Full text of "Alternative crops and their potential to feed the world : hearing before the Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture and Hunger of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, June 9, 1994"

See other formats

A ALTERNATIVE CROPS AND THEIR
X POTENTIAL TO FEED THE WORLD

Y4.AG 8/1:103-72

Alternative Crops and Their Potenti...

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREIGN
AGRICULTURE AND HUNGER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 9, 1994

Serial No. 103-72

'S i)r

} fj 1 1

"°'* 199,

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-635 WASHINGTON : 1994

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-045831-5

\\\ ALTERNATIVE CROPS AND THEIR
V POTENTIAL TO FEED THE WORLD

Y4.AG 8/1:103-72

Alternative Crops and Their Potenti...

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE OX FOREIGN
AGRICULTURE AND HUNGER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 9, 1994

Serial No. 103-72

SfTw J

NOV 2

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-635 WASHINGTON : 1994

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-045831-5

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

E (KIKA) de

GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California,

Vice Chairman
CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas
HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri
TIMOTHY J. PENNY, Minnesota
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
BILL SARPALIUS, Texas
JILL L. LONG, Indiana
GARY A. CONDIT, California
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina
DAVID MINGE, Minnesota
EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
JAY INSLEE, Washington
THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky
KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi
SAM FARR, California
PAT WILLIAMS, Montana
BLANCHE M. LAMBERT, Arkansas

la GARZA, Texas, Chairman

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas,

Ranking Minority Member
BILL EMERSON, Missouri
STEVE GUNDERSON, Wisconsin
TOM LEWIS, Florida
ROBERT F. (BOB) SMITH, Oregon
LARRY COMBE ST, Texas
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BILL BARRETT, Nebraska
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa
JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio
THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
JAY DICKEY, Arkansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
NICK SMITH, Michigan
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

Professional Staff

Dianne Powell, Staff Director

Vernie Hubert, Chief Counsel and Legislative Director

Gary R. Mitchell, Minority Staff Director

James A. Davis, Press Secretary

Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture and Hunger

TIMOTHY J

CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina,

Vice Chairman
THOMAS J. BARLOW III, Kentucky
CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
SCOTTY BAESLER, Kentucky
CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas

PENNY, Minnesota, Chairman

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
TOM LEWIS, Florida
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

(ID

CONTENTS

Page

Allard, Hon. Wayne, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado,
opening statement 2

Penny, Hon. Timothy J., a Representative in Congress from the State of
Minnesota, opening statement 1

Witnesses

Brown, Terrance J., Assistant to the Administrator, Policy and Program Co-
ordination, U.S. Agency for International Development 30

Prepared statement 86

Kugler, Daniel E., Deputy Administrator, Cooperative State Research Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture 5

Prepared statement 64

Lamb, John E., associate director, trade and investment, Chemonics Inter-
national 31

Prepared statement 93

Singh, R.B., senior officer, research and technology development division,

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy 2

Prepared statement 48

Response to written questions 26

Tucker, Nancy J., vice president, international trade & development, Produce

Marketing Association 34

Prepared statement 98

Vietmeyer, Noel D., office of international affairs, National Research

Council 7

Prepared statement 79

(III)

ALTERNATIVE CROPS AND THEIR POTENTIAL

TO FEED THE WORLD

THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 1994

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture and Hunger,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in room
1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Timothy J. Penny
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Barlow, Allard, Doolittle, and Canady.

Staff present: Joseph Muldoon, associate counsel; Glenda L. Tem-
ple, clerk; Jane Shey, Anita R. Brown, and Lynn Gallagher.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. PENNY, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MIN-
NESOTA

Mr. Penny. The subcommittee will come to order.

On behalf of the Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture and Hun-
ger, I want to thank our witnesses for coming today to shed light
on underutilized crops and their potential in solving some of the
problems we face in the world today. Of the thousands of species
of edible plants, humans use only a handful in commercial agricul-
tural production. As we will learn today, expanding the diversity
of our agricultural resources has many benefits.

The purpose of this hearing is to explore some of the great poten-
tial these underutilized crops hold in meeting today's food chal-
lenges. Some of these forgotten crops are adaptable to drought or
other harsh growing conditions. Some have improved nutritional
properties, and others have great potential in providing new food
varieties, medicines, or industrial products.

Today, we will look to learn more about the efforts of various or-
ganizations and institutions in developing and promoting these
crops for wider use. We will be hearing testimony from representa-
tives from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Agency for
International Development, as well as other distinguished experts.

We are also particularly pleased that the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations has agreed to send Mr. Singh
from Rome to brief the Congress on FAO's role concerning this im-
portant subject.

And with that, we would like to call forward our first panel
which includes Dr. Singh, senior officer, research center, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Dr. Dan Kugler,
Deputy Administrator, Cooperative State Research Service, U.S.

(l)

Department of Agriculture; Mr. Noel Vietmeyer, office of inter-
national affairs, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

We call you forward to the witness table and while you are get-
ting situated, I would ask Mr. Allard if he has any opening re-
marks.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLO-
RADO

Mr. Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to welcome
our witnesses at today's hearing to review the availability of alter-
native crops and the potential of such crops to feed the world. This
is an important issue and one that is emphasized in the report to
Congress issued each year on World Food Day. The most recent re-
port describes the food assistance provided to millions of people
around the world in 90 different countries. In 1993, the United
States provided almost 8 million tons of food valued at $2.3 billion.

Use of alternative crops is one of the methods under scrutiny as
a means to address the methods of feeding nations around the
world. It must be viewed in concert with other efforts to enhance
agricultural practices, such as improved farming techniques
through programs such as the farmer-to-farmer program and inno-
vative research.

In 1990, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
estimated that one person in five in the developing world has an
inadequate food intake. The causes included not only poverty but
natural disasters and civil wars.

One hearing will focus on one of the tools available to help these
developing nations. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Penny. Thank you, Mr. Allard. We will start with you, Dr.
Singh. I certainly appreciate your traveling all this distance to join
us today. I have read your testimony. You are free to summarize
your testimony as you see fit and, again, welcome to our sub-
committee.

STATEMENT OF R.B. SINGH, SENIOR OFFICER, RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DRnSION, FOOD AND AGRI-
CULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, ROME,
ITALY

Mr. Singh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honorable Congressmen,
fellow panelists, ladies and gentlemen. We are, indeed, very hon-
ored to testify before the Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture and
Hunger at this hearing on alternative crops.

Mr. Chairman, sir, I say to each one of the persons present here,
greetings from our Director General. He sees the United States as
the strongest member nation of the FAO in its fight against hunger
and looks forward to working very closely with this subcommittee.

I was asked to focus on the role of underexploited new crops in
enhancing economic development and also food security. Mr. Chair-
man, shall we consider that food security is very intimately linked
with economic security and environmental security?

If we consider the global base of agriculture which feeds the
whole world, it is becoming increasingly very narrow and vulner-

able. Of the 4,000-odd plant species known to have fed human soci-
eties, only three — namely rice, wheat, and maize — which make
about 60 percent of the daily diet of the people, are the ones which
are feeding in all practical sense the people all over the world.

The interspecies diversity of even these major crops, that is rice,
wheat, and maize are eroding very fast. In my own country, for in-
stance, Mr. Chairman, at one stage we had about 30,000 varieties
of rice, but today only about 10 varieties of rice are occupying
about three-fourths of the intensive rice areas in my country.

These species and variety losses have been going on unabated. It
is anticipated, expected, hopefully, that it will not come true, that
by the middle of the next century about 40,000 of the species
known of one or the other value would be lost. Some of those would
be lost even without knowing what is their true and actual value.

A list of such species which could be of significance to us today
and tomorrow is in the testimony that I have submitted in writing.
Sir, permit me to say that several of these species with devel-
opmental and research support from the national programs, as well
as the international programs, can hold the whole human society
in good stead provided the necessary support for their uplift is
brought in time.

It will be extremely important to have persistent effort, as we
have seen over the years, that a flash in the pan here and there
is seen in supporting one or the other of these crops, but the sup-
port has often been very inconsistent.

Mr. Chairman, honorable Congressmen, the FAO director gen-
eral is very keen to see that the efforts on these crops which have
been friends of people over millennia are sustained.

FAO has been active in promoting the research and development
of several of these crops in many ways. We have developed indica-
tors for measuring the contribution to economic and social goals at
the national as well as regional and international levels. We have
been trying to bring in new methodologies like participatory ap-
proaches. Indigenous knowledge is being brought to bear on the de-
velopment of these crops. The policy of taking the nutritional as-
pects of these crops are being brought into national efforts.

We are also trying to see that there is a linkage between bio-
technology and biodiversity of less known crops which could be tai-
lored to meet some of the new and emerging needs.

And to do all this, the moment we come into the play of
biodiversity and biotechnology, obviously the need for sharing this
diversity in a judicious and equitable manner cannot be ignored.
The global plan of action, also the farmers' rights and the global
information system on crop genetic resources are some very impor-
tant initiatives in the recent years from the FAO side.

Sir, FAO stands committed within its means and measures to
work with countries like the United States. The United States has
always been a pace setter in many fields and has been the world
leader in modernizing agriculture. This very hearing is a testimony
to the U.S. interest in orphan crops of extremely high potential.

Lately, we noticed that in Europe, also in Japan, in several other
developed countries and in some of the developing countries like
India, Brazil, and China there is an interest in some of these ne-
glected, but highly potential crops.

Clearly, then at this juncture there is a need for the strengthen-
ing of interest of these various cooperators and partners. FAO,
which is one of your organizations, stands ready to serve its mem-
ber nations in this endeavor.

Sir, with 2 minutes possible, there are a few slides. I would like
to show them.

[Slides are shown.]

Mr. Singh. Sometimes the obvious needs to be reiterated. We
have been estimating that about 800 million people do not have
adequate access to food. Worst is that 192 million children below
the age of 5 are suffering from chronic protein deficiency. Twenty-
five developing countries fail to produce enough food to meet their
local requirements even below the level of the biological needs.

By the year 2030, it is expected that 9,000 million people could
be on this Earth planet and we will be required to double our food
production in the next 35 years or so.

If you look at the population stabilization which would take place
in the next 50 to 60 years or by the middle of the next century,
it will be around 10 billion people. There will be a change in the
demographic pressure. In the developing countries, a lot of people
will be moving to the urban areas and that will mean a change in
the food habits and requirements.

In the industrialized world, we have noticed overproduction of
food, heavy subsidies, and declining prices have been confronting
their efforts in agricultural development.

Along with that, the technologies developed which bring about
this overproduction have been also a cause for environmental pollu-
tion. Genetic vulnerability is well known. In this country in the
1970's, with the epidemic of Helminthusporium in maize, the in-
creased interest in diversifying the base of maize hybrids is known.
The change in eating habits, the health foods, new consumer de-
mands all need to be recognized in context of exploiting new and
underutilized crops.

We also have to see that the role of the private sector, industry,
will also have to be intensified if we have to diversify our agricul-
tural production. Fortunately, biotechnology is today available to
us to meet some of the new and diversifying demands. There are
several attributes of some of these crops which have been neglected
over the millennia. They broaden the food base. They enhance the
nutritional status. They improve the household food security, the
national income, as well as they are helpful for soil fertility and so
on.

Here are some of the crops. Chenopodium fagopyrum. It is al-
ready a commercial crop in New Zealand of Indian origin. Lupinus,
a variety from Australia, a new crop which holds great promise for
diversification for food and feed and many other uses. Here is pi-
geon pea, which is an excellent crop for increasing production of
pulses, is ideally suited to semiarid tracts and is an excellent pro-
tein food.

