Because one of our businesses, agricultural biotechnology, is one of the fastest growing sectors in the United States' economy and will be one of the most important areas of the U.S. economy in the future, we believe it should be accorded prominent consideration in formulating the trade agenda in the 21st Century. Those we're striving to achieve through biotechnology parallel to those with the Administration and how they can outline it with regard to trade. We think the two go naturally hand-in-hand and wouldn't be complete without the other. Trade policy should create, and it's been said, a rising tide in all votes, and we need a trade agenda that not only increases across-the-border sales and investments, but one that, as the President has insisted, is made to protect our environment, preserve our natural resources, and share the benefits of trade with workers and farmers.

The trade agenda that failed to find a balance with development or that failed to reflect the contributions of all members of the economy made the (inaudible) petition. Through biotechnology we are producing greater quantities of food with less use of natural resources and less use of environmentally (inaudible) standards. We're making farmers more efficient and more profitable while producing more abundant and nutritious food. Biotechnology is an important promising filter in which we will aide in securing our food supply in a sustainable way. Biotechnology not only offers a reasonable solution to feeding the 8 to 12 billion people that are alive today and inhabit the earth and in our children's lifespans, but they also allow developing countries to transition directly from preindustrial to postindustrial economies thereby avoiding the extraordinary waste in pollution (inaudible).

I want to talk just briefly that growers, manufacturers, and consumers will all benefit from the advances in the nutritional profiles of food and animal feed incorporation of sustainable practices in agriculture and the efficiencies that biotechnology may bring to the basic production of food.

Given the enormous benefits biotechnology offers to agriculture and the environment as well as its tremendous economic opportunities it holds in store for the U.S., ensuring continued market access for the products derived from biotechnology must remain a high priority for the U.S. trade agenda and thus WTO agenda. Continued market access is vital to maintaining a global acceptance and demand for U.S. exports and products derived from biotechnology. All too often, though, science has not been subjected to rigorous peer review. Science that has not been subjected to rigorous peer review is getting used in the establishment of unconventional trade barriers to justify prohibitions on products. It is not to be compared to lengthy licensing procedures but is having the same effect as outright banning. This cannot be allowed to continue. Market access for products in biotechnology should be equal to that afforded to traditional counterparts where the products are known to safe and wholesome. Nations that deny market access to U.S. products derived from biotechnology must understand that business as usual with the U.S. will not continue if that improper treatment persists.

Accordingly, Monsanto supports the President's call for a new round of WTO negotiations to further open markets and eliminate trade barriers. Monsanto believes that such negotiations should proceed with the following principles in mind:

The United States should, number one, take all steps necessary to guard against any efforts to use new negotiations as an opportunity to weaken or backtrack from the advances made by the existing improvements. Two, work to secure compliance of all agreements already in effect. Three, make certain that products derived from biotechnology are accorded treatment no less favorable than like products made through other means. Four, address issues related to biotechnology within existing WTO frameworks and to include them with generally applicable principles as opposed to separating them or allowing them to be singled out for special treatment. And five, ensure that to the extent an exception or differential treatment is warranted for particular applications of biotechnology, such application is as limited as possible and provides to the extent necessary, is no more trade-restrictive than necessary, and does not disguise restrictions on trade, and is justified by a sound scientific analysis.

Special concern for future negotiations should also be the increasingly widespread abuse of import licensing and product approval procedures by certain nations. Rather than making transparent decisions on such requests based on the merits of the application before them, farm regulators are using delaying in terms of procedure to deny market access. In this way foreign governments are affected from putting prohibitions on products without supporting the transparent process imports should be employed under WTO rules. Such practices must not continue. The benefits of biotechnology are to raise the tide through all hopes. Briefly I'll touch on four specific points and then conclude.

Monsanto considers the SPS agreement to be one of the landmark achievements of the WTO, and the United States must support it against any attempts to weaken it. Two, the TRIPS agreement also is an extraordinary accomplishment, and let's keep it acting. The fundamental rights and protections established in the agreement must not be diminished or weakened as a result of the new negotiations. Three, turning to agriculture in general, Monsanto supports broad cuts in tariffs and the elimination of quotas on agricultural products. And four, in relation to developing countries, Monsanto recognizes the considerable burdens faced by many developing and least-developed countries in attempting to meet their WTO obligations. Well, we believe that the best way to achieve both compliance by designated time tables is for the WTO to provide better technical and other assistance these countries need. (Inaudible) or bending the rules or extending time for compliance would be counterproductive for the particular developing countries involved in as well as for the U.S.

In conclusion, allow me to say that the points made here today and those set forth in our brief are intended to preserve against the international trade system that stands on economic opportunities around the world. Further reductions in duties and other market barriers coupled with full enforcement of existing agreements will go a long way towards establishing a more transparent, predictable, and secure trading conditions the WTO was created to achieve. We look forward to working with the FDR and other representatives on the committee as this process moves forward and hope that we can be of assistance in every way that we can. Thanks.