well. But I would also say that the sums of money that are now on the table in some of these lawsuits, the Methanex suit against the Government, because of the banning of MTBE, the ethyl suit, some of these other suits are enormous sums of money, which, should the United States decide not to litigate, but pay, is taxpayer money that could be better used. We could all argue that -- I mean, I think, at least we could argue about how it could be better used, but I think it could be better used.

So, you know, this could be debated as well. And even though the State -- you could argue that the State is not paying or not accepting the ruling, but as you suggest it also is a process that should be more open. I mean I think this dispute process, driven as it is, by issues of economics, needs to be carefully examined. And I accept what you've said and I think it really needs to be debated publicly. The public is not aware of these overriding rather large issues as part fair trade.

CO-MODERATOR JONES: Anymore questions?

Secretary Rominger.

USDA DEPUTY SECRETARY ROMINGER: I wanted to comment on your statements about food safety. I agree that we want safe food and we want to continue to make our food supply even safer, but I think we can continue to do that. But I get a little concerned, I guess, in the -- when we apply what people are calling a precautionary principle, because it seems to me that the way some people define that precautionary principle, it could be used to prevent trade, just because we don't like the product, because we're never going to be able to completely prove a negative.

I think we need to do the risk assessments. We've got to do good risk assessments and we've got to be satisfied that the benefits of the product outweigh the risks. But I'm not sure that we can ever get -- so I think we need to use great caution, but I think some people's definitions of precautionary principles go so far that it could become just a trade barrier. And that's where we're, I think, we're trying to sort that out.

Now, we can make sure we have those safe products and do it -- exercise the caution that's needed, but still allow trade to take place when we have demonstrated the healthfulness of the product.

MS. THOMPSON-PRICE: Well, do I have just a moment to respond to that?

USDA DEPUTY SECRETARY ROMINGER: Sure.

MS. THOMPSON-PRICE: Just going back to bovine growth hormone use in milk, you may be aware of the Canadian scientific report when we examined Monsanto's laboratory findings in support of the no harm use of bovine growth hormone in milk and as a human -- as a product for human consumption. And the Canadian scientists, when they redid that Monsanto data, found it considerably lacking.

So I think the question here is that as science is less funded by government more funded by corporations, we need to be very careful who is on what basis or how the scientific reports in support of whatever food product is being supported, that we need to have real mechanisms in place, as I think some of you said in the comment to the earlier panel.

And it puts a great burden then on governmental agencies and other scientists to produce the kind of objective science and that profit and other motives aren't driving decisions. And some of these issues demand science and studies in the animal or human population that aren't just quickie, you know, but that are really designed well and take into consideration the human organism.

And I think that one can argue that the Monsanto bovine growth hormone study was not a well-modeled studied. It was not a well done study. So it does raise concern for the public. And I think if you're going to take the position you do, that then you have to convince the public, by your actions and the kind of science you cite and the kind of science you support and the kind of science you demand, that that's precisely what the government is doing.

USDA DEPUTY SECRETARY ROMINGER: I agree with you that we need government agencies with independent scientists that are doing the review and I think we have that in our Food and Drug Administration and our Environmental Protection Agency for looking at environmental consequences and that USDA is looking into some of the agronomic and the plant traits.

So I think we have some good agencies in this country. I think we need to make sure that they stay on the cutting edge of science and are able to answer these questions as they come along and so we want to make sure that we keep these agencies strong and that they are able to do their job.

CO-MODERATOR JONES: Anymore questions?

Dr. Murphy.

ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: I can't let Ms. Hayward's presentation go unresponded to, having deep personal sentiment for an entrepreneur. I obviously don't have an answer to your question. You're probably asking the right ones, is there dumping, is there subsidization.

And I would tell you to investigate that, but when you announced the level of your sales, that probably prohibits your obtaining counsel, which is very chief for that.

So I don't have an answer or a solution for you. You have my sympathy. And I just don't -- I will think about it, but I don't have an immediate solution for your problems.

MR. HAYWARD: It's just that I find that so many processed purees, I mean we buy Granny Smith Apples, Pomegranates, Kiwi, blood oranges here, all in the State of California, white peach, and there's very, very few products that we can sell effectively all over the United States less expensively than our imported puree brands.

And I have reason to believe that they are being subsidized by their country of origin and the French have been doing this now for years. And it's only been slowing down somewhat because of the strength of the U.S. dollar that we have been able to see that we're able to catch up somewhat.

But it's been something that's been, shall we say, widespread there and we're doing our best to try and be very effective. And all I want to do is just be fair.

Thank you.

ASSISTANT U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY: Sure. You probably could ask the Foreign Agricultural Service to, at least, check to see if there are any subsidies on the record.

MS. HAYWARD: Believe me, we've already been through the ATO office. And, yes, they've already nodded and said yes, they're up to their old tricks. So I just wanted to have you, when you go to the negotiating session, to keep that in mind. And I hope that you pull up your shirt sleeves and really go to work this time.

CO-MODERATOR JONES: Secretary Lyons.

CO-MODERATOR LYONS: Yeah, I just had a brief comment, Ms. Hayward. I would encourage you, after the session, to maybe meet with members of my staff. I've just passed my card to Vanessa. Possibly, there might be some internal trade situations that we can work with you on.

MS. HAYWARD: Great. Thank you very much.

USDA DEPUTY SECRETARY ROMINGER: Rob, I just want to, again, respond on the Taiwan issue. I don't know whether you were here when we talked about that earlier, but we are working on that at APEC right now and in the accession process for Taiwan. So we know it's a problem when they change the rules in mid-stream or mid-ocean.

MR.NEENAN: Yeah. Buyers admit there may be as many as a hundred loads of fruit on the water right now that could land in Taiwan and be affected by these regulations, so it's very urgent for us.