Winged beans, of course, from southeast Asia, are one of the
most neglected crops with tremendous potential and a very bright
future. We have some right here displayed at the side table. Of
course the grain is the main food element. Here is a crop which is
grown in fairly dry areas in Africa, bambara groundnut. The next

is niger, an oil seed crop. It is the poor man's oil seed crop. Where
nothing grows, this crop not only produces oil, but gives you the es-
thetic beauty of these yellow flowers, like, as you see, the mustard
flowers.

Here the many fruits, as we can see in the front, pejibaye is the
palm seed from Latin America which produces the oil which is one
of the best oils that we can have in terms of fatty acid composition
and nutritional quality, but highly underexploited. The king of
fruits from Southeast Asia, durian, as you all know, it tastes like
heaven but smells sometimes like hell.

Here is the queen of fruits, mangosteen. It has to be tasted to
be believed. It is really the queen of fruits.

Many of the developed countries have not seen the potential of
these crops. Mr. Chairman, sir, I would only submit while these po-
tentials are there, they are awaiting to be exploited. Then there is
a need for cooperation from FAO, national programs, any other pro-
gram, regional and international, United Nations, governmental or
nongovernmental organizations to play a very significant role. We
in FAO are often restrained due to shortage of funds.

From the side of the director general of FAO, sir, I would only
like to reiterate our commitment and we are privileged to work
with your committee in whatever way feasible and deemed appro-
priate by you.

Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Singh appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]

Mr. Penny. Thank you. Next, Dr. Kugler.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL E. KUGLER, DEPUTY ADMINIS-
TRATOR, COOPERATD7E STATE RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DE-
PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD
M. PARRY, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Mr. Kugler. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee
on Foreign Agriculture and Hunger. Thank you very much for the
opportunity for testifying on behalf of the Department of Agri-
culture. I am Dan Kugler. I Deputy Administrator of the Coopera-
tive State Research Service and administer programs in sustain-
able agriculture, aquaculture, and industrial materials.

I have submitted to you a prepared text on behalf of the Depart-
ment and request that it be entered in full into the record.

With that and your permission, I would highlight some of the sa-
lient points from that text. We know that 10 grains here in the
United States — those being barley, beans, corn, millet, peanuts,
rice, rye, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat — constitute approximately
80 percent of the plant nutrients consumed by humans. We also
know that approximately 90 percent of the United States cereal
crop is used as animal feed.

U.S. agriculture is based on a narrow group of crop species and
many of those species are introductions from other areas of the
world, significant examples being maize from Central America, and
many fruits and vegetables coming from Europe and Asia.

This leaves growers with few alternatives and orients our pro-
grams, backing by our financial institutions, and markets to the
few major commodities. Yet, we know that new crops, whether they

are foods, industrial, feed, or pharmaceutical crops, can increase
farm income, expand markets, diversify agriculture, increase ex-
ports, and decrease imports, providing a stronger base for Amer-
ican farmers in rural communities.

New crop research and development has intensified in the United
States with new agricultural programs such as the sustainable ag-
ricultural research and education program, the Alternative Agricul-
tural Research and Commercialization Center, the Agricultural Re-
search Service's National Center for Agricultural Utilization Re-
search, and the Cooperative State Research Service's Office of Agri-
cultural Materials.

Despite these efforts, there has not been a concerted national pol-
icy to accelerate alternative crops introduction, development, and
commercialization.

Taking a plant or animal from a native species to a marketable
product is extraordinarily difficult. It requires long-term research
and development. It requires long-term funding. And it is fraught
with high risk from both the agricultural production side as well
as the product and market side. We oftentimes find ourselves in a
catch-22 situation, whether it be a new food crop or an industrial
crop or a pharmaceutical crop. Farmers are unwilling to try out
new crops unless there is a market available. And the marketeers
are not willing to go into their own product and market develop-
ment unless they know that agriculture is going to give them a re-
liable supply. It really creates a real problem in developing these
new crops.

USDA, in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies,
with industry, with our partners in the land-grant universities, and
with others continue to work on alternative food, industrial, phar-
maceutical, and fiber products. Some of the better known ones in
the food and feed area are: Caraway, pearl millet, saffiower, lupine,
vetch, buckwheat, fava beans, and canola. And in the industrial
and pharmaceutical area, we have cuphea, verbena, crambe, indus-
trial rapeseed, and taxus.

USDA also cooperates with international organizations, for ex-
ample, the United Nations and the Organization for American
States, to help these developing countries with agricultural tech-
nology and with agricultural issues. We note that the Agricultural
Research Service National Plant Germplasm System is active
worldwide in this regard.

In concluding the prepared text, if new crops are to make a sig-
nificant impact here and around the world, a coordinated national
policy and international cooperation would be most helpful. Devel-
opment requires farmers and ranchers, researchers, industry, and
the financial community working together. Success will depend on
market acceptability, research and development information, in-
come incentives, and perhaps most important, enthusiastic and
persistent champions in both the public and private sectors.

Program support in alternative crops is a wise economic invest-
ment for food, feed, fiber, and pharmaceutical needs around the
world.

In addition, we feel that it is possible for the United States to
help out with food security by promoting alternative crops such as

millet and teff, which are preferred grains in food deficit areas
around the world.

I will add one final note. I have read in preparation for this hear-
ing that there are a number of positions that one can take relative
to the current and future capability of agriculture to feed the
world's growing population. Regardless of which position you take,
providing safe, nutritious, and diverse foods in ample amounts to
the peoples of the world is a big job and alternative crops will play
a role. It is time to get on with the job, using the comparative ad-
vantage of all the countries of the world in agriculture and taking
advantage of new free-trade agreements. I think it is time that we
all work together to find and commercialize the next soybean.

If there are questions, Mr. Chairman, I have Dr. Richard Parry
from the Agricultural Research Service with me and we would be
happy to entertain your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kugler appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]

Mr. Penny. Thank you. Next, Mr. Vietmeyer.

STATEMENT OF NOEL D. VIETMEYER, OFFICE OF
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Mr. Vietmeyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members
of the committee. I am certainly very grateful to be here. I think
the American public, and I suspect most of your colleagues, con-
sider new crops as some kind of a sidelight, something of little real
consequence. But the truth is when future generations look back on
this legislative session, I think these particular hearings will be
highlighted as one of the most important.

I have submitted written testimony and in there you will get an
idea of why our topic has such a major importance. But in sum-
mary I say this, that with the possibility of global nuclear annihila-
tion seeming to be behind us, the next major threats to the future
of the planet are what we call global problems. And those are hun-
ger, malnutrition, deforestation, desertification, human population
increase, soil erosion, the loss of soil fertility, and maybe a couple
of others.

Now, when you think about each of those, you see that they are
really problems of the hot regions of the world. The tropics, we will
call them, although I am including the desert regions as well. Also,
these are biological problems. They deal with plants, with animals,
with soil with the interrelations between those three and with the
interrelations between those three and people.

To solve these problems, therefore, it just makes sense that we
will have to have the plants and animals and microbes that are na-
tive to the hot regions of the world. And the amazing thing is that
when you look with open eyes at the biodiversity of the tropics, you
find an absolute wealth of species, and many of them have such re-
markable properties that they are obviously tools for solving many
of these global problems.

That has all been summarized in my written testimony, but I
thought I would try to give you some sense of the remarkable
qualities of plants in particular. When I was a graduate student in
the middle sixties at the University of California, a professor in the
geography department, of all places, told me that in the deserts of

Arizona and southern California there was a shrub whose seeds
contained an oil that was identical to the oil of the sperm whale.

In those days we were killing sperm whales one every 29 min-
utes and killing them only for their oil. So for a young and impres-
sionable graduate student, this was heady stuff: The plant that
could save the deserts and save the whales! I spent a lot of time
researching it, and through the library I found that also it grew on
some Indian reservations in the Southwest. So here was the plant
that could save not only the deserts and the whales but also the
Indians.

When I got to Washington in 1970, I was told to find innovations
that could help developing countries. This plant was one of the
things that we — along with the Office of Economic Opportunity and
later the Bureau of Indian Affairs — looked into.

We were constantly concerned that there must be a problem with
this plant. Here in the land of entrepreneurship and vast agricul-
tural development how could such an exciting possible resource be
out there unloved and unrecognized? It seemed to me that there
had to be a flaw, a fatal flaw, and we spent several years checking
into it and, to make a long story short, there was no fundamental
flaw. There was plenty of uncertainty and a lot of difficulty ahead,
but today you can go into supermarkets, as I did yesterday, and
find products like this shampoo and they have the name of that
plant on it. Jojoba, J-O-J-O-B-A. I suspect that most of the people
in the room here, at least the ones that go to supermarkets, will
have seen that name.

Jojoba oil is indeed like that from the sperm whale but it does
not have a fishy smell. It penetrates skin and recent research has
shown that it fights the free radicals which are the prime cause of
aging in skin. People are giving all sorts of anecdotal information
about how it stops scar tissue from forming and cures burns, really
quite striking. I, myself, find that if I put a little on before shaving,
it just transforms the smoothness and the longevity of the shave.
I don't want to sound like an infomercial here. I am just trying to
get across that right within our own borders, under our own noses,
there was a remarkable plant.

Later in the 1970's, we looked into guayule. This is the little
shrub that produces natural rubber and Dan Kugler and his team
at the Department of Agriculture have taken that crop a long way.
It really is very good natural rubber. It is grown from this native
North American shrub. And Dan told me a few minutes ago that
truck tires are now being tested and that in a short time fighter
aircraft are going to be testing the tires out here at Patuxent Air
Base, tires made from U.S. farm-grown natural rubber.

Later in the 1970's, a university professor from Hawaii called me
on the phone and he said, Noel, I have this very fast growing tree.
I was not too taken with this news because he was a corn breeder
and I wondered what did a corn breeder have to contribute to for-
estry. But a year later, one of the staff at the Agency for Inter-
national Development called me on the phone and he said, Noel,
this tree really is good and you should explore it and I will pay for
the study.

Well, again, to make a long story short, that tree is now probably
the major species for reforesting the tropics. This is a piece grown

in Bangkok. It was 4 years old. Actually this is fairly slow growth.
We have some others that are 6 years old and are much bigger and
more dramatic than that. Bangkok has very heavy, acid, wet soils
and is not the best place for growing any tree.

This tree is called leucaena. As it grows, it also feeds the soil and
benefits the environment. This tree is being grown mostly by poor
farmers rather than professional foresters and they grow it because
they want feed for their animals, firewood, shade, and shelter. So
this is a tree that appeals to the masses.

Well, in the years since the 1970's we have investigated about 30
more topics and samples of them are here. We put out the story
about these plants in sort of inspirational books. We try to describe
the promise and the potential, and we produce the books in large
numbers and send them out around the world without charge. Peo-
ple then get very excited and they carry on the development with
their own funds, their own initiative, and their own enthusiasms.
That leaves a residuum of support in the countries, which has been
the key, I think, to the development of these resources which are
now burgeoning.

The last book we did was on vetiver, a grass that can stop soil
erosion. The grass is very stiff and strong and it is also sterile, so
when you plant it, it doesn't spread. If you plant little pieces like
this side by side across a slope, they grow together to form a com-
pletely tight hedge that is so strong that it stops the soil from pass-
ing by. It also slows up the rushing runoff from the torrential
downpours you get in the tropics. And that means that the soils on
the slopes have better moisture and the crops grow better and the
trees grow better so farmers and foresters benefit as well as the en-
vironment.

Although I am afraid this plant won't grow in Minnesota or Colo-
rado, it has been in Louisiana for more than a century. And it is
such a well-behaved plant that I am told you can find the location
of plantations that were burned during the Civil War by the little
hedges of vetiver that are still in nice, neat rows. Women in the
antebellum South used the vetiver roots, which have a fragrance.
They would put the dried roots in with clothes during the summer
to keep the moths away.

That was the last book we did but the one before it was on neem,
the tree that can solve "all" the world's problems. One thing it has
in its seeds are compounds that mimic the hormones of insects. In-
sects have a very complicated hormonal system because they
change their whole body structure several times, and the com-
pounds in this remarkable tree mimic those hormones. But they
are not good enough to help the insect get through its life cycle;
they jam up the hormone system. And so you find locusts that are
half pupa and half larva and other very weird things, but the bot-
tom line is the populations crash. Neem is now introducing a whole
new world of pesticides that come from trees, so it means the more
that is used the more tree cover there has to be in the world. Also
neem compounds are biosafe. They affect only the insects that chew
on the crops that you spray it on. The pests get the hormone mim-
ics inside them and get messed up, but the bees and the butterflies
and the other insects never get in contact with it.

Neem is taking off. Last year, EPA approved it on food crops and
my colleague, Mark Dafforn, yesterday found this bottle of neem in-
secticide here in a local nursery. A week ago I got some brochures
from the Scotts Company, the lawn care people. They are putting
out a product nationwide. It is all based on the insect control mate-
rials from this tropical tree.

Mr. Allard, we have investigated little-known animals as well
but animals are not so easy to move around the world or get people
to adopt. Nonetheless, there is a wealth of promising species and
there are a number of books that we have produced on those. Per-
haps the greatest success has been crocodiles, and you may recall
that 15 years ago or so, crocodiles were among the most endan-
gered species on Earth. They were front page news. Today, I am
told, 16 of the 24 species are entirely out of danger and 7 of the
remaining 8 are not highly threatened. This has come about be-
cause farmers use the small crocodiles and feed them up and then
sell the skins in a regulated normal commerce. It is really one of
the unsung and remarkable stories in conservation and the saving
of endangered species. We played a small role in it and published
a book in which we publicized this concept in the early eighties.

Also, we have done a book there we call Microlivestock. It is on
the idea of smallness in animals. And we have done another one
we called, Little Known Asian Animals, and it contains several of
what you might call the cow cousins. Cattle have several other spe-
cies that are closely related. The mithan, the kouprey, the banteng,
the gaur, and, of course, the yak. All of these actually have very
interesting genes and they can be as exciting for the development
of cattle in the future as some of these plants can be to the devel-
opment of crops.

I hope I have given you some idea of the sort of excitement and
potential and the wonder that is there. If you think about the fast
growing trees for reforestation and the vetiver for soil erosion con-
trol and the neem for the pesticides and some of these other fruits,
vegetables, and roots for hunger and malnutrition, maybe you will
get a sense that right here in the room we have some of the poten-
tial tools for solving the very serious global problems. And it is be-
cause these tools are out there but are not being used that I think
these hearings could be looked back on from the future generations
as some of the most important in this legislative session. Thanks
very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vietmeyer appears at the conclu-
sion of the hearing.]

Mr. Penny. Thank you.

I think I missed your point about the crocodiles. Why did we save
the crocodiles?

Mr. Vietmeyer. Crocodiles were being killed because they were
worth money and people were shooting the big ones and selling
their skins. Female crocodiles take about 10, 12 or more years to
reach sexual maturity, so every big one killed took more than a
decade to replace. But if you keep the big ones out in the swamps
breeding, you can harvest the little hatchlings. Mature females
produce as many as 30, 40, 60 hatchlings a year, few of which ever
make it in nature to adulthood.

The hatchlings are quite easy to handle and if you feed them
with trash fish or something like that, they grow very fast. A vil-
lager who gets a hatchling crocodile from the jungle and feeds it
with fish for 2 years can have an animal whose skin is worth $200
in some species. This creates an economic incentive to keep the
swamps undrained. And as long as the trade is regulated, every-
body wins, including the crocodile population because the females
are being protected.

Mr. Penny. And can you explain in a little more detail how we
went about coordinating the effort to restore the population and to
some degree domesticate the production of crocodiles?

Mr. Vietmeyer. It is a wonderful story and, as I said, an unsung
one. A collection of biologists from around the world basically
worked on the importing countries such as Japan, Indonesia and
our own country and set up agreements about how these skins
would be handled. This established a trade in legitimate skins from
the farms rather than the poached skins from the jungles and the
skins were not over a certain size. That was to make the big ones
from breeding females unsalable in the international community.

Mr. Penny. That was done by international agreement?

Mr. Vietmeyer. CITES, yes. It is a group of biologists who man-
aged to get the agreements and then at the same time they devel-
oped the whole idea of farming the crocodiles so that it could be-
come a legitimate trade. We played a role in demonstrating that
farming process to the world.

Mr. Penny. And which countries have the highest incidence or
presence of domestic crocodile production?

Mr. Vietmeyer. It started in Papua New Guinea, and they are
still one of the leaders, but it has taken off in Zimbabwe, Ven-
ezuela, and most of the tropical Latin America countries. I would
have to think further about others.

Mr. Penny. Are these primarily small-scale operations? I imagine
this is the sort of enterprise where it might invite sort of corporate
investment as well.

Mr. Vietmeyer. It has done that. In fact, if you have a chicken
operation, a crocodile is a wonderful recycling system for all the
offal and waste material, but the emphasis we encouraged was
small-scale development.

Mr. Penny. You talked about this miracle tree. What do we do
take the resin from that tree and use it as a pesticide?

Mr. Vietmeyer. The seeds are sort of like olives and you take the
pit.

Mr. Penny. The pit of the seeds and process that?

Mr. Vietmeyer. It is soft not hard like an olive, and it is the
main source of the pesticidal materials. They also have contracep-
tive activity in humans and, in fact, there is a contraceptive avail-
able in India commercially that is made from this tree.

Mr. Penny. What sort of— is it adjusted?

Mr. Vietmeyer. There are actually three contraceptives in this
tree. Two of them are just in research. The oil from the pit is
spermicidal. It kills sperm as effectively as the main spermicidal
compound that is in many contraceptives today. The other part of
the pit, the solid part that is left after you squeeze the oil out, has
materials that stop eggs from implanting in the uterus.

Mr. Penny. And how would that be applied?

Mr. VlETMEYER. I think it is applied by injection, but I am not
sure. I would have to look that up. And then there is research
showing that if you feed male rats on some of these neem products,
they stop producing sperm. And if you stop feeding them on the
neem, the sperm comes back again.

Mr. Penny. Has there been in terms of the World Population
Council, Planned Parenthood International, other groups, has there
been interest in these alternate contraceptive approaches?

Mr. VlETMEYER. I think not, but that is probably just a lack of
communication, a lack of knowledge. There are about 4,000 plant
species that are said to have been used for contraceptive purposes
in various societies, both present and historical. And it seems to me
that in that area is really a powerful tool for bringing the popu-
lation curve down, that curve that we saw on the slide a while ago,
because these are materials that can be grown in the villages
themselves and would cost little or nothing.

Mr. PENNY. In terms of our development efforts, and from your
testimony this morning, it appears to me there is precious little ef-
fort on the part of international development agencies to work with
recipient countries in the development of or in the encouragement
of the use of these sorts of crops.

Am I wrong about that? Maybe we will hear from the next panel
a little more on that in that regard. But I get a sense that we are
not doing a lot to encourage or facilitate the production of these
crops by subsistence of farmers in the developing world.

Mr. VlETMEYER. This is absolutely correct. In a sense, the three
of us sitting here sort of represent pretty much the main institu-
tional effort around the world. I find with my books that our great-
est successes are with nonorganization people: Nonspecialists, stu-
dents, and missionaries and certain individuals, landowners, all
sorts of people like that who get very excited about a new crop, a
new plant and something they can do for themselves, their village,
their family, their country. Oftentimes, the specialists in the fields
are our greatest barriers.

Mr. Penny. And why is that?

Mr. VlETMEYER. I think it is because the textbooks don't refer to
these plants. The general thrust of everything in the last 50 years
has been to focus on the primary crops, on wheat, rice, and corn.
So the people who have been brought up in that way of thinking
feel a little threatened, maybe, when we come in from the outside.

The truth is these old crops — the main crops — are what sustains
the world. We have to keep those. Wheat, rice, corn, and potatoes
and the other major crops are vital. We would go quickly into chaos
without those.

Mr. PENNY. Sure. If you have only 5 acres, growing wheat isn't
going to be your best option. Growing corn isn't necessarily going
to be your best option, but growing half a dozen of these crops
might get you through the year and leave you a little to sell beyond
feeding your own family.

Mr. VlETMEYER. You are exactly right. As Dan Kugler says, it
takes a lot of risk and there isn't a lot of support. You can't go to
the county agent when something goes wrong. The EPA probably
hasn't approved pesticides for use on the plant you want to grow

maybe and so you are sort of on your own. It is a scary thing to
be a crop champion.

Mr. Penny. You used to get funding from AID. Did I read re-
cently that that funding was canceled?

Mr. VlETMEYER. Unfortunately, that is the truth, yes. I am hop-
ing I will get it again and we will go on for another 20 years be-
cause I want to work down through those

Mr. Penny. Was that a specifically targeted grant or did it just
generally underwrite the work you are involved with?

Mr. VlETMEYER. It was a core support that underwrote virtually
all of these reports that you see here on the table. And with that
core support I was able to go out and supplement it from other
agencies.

Mr. Penny. Did you have a sense that AID was reading your re-
ports, putting them to use?

Mr. VlETMEYER. A few individual staff people, but the agency as
a whole, I am afraid, has not.

Mr. Penny. There is no evidence the policies of AID were sort of
enthusiastically driven by the results of this research?

Mr. VlETMEYER. No. In retrospect, this was partly my fault. I
never got across to the top level people the power that is inherent
in these.

Mr. Penny. Dr. Kugler, could you refresh our memories about
the advent of soybean production in the United States and how we
came to adopt that crop which had not been a traditional crop in
the continental United States? I can recall even in the late fifties,
early sixties, our farm in southern Minnesota was not originally
one that produced any soybeans, but by the end of the 1960's, along
with corn, it was one of the two major crops in our part of the
world or our part of the country and continues to be to this day.

How is it that all of a sudden we discovered and brought into
production on such a large scale a crop that for many decades
hadn't been grown at all?

Mr. Kugler. I don't have specific information for you, but the
process is quite similar to some of the other crops that we do work
with. And it really comes from finding out that the crop can be
readily grown in many areas of the country and that it has a very
good feed value or food value and will fit into many products that
we buy.

Some of the other applications, for example, in the industrial
area must also be relatively easy to develop. So it really has to do
with the adaptability of the crop and the food value that the crop
provides, both in our country and worldwide. It must fit a niche in
our agricultural system and just expanded very rapidly.

I do have some information back in my office on kind of the his-
tory of how the soybean sort of took off.

Mr. Penny. But the point is there had to be a confluence of fac-
tors that all of a sudden led to the broad-based production of soy-
beans in America. Cooperatives, perhaps. Processors, the Extension
Service. I am trying to figure out who all was involved here and
why this caught on so quickly.

Mr. Kugler. I am afraid I don't have the background. Perhaps
Dr. Parry does.

Mr. VlETMEYER. I do. You have hit on something very important
and interesting and a model example. Soybeans were brought here
in 1804 by Ben Franklin and for more than a century it was like
these things here. They were considered a sidelight and there were
enthusiasts who were considered sort of kooks and it wasn't until
the 1920's when two people in the Department of Agriculture here
in Washington and I think at the University of Illinois became the
champions of soybean.

And for many of these crops, it is an individual or a few individ-
uals like that that make all the difference. And in the 1920's these
three or four people became the champions and they convinced
Henry Ford that the soybean was the crop of the country's future
and he created a car out of it or something. Anyway, the steering
wheels of quite a few Fords were made out of soybean materials.
And this is what sort of broke the mental logjam.

Also, by that time we had big presses that could squeeze the oil
out and so you had two products, the oil and the protein residue.
And so we have had soybeans only since the 1920's, in fact, sort
of commercially since the 1930's. Today, soybean is, I am told, is
the most valuable crop in the Nation, at least among legal crops.

Mr. Penny. The future — it seems to me that there are probably
several crops out there right now that fit the same bill. I mean,
that with the right combination of factors, we could do the same
thing with perhaps amaranth. I am just trying to get a sense of
what are the few crops at least domestically in the United States
that comes closest to the soybean model and could provide opportu-
nities for agriculture similar to those that came our way with soy-
bean production.

Mr. Kugler. One of the things, I add to what Noel has said, is
a very significant era back in that time with Henry Ford — when
the soybean was brought forward was the Chemurgy movement.
There was a large group of industry people and Government, as
well as academicians looking for the development of many products
from plants including soybean. They did showcase the soybean and
created many parts, if not all, of the body of an automobile from
components of the soybean.

Today, we have some of the similar sort of organizations being
formed here with a group like AARC, perhaps, leading a new
charge. This traces back to the new farm and forest products task
force delivering their report to Congress almost a decade ago.

The elements, I think, are out there now. There are a lot of peo-
ple that are working — a lot more people probably than ever be-
fore— in the alternative crops area and there are many possible
new soybean-type crops coming along. There are several in the in-
dustrial area that I am most familiar with. We have a fiber crop
that is a hibiscus that is called kenaf. There are five active busi-
nesses in the United States that have started up since 1990 that
are growing, processing, and manufacturing products from its fi-
bers.

We have crambe, which has gone from zero acres to, I think,
60,000 acres in North Dakota and is being used to manufacture a
number of plastic-like products. We are continuing to work with
guayule and although there is no commercial production at this
point, we are finding some very interesting biocidal activities that

may prevent barnacle growth and may be looking to the future of
painting battleships with guayule rather than putting tires on air-
craft.

One of, I think, the most promising crops coming into the United
States is in the area of aquaculture. People seem to forget that fish
are crops. And we have an expanding area in the production of
Tilapia, which is a tropical fish. And we are seeing fish being
grown at electrical power utilities, coal-powered utilities, for exam-
ple, where there is residual heated water from the cooling towers.
The water is being cycled into various kinds of recirculating tanks,
raceways, or ponds and they are growing tropical fish in North Da-
kota and all across the country from residual heat. So I think
Tilapia could be a soybean of the future.

Kenaf may also be a soybean of the future.

Mr. Penny. Mr. Singh, in your testimony you talked about the
preferred grains in areas such as Africa, those preferred grains
being millet, teff. The suggestion is that these are not grains that
are commonly grown in the United States, that it would be a waste
of our time to grow them here. I mean, are these grains that can
be grown in abundance in Africa so they wouldn't need to import
and if the United States were to grow them, for export, can these
African nations afford to buy grain from the United States?

Mr. Singh. I think the example of teff, in Ethiopia, which I men-
tioned, teff is such a hardy crop. It is a cereal which can grow
under various stress conditions, low rain areas. Of course, there
would be areas in the United States where it could be grown, but
if the economic considerations come into play, obviously the produc-
tion should be where it is needed the most and where it is suitable
for its ecological niche, i.e. in Ethiopia itself.

My submission was that countries like Ethiopia, where this crop
has been there for hundreds of years, which has been holding the
hands of its people when they are under famine and so on, such
crops are neglected. There is very little research and technology de-
velopment effort that has gone into increasing the productivity of
this crop in Ethiopia per se, while a crop like wheat or any other
imported crop will get greater attention, so there is a need for stim-
ulating these countries to look into their own treasures to work so
that their local production of their tested materials could be in-
creased to ensure their food security.

I think for the United States, it may not be the right way to real-
ly go into a bigger way to grow teff, but merely to help some of
these countries in reorienting their priorities and selecting and
working on their crops which could be appropriate for them to
withstand the famine conditions in the right way.

So my submission there was more to help the developing coun-
tries rather than to establish the crop in America of that kind.

Mr. Penny. You also said there is a bean. I can't recall the exact
name.

Mr. Singh. Winged bean.

Mr. Penny. Winged bean. Which is a vine?

Mr. Singh. It is a vine. So far it is a vine.

Mr. Penny. Where can that be produced?

Mr. Singh. Well, it is a tropical plant and it has been tested in
several continents. In fact, there was an initiative in the United

States itself, probably you know, Noel. There was an initiative
which was not pursued to its logical conclusion, this is a story by
itself which can unfold how things can go wrong and a good crop,
which is waiting for attention, if not pursued consistently could re-
main neglected.

This winged bean is a marvelous crop in several ways. First, it
has the oil which is very much similar to soy oil. Second, its protein
content in the tuber that it produces is very high. It is not only a
bean-producing crop, but it also produces a tuber, a unique com-
bination. The whole part of the plant can be eaten. The flowers, the
leaves, the tubers, green pods, and mature grains in various ways
could be eaten. Nothing goes to waste in this plant. It is very rich
both in carbohydrates and protein and the protein content both not
only in quantity but also in quality, it provides a balance. In other
words, this crop is there to be exploited.

One of the things that comes in its way of commercialization is
that it is a vine which strings out in a trailing system and its cost
of production with this plant type is high. The staking costs — I
have some slides actually which I can show — in commercial produc-
tion is very high and is the main hurdle to its commercial produc-
tion, the cost of production goes high and it is not able to compete
with crops like soybean and so on.

In fact, the success story of soybean in America is simply because
it is most cost-effectively produced in this country because of sev-
eral reasons actually. And those underexploited crops are not able
to compete with it. If this crop could be converted by any tech-
nology, hopefully biotechnology, to help in converting it to a deter-
minate crop that can grow like soybean and then can produce the
pod parts in greater intensity and could be managed properly and
the cost of production could be reduced and at the same time all
the good features of it could be maintained. So, there is a need for
altering the architecture of this plant for the cost-effectiveness of
its production.

However, if it is to be maintained as a kitchen garden crop as
it is, it is wonderful. One can go right across from the kitchen gar-
den and pick up the pods any time, can dig up the tuber to supple-
ment daily dishes. So it is a crop which is really a subsistence crop.
It can stay there, but has potential to become a commercial crop.

A group in the United States helped some of the countries, for
example, in Thailand and was also involved for promoting this
crop, but there was no consistent effort by economic sector people
as well as the development people, private sector, to see it all the
way along. There has to be an integrated input, both of research-
ers, private sector, production costs, marketing, processing and so
forth and so on. Unless all those factors work together, it will not
work for the winged bean or any other underutilized new crop. So
it is still remaining where it is, but it needs some attention which
would be an integrated attention put to unfold its potential.

Mr. Penny. Is this an annual crop?

Mr. SlNGH. Yes, it is an annual crop in the sense that it com-
pletes its seed to seed lifecycle in one season

Mr. Penny. You have to plant the seeds each year?

Mr. Singh. Yes. However, it could be grown using the tuber as
well.

Mr. Penny. It is not like potatoes where you can plant the tuber
and grow it that way as well, seed or tuber.

Mr. Singh. Yes, it is propogated also from tubers. But the seed
is usually commonly used for commercial production.

Mr. Penny. But, for example, if you harvested everything, the
stalk and the bean, but didn't eat the tubers, then you would have
a bunch of these growing up.

Mr. Singh. Yes, it would come up.

Mr. Penny. What does it taste like?

Mr. Singh. It tastes like — in fact, there were market promotions
done. Its bean milk tastes better than soy milk. It could be cooked
in many different ways.

Mr. Penny. Does the bean taste different than the stalk and the
stalk taste different than the tuber?

Mr. Singh. Well, of course, they do. They do taste differently.
But there is no relevance in terms of its taste. It is more tastier
than other contemporary beans, actually. Most important, it is one
tuber which has 10 to 15 percent protein content on dry weight
basis.

Mr. Penny. And that compares to potatoes.

Mr. Singh. Potato is hardly 1 or 2 percent in its protein content.
Some new varieties of potatoes which may come through genetical
engineering, up to 4 percent of protein is likely to be in the tuber,
but in this tuber — winged bean — there is already 12 percent, 15
percent protein.

Mr. Penny. Where can this be grown again?

Mr. Singh. Well, this is a tropical bean.

Mr. Penny. In the United States it would be able to be grown
in the southern States?

Mr. Singh. Exactly.

Mr. VlETMEYER. This was grown in Florida.

Mr. Singh. In southern States it can be easily grown. Same way
for soybean, it was a tropical crop. It came from those areas.

Mr. Penny. But there is growing of soybean in Minnesota now.

Mr. Singh. Well, of course. This is where the researchers were
able to put the right genes in it so that it is able to adapt to newer
agroecological settings.

Mr. Penny. So there is potential this can be grown in colder cli-
mates?

Mr. Singh. Of course, it could be. This is where there is the ne-
cessity of directed research and looking for new genes and evalua-
tion.

Mr. PENNY. Thank you. I may have some other questions, but I
want to give Mr. Allard some time to pursue a line of questioning.

Mr. Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In addition to serving
here on the Agriculture Committee, I also serve on the Budget
Committee so I am going to ask all three members of the panel to
relate to this subcommittee your experiences in cooperating with
other agencies, and you might give that some thought. I will start
out with some specific questioning to Mr. Vietmeyer and then I will
go to Dr. Kugler and then over to Dr. Singh.

And first of all, in the President's budget for 1995, he requested
about $200 million for central programs to support research for de-
veloping new technologies and to improve food varieties and inte-

grated pest management. I am interested in knowing and also I
think other members of this subcommittee would be interested in
knowing in what countries this research is being conducted.

Mr. VlETMEYER. The research on new crops?

Mr. Allard. On new technologies. We have and maybe any
member of the panel could answer, but I thought I would address
this question to you, Mr. Vietmeyer, if there was any programs in
other countries where we were using the $200 million for tech-
nology development?

Mr. Vietmeyer. I see. This is $200 million in the foreign assist-
ance area or is it in the agriculture, general agriculture?

Mr. Allard. It is general agriculture, I believe, but it has been
targeted to, among other things, support research and development
of new technologies, improve food varieties and greater pest man-
agement. It has gone to the Agency for International Development,
so have you seen any of that? Are you familiar with any of it?

Mr. Vietmeyer. No, I am afraid I have not. I am sort of a front-
line trooper, battling the information or lack of information about
these plants so I don't know too much about the policies and budg-
ets, but I have had a standard statement for years that if we only
kept 5 percent of our agricultural research funds for new crops, we
would change the world. But you have to have a huge wall around
that 5 percent because whenever a pest breaks out in the soybean
crop or corn crop, there is a huge constituency that will demand
the money.

Mr. Allard. Is anything happening with new technology devel-
opment in foreign countries that we are supporting with our budget
dollars? Anybody on the panel want to respond to that?

Mr. KUGLER. There is some activity, I know, in the Agricultural
Research Service and I believe there is a laboratory in France; is
that correct?

Mr. Allard. Could you provide

Mr. Kugler. This is Dr. Parry.

Mr. Parry. The Agricultural Research Service does maintain an
extensive network of individuals that collect plant germ plasm ma-
terials and other parts of the biota from around the world so as to
evaluate their potentialities for crop production.

Mr. Allard. You are talking about the seed labs. We have one
in the university that is in the district that I represent and I am
aware that this is all over the country.

Mr. Parry. Yes.

Mr. Allard. What are we doing about — we talked about alli-
gators, we talked about this winged seed. There are a lot of prod-
ucts listed in this book called, "New Industrial Uses, New Markets
for U.S. Crops."

What is happening? Are we in any cooperative program in other
countries to develop any of these technologies or is this all being
done within the countries themselves?

Mr. Parry. Most of this work is being done in the United States.
There is a great deal of interest because some of these crops have
origins outside the United States. However, a number of these new
oilseed crops, for instance, are being evaluated as to their
potentialities for making new plastic materials for industrial uses

or new food uses on occasion. And this work continues on at several
of our laboratories around the United States.

Mr. Kugler. Let me add a little bit to that. In the industrial
crops area, there has been quite a lot of, I would say, cooperative
work without specific programs between the United States and
many countries. We have interacted with our colleagues in the Eu-
ropean Community and they have some fairly substantial programs
to support industrial crop development. These programs are prob-
ably at least one, if not two orders of magnitude higher in support
than what we do in the United States.

Similarly, we are working now, for example, with an organization
called the Association for the Advancement of Industrial Crops that
is holding its annual meeting in Argentina. We find in that in Ar-
gentina there are very similar crop development programs for some
of the very same crops we are working on in the United States.

Australia has spent quite a bit of time developing guayule and
kenaf. They are looking for commercial outlets, as we are.

We go to conferences literally all around the world where we
meet both with our research colleagues as well as those working
in commercial development. On an individual basis I would say, we
have a pretty good collective idea of where development of many
of these crops are around the world without a specific program.

Mr. Allard. You mentioned in your response that we have a lot
of cooperative — we have some cooperative efforts with European
countries and there are countries that have moderate climates, but
a lot of your testimony here we talked about tropical plants. We
talked about animals that were grown in tropical areas. Do we
have a problem in getting this technology utilized in some of the
tropical countries because they are poor countries and maybe they
are not as politically stable?

Mr. Singh.

Mr. Singh. I see there is always a way to go about helping the
poor countries. In the United States, there has been an excellent
cooperation with the developing countries in Latin America, for ex-
ample. You have been helping in many ways collection of some of
these crops like amaranth, which are collected and field tested and
widely evaluated to assess their values and worth. The United
States has also been helping through a network on in vitro culture
techniques and technologies are being developed in developing
countries to exploit the local potential materials, genetic material
for medicinal crops, horticulture and so on and so forth.

In Latin America, again, essentially through the USDA help,
there are networks which are operating in promoting and generat-
ing the national capabilities of in vitro culture. This is mutually
beneficial so that the plants which are collected from there,
brought in here for further breeding and improvement work and
finished material are taken back to those countries of origin of
germ plasm for large-scale testing and sharing the technology. So
this is happening and this will continue to happen, hopefully, and
when new technologies are widely shared. For example, the United
States is helping a country like India to develop a huge gene bank
and the gene bank would primarily be responsible for collecting
some of these materials there with appropriate understanding.

And now, with the appropriate communication and understand-
ing of sharing germ plasm, those gene banks which are being
helped by the United States, would be able to conserve the indige-
nous material, including the neem tree, the mention was made of
this, which is indigenous to India, for example, and some of those
materials could be exchanged. So a lot is happening and there is
room for still more to happen.

Mr. Allard. Mr. Singh. Is there more that could be done, that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture could be doing to help in the
international effort?

Mr. Singh. Well, sir, there is so much of need and pressure of
demand of development in the developing countries, as I alluded to
the number of people who are malnourished and undernourished,
so there is so much that could be done.

For example, a large number of technologies which are generated
from the international agricultural systems and a good number of
national agricultural research programs, are sitting on the shelves.
They are not being taken to the farmers whom they are really
meant for. What happens, this often, again, because of paucity of
funding support, break in continuity of programs and the con-
sequent ad hoc-ism which goes on in some of the international pro-
grams of helping the countries don't take us too far.

For example, a crop like pigeon pea, which is today restricted es-
sentially to India, has tremendous potential for a large number of
people all over the world in semiarid tracts. Technologies are there,
hybrid varieties have been developed, but there is no funding sup-
port to take it to the farmers, generate the capability of indigenous
seed production and if that could be done, then private sector from
the United States or anywhere else could be brought in to produce
the hybrid seed.

Take the example of the chick pea. A new technology for winter
chick pea, developed by ICARDA and countries in the Near East,
could start a new production system in countries like Morocco
where there is still food deficit.

Mr. Allard. Are you getting any help from the Agency for Inter-
national Development?

Mr. Singh. Well, in our field programmes perhaps not, but in our
field work perhaps very often we have linkage with the USAID ac-
tivities.

Mr. Allard. But nothing with the new technologies?

Mr. Singh. Again, I would say not directly in new technologies
primarily let us say varietal development and biotechnological de-
velopments, but I would say, for instance, in Bangladesh you have
a very strong USAID program with which we could interact. You
also have a strong program on biotechnology in some developing
countries. So what we are trying to do, what is happening through
your help to Bangladesh, we try to link, intertwine our support
with that which is ongoing at the ground level so that two plus two
is more than four, to get some synergistic output and in that way
we are able to link with the assistance — USAID.

Mr. Allard. Mr. Vietmeyer.

Mr. Vietmeyer. I think you have hit on a key point here. Trying
to find funds for any of these things is very difficult and what my
colleagues have been talking about are largely enthusiastic ad hoc

efforts mostly done by scientists of good will who see the problem
and see the promise and are trying to do something about it. But
there isn't any major thrust in the world to develop these alter-
natives.

And as I tried to say in my testimony, these hold out the possi-
bility of really solving some of the great global problems that are
promoting chaos in the world and when you look at it in that light,
the current efforts are just so minuscule as to be laughable.

Mr. Allard. I thought Dr. Singh brought up a good point, and
I shink it is a problem with all research, is that transferring that
research from the theoretical, from the development lab into the
field where it becomes applied in a practical manner and I don't
know what we can do. Aiiy ideas of what we can do in your pro-
gram, for example, to encourage that to happen?

Mr. VlETMEYER. I would love to give you some of these books
when I am finished and if you look at them, you will see that we
have tried to be the bridge builder between the knowledge and the
need. We have tried to pull in the knowledge from scientists and
the empirical knowledge that people have seen around the world.
A lot of it is not in libraries and we have tried to put it in a form
in which the users can get some enthusiasm. We have tried to
make these books sort of inspirational.

There are thousands of people around the world who are looking
for something to do for themselves or their families or their vil-
lages, as I said earlier. And we have found that they pick these up
with great enthusiasm. So we have sort of stumbled on an area
here of bringing the knowledge out in a way that it can be picked
up and put into practice.

Mr. Allard. What size of budget are you working with in your
area?

Mr. VlETMEYER. Excuse me?

Mr. Allard. What size of budget are you working with?

Mr. VlETMEYER. I have been receiving about $250,000 a year and
I supplemented that by shaking a tin cup around Washington and
doubling it. So we have about $500,000.

Mr. Allard. There is $200 million going to AID— Agency for
International Development. Some of that is to be going for develop-
ing new technologies. Did I hear in some of your comments earlier
you said that you did have access to some of these dollars, but now
it is no longer available?

Mr. VlETMEYER. Yes, that is true.

Mr. Allard. What has happened to that money?

Mr. VlETMEYER. I am afraid I don't know. I didn't know there
was such a sum around.

Mr. Allard. There is $200 million according to my information.
It is a number of things that it goes to, but part of it is to support
research and development of new technologies. Another part of it
is to go to improve food varieties and the third part goes to inte-
grated pest management and that is a lot about what we have been
talking about here in testimony on today. And there is a chunk of
money there that I am wondering why we are not hearing from
those people as to what is happening and maybe there is somebody
on this panel that can express some interest.

Mr. KUGLER. If I may add, I know if you explore similar kinds
of language within my own department, you will find I believe that
the large proportion of those funds will be applied to the better-
known crops. For example, in the industrial crops area you can
start with a fairly sizable number, let's say $100 million in tech-
nology development, but when you actually go through the work of
finding out what is actually being done in the new crops research
area, you might get something that would be 6 percent or 10 per-
cent of that at best. I suspect that the AID budget may be similar
to that.

To the previous question about process. Many of these books that
you see before you have been used by USDA as a kind of a starting
point. Typically what we would do for a new crop, for example,
crambe and industrial rapeseed as sources of erucic acid, is first
from consensus of potential among a small group. Then we would
convene a meeting of perhaps 2 days with as many as 20 to 30 peo-
ple with breeders and geneticists, with the agronomists, with those
who do harvest technology, those who do process engineering, and
those who do product manufacturing. We would also bring in the
folks that do marketing and folks from the banking and financial
institutions. We sit them down in a room and roll up the sleeves
and say, if this is as great as you claim it to be, what are the bar-
riers that are preventing us from taking this new crop and its prod-
ucts to the marketplace? In a fairly short period of time with a fair-
ly minimal expenditure of money, you can find out where those
barriers are and what is preventing making successive moves to-
ward the marketplace.

Mr. Allard. I am surprised somebody hasn't done that already.
I agree if that hasn't been done that needs to be done fairly quick-

ly.

Mr. KUGLER. It can help to pinpoint where the needs are and
then you have to go to find the resources to attack each of those
needs.

Mr. Allard. Now, apparently the European Union spends some-
where around $420 million each year to uncover new uses for ag
products. And can somebody compare how we compare to the Euro-
pean Union in making this effort of technology development? It
seems to me from what you are saying, with your budget of
$250,000, that we are not putting out near the effort that they are
putting out. I would like to hear some comments.

Mr. KUGLER. I can provide you with one kind of very telling ex-
ample, if I may. The new organization that I mentioned that spe-
cializes in the commercialization of new crops and products is
called the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercializa-
tion Center. It was started with the 1990 farm bill and a 1992 ap-
propriation of, I believe, $3.9 million.

At the very same time in the European Community and in the
Netherlands, a 5-year long project was begun to explore the pulp
and papermaking potential of hemp, which is illegal in this coun-
try. The first steps were to look at high-yielding, nonnarcotic vari-
eties and ways to place genetic markers in those plants so that you
could visually see that you are working with a fiber plant and not
with a narcotic plant. But for one single plant alone they developed
a 16-part program and put more money into it than we put into

this entire commercialization effort in the Department of Agri-
culture. This is indicative of the kind of imbalance that we have.

Mr. Allard. Thank you very much for your comments. I guess
the next panel we will have somebody from the International De-
velopment Agency and perhaps we have prepared you for a ques-
tion or two that you might anticipate. So thank you very much.

Mr. Penny. Mr. Barlow.

Mr. Barlow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful
for these hearings and grateful for you all to come and testify be-
fore us with your expertise. And I would like to — I know the chair-
man and myself back earlier in this session of Congress had some
conversations about how U.S. food surpluses could be used effec-
tively to help developing countries or countries where there is a
great need for infrastructure like roads and waterways and erosion
control — help them pay for the services of local people with food,
pay for a day's work with a package of food items rather than cash
or whatever. And that our surpluses might be effectively utilized
to help developing nations or areas of need in disaster or clean-up,
ongoing erosion control work. I am wondering how we might wind
into a package program if something like this is being worked on
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or is being perhaps utilized
by the Department and AID organizations around the world al-
ready— how we could take advantage of something like this in put-
ting into such a food package some of these newly developing com-
modities, whether they are in cans or dried and in packages or
freeze dried in addition to a package of flour for 1 day's work or
2 day's work or 1 week's work, a 50-pound sack of something.
Could that be done? Dr. Singh.

Mr. Singh. Yes, it can be done. It has been done in the past, for
example with the Public Law foreign assistance which used to go
to several of the countries. Some of these under exploited crops
were really important under such programmes. I know, I myself
was one of the recipients of such help. When I was still working
in India, a crop which is called guar, a crop of pharmaceutical im-
portance, a legume crop which grows in semiarid trails, even
deserts, was the topic of further improvement and that help was
instrumental in bringing this crop to the national mainstream of
research. Also, we know of countries like Sri Lanka that have the
food for work program.

The food for work programs, in several countries where the infra-
structures are being built for commercializing some of these com-
modities and crops, provide the right avenues for such help and I
see this would be particularly of greater interest in countries of Af-
rica, where more infrastructure building, the facilities, the logistics
support are needed. I think the assistance could be diverted to cre-
ate facilities to increase the capabilities of these countries to really
have their own production systems in place. I see there is a good
place for this kind of assistance as long as it does not negate the
local initiative.

Mr. Barlow. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Vietmeyer.

Mr. VlETMEYER. Well, getting any new crop started is a difficult
chore and if there is a market, that opens up the gates, so to that
extent, what you have suggested could be absolutely very valuable
for a number of these promising — I am thinking particularly of

grain, grain crops. A number that are starting to catch on here,
pearl millet, for example, which Dan Kugler mentioned earlier, is
one of the staples of Africa. And we, with our knowledge of food
technology, could probably make wonderful improvements in that
grain and its conversion into food products. And so introducing it
back into African societies could be a very valuable thing.

On the other hand, there is a limitation to taking food into any
developing country and that is that you are supplanting the local
farmer. Imagine what the outcry would be here if Canada started
sending free wheat or free grains to the United States. It would un-
dermine our own farming structures so there is a difficult balance
here. But as far as the development of new crops, if somebody was
to say we are going to produce quinoa for distribution for the Ande-
an countries to help pay for the work on roadbuilding or whatever,
as far as our end of it is concerned, this would be a wonderful step
forward.

Mr. Barlow. Mr. Kugler.

Mr. Kugler. I think it is possible to do something along those
lines. I, some 20 years ago, was with the Peace Corps in Afghani-
stan at the point of a severe drought in which one of the major pro-
grams in the country was a food for work program. There was pota-
ble water programs and so forth. I was there teaching physics, but
actually took a long look at the food and clothing, shelter and
water needs of the country. Eventually this led me into agriculture.
The programs in Afghanistan were quite successful. And using food
to help build infrastructure, for roads, bridges, waterways, deliver-
ing of irrigation water, and clearing of land, you could use this as
a vehicle for developing an agriculture that could be ready to re-
ceive one of these new kinds of crops or expanding the production
in certain kinds of areas.

It can be an effective vehicle if it is done in a very culturally sen-
sitive way.

Mr. BARLOW. All right. I am very sensitive to what Mr.
Vietmeyer says. We do not want to get into a position of supplant-
ing markets for local commodities, but yet I do think there is some-
thing that can be done here. There is needed work out there, not
just a one-shot project, but continuing work such as erosion control
and water retention and water purification through marshes or
whatever. A lot that needs to be done and if we do have the sur-
pluses of corn and wheat piling up, might they be used in some
constructive way and maybe even have the package, whether it is
a weekly stipend package of commodities, and have a requirement
in there that they include some of the regional products or maybe
even products that we might want to be encouraging local produc-
ers to try.

As the taste is developed for one of the commodities in a pack-
age, maybe local regional farmers would say, well, that is some-
thing we can grow here and all of a sudden you find that a new
plant is being tried out for a market we have encouraged by having
distributed it.

I would very much encourage everyone to be looking at this. I
think there is a way we could use our surpluses in a much more
long-term constructive way and, I see the TV pictures and the news
stories coming out of, for example, in these areas it is Africa where

there are tremendous numbers of people who are under threat of
starvation in refugee camps and so forth and we go in and dump
50, 100 pound sacks of rice or wheat or corn and then leave. I think
that there is a way we can be working in a much more long-term
constructive way. And if we could put some thinking in on how we
are conveying our commodities, and I would encourage you to do
that.

Maybe there is something we could do legislatively here to re-
quire some type of a packaging system through the development
agencies and I would like to hear it if it is being done, if you could
supply it for the record as well as suggestions on how we could im-
prove it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Penny. I do have some questions here from Chairman de la
Garza that he wanted me to submit to this panel and I would sim-
ply— it is only three questions and I would simply ask that you re-
spond in writing and I will see to it that you each get a copy of
the request from the Chairman.

[The material follows:]

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AGRICULTURE AND HUNGER

ANSWERS FROM R.B. SINGH, FAO TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUPPLIED BY THE

CHAIRMAN
THE HEARING ON ALTERNATIVE CROPS, 9 JUNE 1994

Question 1:

What is the role of biotechnology in promotion of minor and underexploited crops?

Answer

Biotechnology can hasten the process of achieving the end products in a much more
precise manner than with conventional methods. Thus, biotechnology would help in expanding
adaptability, profitability and acceptability of "minor" and alternative crops.

In fact, FAO is currently operating an Asian Biotechnology and Biodiversity Programme,
reinforcing their mutual role. In vitro cultures for rapid multiplication and for extracting
secondary metabolites from indigenous resources has already become a common phenomenon.

The non-technical issues, such as sharing of patented techniques and products as well as
genetic resources would have to he resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned partners.

Question 2

What are the possible mechanisms of cooperation among USA, FAO and national
agriculture research systems (NARS)?

Answer:

FAO, USDA, and NARS all, have interest in promoting alternative agriculture for
enhancing food, economic and ecological security. It is thus appropriate that the three partners
work together. Notwithstanding the outstanding support (hat USAID has been directly providing
the NARS, we feel that some of the AID's support could be channeled through FAO to achieve
syrgenistics results.

Another mechanism would be to undertake joint activities at national level where both
FAO ami USAID have ongoing programmes.

Specifically, in context of the topic under the hearing, AID is urged to provide generous
support to FAO's Programme on Global Action Plan on Plant Genetic Resources and the
technology transfer programme, as these two areas are priority areas, not only for FAO but

also, as I know, for USAlD.

Moreover, USDA and US Universities could spare some of (heir leading scientists for
short periods to assist FAO in its upstream research and technology development efforts.

Question 3:

What are the recent initiatives of FAO in conservation and utilization on plant genetic
resources leading to enhanced production of minor and lesser known crops?

Answer:

As detailed in the written testimony, FAO through the Commission on Plant Genetic
Resources the Undertaking and the International Fund, is developing a Global Plan of Action
and a Global Information System on Plant Genetic Resources. The Fourth Technical Conference
planned during the next two years will be a landmark event in this direction. Financial and
technical support from USA will go a long way in meeting the objectives.

Mr. Penny. I want to look more specifically at the work of the
USDA in exploring alternative crops. What would be the single
most important policy that we could institute that would create a
conducive environment for alternate crop production?

Mr. Kugler. Well, one of the things that is frustrating, I think,
to all of us that work in the new crop area is the difficulty of ob-
taining long-term commitment in terms of support for the new crop
development area. Many of the new crops start with a wonderful
foundation and yet it still may take 5 to 10 years of a variety of
different kinds of work to bring something from a starting point to
the point of actually reaching a market product.

An example I can give you is work I have done with the fiber
crop called kenaf. I started with it in 1986 at a point when we al-
ready had 40 years of experience under our belt. But, it had never
had a comprehensive look at the barriers preventing its commer-
cialization.

I was given a virtually uninhibited opportunity through USDA to
start the program. My instructions were to commercialize the crop
and come back when I have some results. A pool of money was
available to do whatever was needed. That kind of opportunity isn't
around very often. Normally is the case that we will work with the
academy or the National Research Council, we will work with uni-
versity people, we will work with State people and there may find
a very good, next generation, industrial or food crop. Yet our hands
are tied in terms of getting sufficient support within the Depart-
ment to engage in the kind of work that is necessary.

What we find happening is that the constituents, your constitu-
ents and the various States of interest will come to you and say,
here is a fantastic crop for the arid desert Southwest, for example,
guayule. If you are up in the North, crambe or industrial rapeseed.
They will come and say we need research and development to occur
for a period of 3 to 5 years in terms of special appropriations to
get things rolling and then, if it begins to prove itself out, we find
that it will be asked for through the Federal budgeting process.

So it is almost an evolutionary process and, again, returning to
my testimony, it requires long-term support for both the research
and product development area. It is just not manifest within the
Department's program for those kinds of things outside of main-
stream crops.

Mr. Penny. Does the recently instituted flex-acres program offer
any incentive for alternate crop production?

Mr. Kugler. I am sorry, the what?

Mr. Penny. Flex-acres, a triple-based system where we essen-
tially free up 15 percent of crop land for — free it up in the sense
there is no subsidy for the program crop and with some limitations
we allow farmers to plant as they wish on those acres.

Mr. Kugler. I can answer that by saying that compared with the
go-arounds from the 1985 farm bill where we had the nonprogram
crop program, which turned out to be a nonprogram for
nonprogram crops.

Mr. Penny. We couldn't think of any we wanted to allow.

Mr. KUGLER. With the enactment of the 1990 farm bill provisions
there is no loss of incentive for the farmers to try out a new crop
that may work in their area. You retain your base acreage. You re-

tain your deficiency payments. Basically we are giving the green
light to try something else out.

Mr. Penny. So in that sense it is an encouragement?

Mr. Kugler. Very positive, yes.

Mr. Penny. Are we too restrictive in what we allow to be planted
on those acres?

Mr. Kugler. I can't answer that very well. I have, again, from
my office and the work that we do, we are not hearing anyone com-
plaining anymore.

Mr. Penny. As I recall, the restrictions apply more to other crops
that are grown and I don't believe we restrict some of these non-
traditional crops on those acres, but then again people have to
know there is a market or they are not going to put the seed in
the ground.

Mr. Kugler. That is correct.

Mr. Penny. What about CRP acres? Are there grasses or other
crops that we could grow on CRP acres while still leaving some sort
of a stubble that would hold the ground?

Mr. Kugler. I expect that there are a number of grasses and

Mr. Penny. The point is that we pay a lot of money for the CRP
acres. We are going to have to revisit that program next year.
Maybe there are ways we can rent out of production for those acres
for a lot less money if we allow farmers to harvest something off
those acres without destroying the essential purpose, which is to
hold that ground in place with a grass or some other

Mr. Kugler. Some other kind of crop?

Mr. Penny. Yes.

Mr. Kugler. I think there are possibilities out there, various
kinds of crops that could be used in permanent pasture. There are
some fast-growing tree crops.

Mr. Penny. I was just going to say tree crops. Is there a possibil-
ity where it wouldn't bring you any money in the near term, but
by the end of a 10-year contract you might have a nice walnut for-
est or hazelnut or something else.

Mr. Kugler. That is certainly possible. I think many of those op-
tions are being explored.

Mr. Penny. I appreciate the testimony to the subcommittee. I
think a lot of what has been said by this panel sets up for the next
panel. Especially as we look to the international scene and how we
might reevaluate our foreign aid programs, our development assist-
ance efforts. Much of what has been said by this panel fuels ques-
tions for the next.

So with that, we will thank you for your participation, for your
excellent testimony and call forward the next panel. Thank you
again.

Our second panel today includes Mr. Terry Brown, Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Policy and Program Coordination, U.S. Agency for
International Development; Mr. John Lamb, associate director,
trade and investment, from Chemonics International; and Ms.
Nancy Tucker, vice president for international trade and develop-
ment, Produce Marketing Association.

We will begin with Mr. Brown and then Mr. Lamb and then con-
clude with Ms. Tucker.

82-635 O - 94 - 2

Your entire written testimony will appear in the subcommittee
record. You are free to summarize as you wish. Mr. Brown, please
begin.

STATEMENT OF TERRENCE J. BROWN, ASSISTANT TO THE AD-
MINISTRATOR, POLICY AND PROGRAM COORDINATION, U.S.
AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate
the opportunity to be with you today to talk about USAID's role in
the promotion of nontraditional agricultural exports. I am currently
a Foreign Service Officer with USAID. I have been mostly in the
field for the last 20 plus years, and a little more than that in my
A.I.D. career. Most recently, I was in Guatemala as Mission Direc-
tor. I am with USAID because I have a passion for people and for
development and with changing people's lives.

Rather than talk and summarize my testimony, I thought it
might be useful to have some view about people and what our pro-
grams are doing. With the committee's indulgence, I have a 5V2-
minute videotape on the impact of the nontraditional export pro-
gram in Central America.

[Videotape is shown.]

Mr. Brown. Let me speak about Guatemala, since my most im-
mediate experience is there. Twenty years ago when I was first
there, it was picturesque, a tourist attraction, and incredibly poor.
Most of the farmers on small plots were growing corn and beans.
When you go there today, they are growing snowpeas, broccoli, and
cauliflower for the export market. Farmers' incomes have in-
creased. Nutritional status has increased. Their commitment to the
future of Guatemala has increased.

And certainly in looking at the studies that we have most re-
cently done on the impact over the last number of years on non-
traditional exports, we have focused on small farmers. We looked
at the poorest 25 percent of the income earners in Guatemala,
those who normally command about 3 percent of GDP in the area
of nontraditional exports, and saw that their share had grown to
20 percent of GDP in nontraditional exports. This is a real transfer
of income to the poorest segment of society.

In other words, the poor are benefiting more from nontraditional
exports than from the general participation in the economy. I think
one of the things to stress most carefully, and most importantly, is
that this is not work in the abstract; it is not a macroeconomic dis-
cussion; it is about people and about reduction of poverty and in-
creasing the opportunity of poor families.

So, as I look at this table, John, specifically, has worked inten-
sively on the process. What we are really doing is working with
people and reducing poverty and working on food security. I think
in the interests of time, I will permit other members of the panel
to speak. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]

Mr. Penny. Next, Mr. Lamb.

STATEMENT OF JOHN E. LAMB, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, TRADE
AND INVESTMENT, CHEMONICS INTERNATIONAL

Mr. Lamb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee
and distinguished guests. I, too, share the enthusiasm that has
been expressed by the panelists. I have been involved in the past
10 years in trying to bring some of those crops to market. I would
like to, however, bring perhaps a slightly different perspective to
the discussion and focus on a different segment of the alternative
crops, looking less at the great variety of species that can be found
around the world, but thinking more of those species that may al-
ready be known in the marketplace, but may not be produced yet
in developing countries or produced at certain times in developing
countries when market windows and target markets may be most
profitable for them.

Since I come from a perspective not of science, but of business
and having been involved in the last 8 years in trying to actually
bring these to the market, I am going to shift to the marketing side
and to the problems of matching supply to market.

Although I presented in written form a number of these remarks,
I also have a summary of my verbal testimony. Given what I have
heard prior to me, I think it is better I speak a little bit extempo-
raneously. On the marketing side, obviously, the basic questions
are who needs these products; are they willing to pay for them; do
they have the capacity to pay; if they have the need and capacity,
do they perceive they have the need; and if they want to buy the
products, are they willing to displace the consumption of other
products to take on these products?

When do they want it, in what form, what presentation? There
are all kinds of marketing questions relating to the great variety
of alternative crops that are quite difficult to answer. In many
cases, these food crops or crops that have major potential applica-
tions to solve problems of nutrition at the level of individual farm-
ers can solve problems of lack of animal feed and other uses that
are quite important societally where the individuals themselves
neither have the money to pay nor perceive that those crops are
better crops. So the issues of who wants it are really quite impor-
tant to that.

On the supply side, the major issues are quite difficult to solve.
The first issue is can we produce it. The second issue is can we
produce it at a point in time when it is most profitable in the mar-
ketplace. Can we get it into the marketplace? If we can get it to
the marketplace, can we both produce at a competitive cost and ab-
sorb the transport cost and still make money? Are the channels of
distribution willing and able to accept this product? Are they famil-
iar with it?

Since they receive, in the case of a supermarket, something on
the order of 14,000 different new product introductions every year
and even in the produce section as many as 65, are they willing
to displace something that they already have in those positions in
those supermarkets in order to accept my product? So on the sup-
ply side and the marketing side, there are serious issues that hold
back the commercialization of many of the kinds of commodities
that we are talking about.

la the industrial side, obviously, there are both companies and
individuals that perceive the need and are acting on it. I might
mention, for example, 50 percent of the odd ingredients that are
used in the flavor and fragrance industry are produced from cul-
tivated plants. Twenty-five percent of modern medicines contain at
least one compound derived from higher plants.

The diversity of applications that you see in industry and in food
uses comes not only from the variety of species, large number of
species that exist in the world, but also from the fact that so many
parts of the plant can be applied. So when we are talking about
alternative crops, in some instances what we are really saying is
can we bring that to market an alternate use of that crop or an
alternate part of that crop that may not have reached commercial
sale yet.

At the same time, even well-known crops can give rise to alter-
natives through germ plasm research, through — I mean, through
application of new germ plasm, through biotechnological techniques
and so on. Major changes are occurring in well-known commodities
that are allowing in effect alternative crops and new crops to come
on stream commercially.

I think that those of you that are familiar with Calgene's new
Flavr-Savr tomato, which was recently approved by the FDA,
would agree that in a sense is a new crop.

The designation "alternate" actually relates in some ways more
to the location of the crop than to the crop itself. What is consid-
ered nontraditional in one place may be traditional in another.
Quinoa, as has already been mentioned, is a crop that existed for
5,000 years in the Andes, but not at all in the United States, ex-
cept in natural food stores.

Alternative crops, I believe, should also be included — should be
viewed to include well-established crops that are grown in a
nonconventional manner.

Organic coffee and hydroponic lettuce are examples of that. Ad-
vances in production technology can make or break both old and
new crops. Techniques that allow producers to advance or extend
production seasons are especially important for perishable commod-
ities, because they will allow producers to fill in windows of relative
scarcity and to pay the cost of getting them to market when it is
much more expensive for local production.

A good example would be in the United States the introduction
of day-length, neutral strawberries grown under plastic tunnels in
the Southwest, which has the salutary effect of increasing the do-
mestic supply of strawberries in the United States, but, in fact, will
hurt strawberry producers in Central America and push some of
them out of the business.

For mango producers in Central America and the Caribbean,
many of whom we have worked with, flower induction technologies
are now being used to advance the onset of harvest from the typical
beginning, April-May, to back even to March and even February.
That is important because it allows them to achieve higher prices
which pays for the investment in hot water treatment facilities
needed to satisfy plant quarantine requirements in the United
States.

Finally, for any and all commercial crops, it is always possible
to look for alternative markets or to increase penetration of exist-
ing markets through mixes of promotion, merchandising, and sell-
ing.

In sum, my first point is when you, the committee, look at alter-
native crops, I suggest that you look not only at very unknown spe-
cies, interesting though they may be, but that you consider alter-
native uses, alternative marketing techniques, and technologies
that make products growable in a commercial sense and profitable
in an area where they have not been produced before and that in
some ways is more important in the short run in alleviating issues
of poverty and lack of consumption of food in the target markets
in the producing areas, I am sorry.

The main problems that we have run into in trying to bring some
of these to market include scarcity of R&D funds; uncertainties re-
lating to market potential; the thinness of new markets which are
not ready to absorb large quantities of new commodities they are
not familiar with; difficulty in achieving the volume, consistency of
supply, and quality that the receivers and supermarkets want in
the case of U.S. markets and developed country markets; competi-
tion from alternative food products that can compete for scarce
shelf space; and the newness of many entrepreneurs to export ac-
tivities.

From the perspective of Central America, one of the major im-
pediments has also been plague quarantine barriers that are relat-
ed to the fruit flies that prevent many exotic fruits that are ex-
tremely interesting already grown virtually for domestic use from
entering into the United States.

As we all know, the alternative crops are increasingly important
to both developed and developing countries. They can supplement
diets, offer well-paying jobs and enhance on-farm and off-farm in-
come, spread production and market risk, and generate badly need-
ed foreign exchange, reduce long-term need for governmental sub-
sidies and restrain migration to the urban areas. And in the target
markets they generate jobs, income, profits. They also spread risk.
They provide variety. They improve nutrition and have many other
salutary effects in the target markets.

Substantial growth in trade in these crops, particularly horti-
culture crops, occurred over the past decade. In the areas that are
most involved in Central America, from 1986 to 1991, the imports
of nontraditional products rose from $66 million to $177 million.
During that period in the United States, as you well know, in 1991
for the first time horticultural exports from the United States sur-
passed each of our major green crops taken individually in value.
I am sure the committee is more aware than I am of the increasing
share of U.S. agricultural exports in high value consumer-oriented
crops. So both for the United States and developing countries,
international trade in high value commodities is extremely impor-
tant.

I would say that despite perhaps the appearance given during
the first panel, I believe that it is fair to say that the U.S. Govern-
ment has played a major role in the growth in horticultural trade
that is now occurring. Particularly in Latin America, USAID,
USDA, EPA, FDA, and APHIS all played roles in helping to estab-

lish that nontraditional agricultural growth has occurred. They
have supported the formation of local producer and exporter
groups, simulated new enterprise formation, facilitated new trade
deals, encouraged export-oriented economic liberalization and led to
just good business.

I can say, for instance, from the perspective of all the projects,
I have had the pleasure of running directly, a $15 million invest-
ment over a period of 7 years. It generated approximately $130 mil-
lion in gross export revenue which in turn, given some econometric
analysis that has just been completed, turned into some billion dol-
lars in economic activity in the United States itself. That is why
we find that U.S. associations involved in horticultural trade mat-
ters, U.S. producers and many other groups are, in fact, increas-
ingly supporting international horticultural trade based on alter-
native using existing crops, on bringing existing crops in alter-
native timeframes, in growing crops under alternative methods,
and so on.

So rather than going further in my discussion, I think that it is
important that the committee recognize that the definition of alter-
native crops includes not just the wide variety of species that have
been discussed, but rather nontraditional crops which are already
known on the market and at the same time I would like to suggest
to the committee, be aware that the recent changes in foreign ex-
change^— foreign aid legislation, which have caused a movement of
funds outside of the nontraditional agricultural export areas, were
already being felt. The effect is being felt in the reduction in the
impetus toward increased nontraditional agricultural exports that
I have been mentioning here. So AID has been involved.

Many of the U.S. Government agencies have been involved, but
budgetary legislation is cutting off that involvement, I think, pre-
maturely, long before areas like Central America can reach the
stage of evolution that a country like Mexico has reached over a 30-
year period or Chile over a 15-year period.

And I would urge the committee to reconsider the possible fund-
ing of continued activities in nontraditional areas which are having
a definite positive impact on many of the producers in that area.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamb appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]

STATEMENT OF NANCY J. TUCKER, VICE PRESIDENT, INTER-
NATIONAL TRADE & DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCE MARKETING
ASSOCIATION

Ms. Tucker. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the committee. It is still morning and I appreciate this
opportunity to be here. I represent a trade association, which is a
North American trade association whose members are growers,
shippers, wholesalers, distributors, supermarkets, and food service
operators. We represent the whole vertical scope of the fruit, vege-
table, and floral industries.

I would like to use a story to illustrate the impact of the develop-
ment and promotion of agricultural crops in developing countries.
It is a story which was told by Zig Zigler, who is a very popular
motivation speaker on the convention circuit.

He tells this story of a businessman going into a subway and
passing a beggar selling pencils. The man almost absentmindedly
puts a dollar in the pencil seller's cup and continues on his way.
He sits down and waits for the train. He gets back up and returns
to the pencil seller and says, "I apologize. You have a good product,
one that I intend to use and take advantage of. And I want to
thank you for providing this service." He goes on his way.

A number of months later, a young man comes up to him at a
cocktail party and says, you would never recognize me, but a long
time ago you came back to me at the subway and gave me the dig-
nity and incentive to become what I am today.

I think what we are talking about here is providing the dignity
of using existing agricultural skills for people in developing coun-
tries, perhaps better developed and better utilized, and also the
dignity of starting new businesses and creating new jobs. It cer-
tainly is not an easy goal to achieve. We need research on what
will grow in certain areas, which of these crops are marketable.
There is an awful lot of technology that needs to be transferred,
technologies of soil care, of cultivation, of harvest, of packing,
transportation, and selling, and certainly a lot of training of farm-
ers, workers, packers, transporters, and supermarket people.

Most of these developing countries need much better distribution
systems. A wide range of equipment is needed, as well as market-
ing knowledge, trade links with outside countries and, of course,
government policies that facilitate trade.

But certainly the development of nontraditional crops has a lot
of benefits, not just to the developing countries, but to the U.S.
market as well; to U.S. businesses and to consumers. For instance,
one benefit is the amount of variety that we now experience in our
supermarkets. Back in 1975, there were only 65 different produce
items available throughout the year in an average supermarket.
Now there is over 280. This, plus the color and excitement of the
produce department, have made it the most popular food depart-
ment in the supermarket since about 1987.

The produce department is also extremely important to the su-
permarket's bottom line. Even though it accounts for only 10.4 per-
cent of gross sales, it contributes 18.8 percent to the profits.

Year-round availability is another benefit. Contraseasonal pro-
duction allows us to have vegetables, grapes, tree fruits, melons
and more in the middle of winter. This is important to consumers
because then the item becomes a regular part of the diet, not just
a specialty item eaten a couple of times during the year. Year
round availability also provides the U.S. farmer with an important
lock on shelf space in the supermarket.

This is a very hotly contested commodity, and by having year-
round produce in the supermarket, the U.S. farmers do not have
to fight for that valuable shelf space when their season comes on.

Another benefit is increased business opportunities. Many of our
grower members have entered into joint ventures and partnerships
with farmers overseas. The amount of quality and year-round
produce that they are able to give to their buyers makes them look
very good.

Another benefit is an increased market for the suppliers, all the
companies that provide everything from seeds to equipment and

other things to the international farmers. For example, there is a
box and packaging manufacturer who exhibits at our show, not to
reach the domestic market that he feels is pretty stagnant, but to
be able to reach his growth market, the international farmers.

Along with these benefits are a lot of concerns. One, even though
the imported produce has to adhere to the same strict safety and
sanitation standards as domestic produce, there is still a perception
among some consumers that it may not be as safe. In response to
this concern, the produce industry has mechanisms and informa-
tion systems that can answer consumer questions and media ques-
tions, but it is mostly reactionary. What is needed is a proactive
consumer education program that says what the Government is
doing and what industry is doing to ensure safe food supplies, and,
of course, continued vigilance at the borders.

Another concern is competition. The produce industry lives and
dies by the law of supply and demand. An influx of imported items
will kill the market, send the prices to the floor and not allow a
reasonable return to farmers either domestic or international.

What is needed here is current information about the windows
that John spoke about — those times of production when there is a
lower supply both in domestic production and international supply.
There also needs to be programs to stimulate consumption. For ex-
ample, there is a five-a-day program that I am going to refer to
later.

Also, better marketing and education of consumers on new and
different crops so that people will go and pick up the mangos and
papayas when they go to the supermarket is needed as well as
streamlined Government procedures for admitting new crops into
the United States.

A third concern is failed ventures. There is a fear of getting
burned by different business and cultural activities, unfamiliar reg-
ulations, and perhaps not getting enough research on prospective
partners. What is needed is trade and investment projects such as
PROEXAG in Central America that has provided the linkages and
has done some screening of these companies.

In reference to improved food security, I would like to add health
security. In this whole area a number of national health agencies
have been making their recommendations that correspond with
what our mothers said a long time ago: That we need to eat more
fruits and vegetables.

What the produce industry has done is partnered with the Na-
tional Cancer Institute to create a program called five-a-day for
better health, which encourages people to eat five or more servings
of fruits and vegetables every day. It has been a national program
for about 2V2 years now. And it has generated tremendous interest
overseas. In the Philippines, in Panama, and in Europe there are
programs that are on their way or already started.

Actually, Mexico was a very good example of how many of these
production, supply, health and food security issues all come to-
gether. With the passage of NAFTA, a lot of Mexican grain growers
are very concerned that they are not going to be able to compete
with the quality and low prices of United States and Canadian
grains and so many are going to be turning to producing fruits and
vegetables. This has a lot of leaders in the Mexican produce indus-

try very worried about what an influx of supply is going to be doing
to their markets. So they were interested in starting a "Cinco por
Dia" campaign to help increase the demand to compensate for the
increase in supply and create a reasonable return to their farmers
and help the health of their population.

So in summary, I would like to say, there are so many factors
that are involved in making the development and promotion of al-
ternative crops work. Many AID programs and other projects have
been of great service. But I also think there needs to be a creation
of local institutions to continue these services after the programs
are finished and to help with local growth.

Associations can collect, store, and disseminate information on
the technologies. The associations develop and conduct training
programs. They provide a forum for industry members to get to-
gether and identify the needs of the industry and work on ways to
address these needs at conventions and seminars, provide profes-
sional development and networking and business opportunities.

Trade shows are able to showcase products to foreign buyers. As-
sociations are able to communicate, with a single unified voice, in-
dustry concerns to the governments. And also on the other side,
they are able to interpret government policies and regulations to
the industry. Associations identify opportunities and help members
adapt to change. They also consolidate industry efforts for pro-
motion or educational programs like a five-a-day.

The development and promotion of alternative crops certainly
provides significant benefits to businesses and people not only in
the developing countries, but also to the United States. But it cer-
tainly is a significant undertaking. It will need the research, trade,
and investment projects, as well as the building of local organiza-
tions or associations that will allow the industry to provide their
own support and leadership. And then we can have sustainable
growth.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tucker appears at the conclusion
of the hearing.]

Mr. Penny. Thank you. Ms. Tucker did your organization sup-
port NAFTA, the North American Free-Trade Agreement?

Ms. Tucker. Our organization did not take a formal stance on
it, but within our staff many of our members supported the NAFTA
agreement. Since we represent a vertical organization with a num-
ber of different members, we have been

Mr. Penny. Some of the domestic producers weren't real excited
about competition from Mexico, but you also represent shippers,
handlers, and retail outlets and in that category, certainly there
would have been strong interest in the agreement. What are some
of the problems?

Could you elaborate a little more about some of the problems
with importation of fruits and vegetables, what are the most dif-
ficult restrictions or barriers that are in place at present?

Ms. Tucker. One of the most difficult barriers is the
admissability of new products the amount of research and the

Mr. Penny. New products meaning.

Ms. Tucker. Products that are not currently accepted for import
into the United States. It could be some things, rambutans from
Panama or other new crops.

Mr. Penny. Why are you faced with barriers in that area?

Ms. Tucker. Significant amount of research needs to be done so
that along with the crops there is not an importation of pests that
will hurt U.S. agriculture or diseases or fungus or things like that.

Mr. Penny. And that is a reason that that should take a long
time.

Ms. Tucker. I think John can also address this, but there is a
number of Government procedures that you have to go through
APHIS for the admissability of new crops and sometimes that can
take 4-plus years.

Mr. Lamb. Yes.

Mr. Penny. How best to get around that?

Ms. TUCKER. As I understand, APHIS is now trying to streamline
their procedures.

Mr. Penny. Can we have agreements with exporting countries
that they could sign that would give us some guarantee that these
questions have been resolved before the crops are put on the ships?

I mean production standards, can we have trade agreements
with individual countries where they can guarantee that produc-
tion standards are such that these inspections don't need to be con-
ducted?

Ms. Tucker. Through the agencies of the USDA and through
APHIS there are certain procedures that must be followed for the
importation of crops. You meet these procedures and then you can
import the crops. And so it is not as, in my opinion, something that
can be solved through trade negotiations.

However, trade negotiations are very much centered around re-
lated phytosanitary concerns right now because free-trade agree-
ments are dropping the tariff barriers, the monetary barriers, for
trade and instead many countries are putting up these
phytosanitary barriers and these are the types of things that must
be negotiated. It doesn't have to do with admitting new products
per se, but it has to do with trade barriers that are being created
by countries to stem the flow of competitive products.

Mr. Penny. Is there a legitimate reason for us to be concerned?
Let's say we are already importing certain crops or produce items
from Guatemala, but we want to import a nontraditional crop from
the same country. I mean, if we are bringing in shiploads of
produce already, should it be a major hassle just because we want
a different fruit or vegetable to also be brought in from the same
country?

Ms. Tucker. Each crop has its own specific characteristic. Each
crop can be a harbor for different types of pests or fungus so each
one has to be evaluated on its own characteristics.

Mr. Penny. And the 4-year study, is that simply a matter of nor-
mal scientific procedure or is that a matter of understaffing?

Ms. Tucker. Both.

Mr. Penny. Both. If the staffing levels were adequate what
would the delay be?

Ms. Tucker. I do not know. I think John can also answer.

Mr. Penny. Mr. Lamb, do you have something?

Mr. Lamb. Yes. The APHIS policy which is implementing is basi-
cally a policy of guilty until proven innocent and there are legal
reasons and biological reasons why that policy can and was put in
place and why it is still retained.

Mr. Penny. How high are the risks to our consumers if we re-
verse that to innocent until proven guilty? I mean are these deadly
diseases?

Mr. Lamb. There are pests and diseases that could have major
negative impacts on U.S. agriculture.

Mr. Penny. Deadly threats.

Mr. Lamb. I would not recommend reversal of that policy. I
would recommend greater budgetary resources to APHIS. Perhaps
a little more impetus to act expeditiously on the import requests
that it receives particularly for those commodities for which there
is no biological, no proven biological reason why they should not be
imported and there are a lot of cases where a reference from the
scientists in 1917 is the only thing that can be found in a second-
ary search of the literature that prevents the product coming in
even though everyone in the country knows it is not susceptible to
the particular pest that APHIS is concerned about. So lack of re-
source is a major problem.

The speed of implementation, I believe, that the Administrative
Procedures Act in particular slowed up APHIS tremendously com-
pared to the early eighties. That has quite a negative impact on
new permits. In recent times we have accelerated the process and
our catching up with the backlog is significant.

Mr. Penny. Mr. Brown, AID has submitted a plan which would
better target its resources. I think it includes plans to shut down
offices in certain countries. Could you describe in a little more de-
tail the criteria that was used in determining which countries to
leave and which countries to focus AID's efforts in?

Mr. Brown. In the fall, the administration took a decision to
close 21 USAID missions, including Costa Rica as mentioned on the
videotape. Basically, we felt we were stretched too thin. Both peo-
ple resources and program resources needed to be better con-
centrated in those countries in which we felt we had a comparative
advantage and could make an impact. There were in general three
criteria used for the selection. An important one, and Costa Rica
is an example and Thailand is another example, was those coun-
tries which we considered to be close to graduation, that is coun-
tries which no longer needed grant assistance — and we provide al-
most entirely grant assistance. Those countries could then use
other sources of international financing, including the multilateral
development banks and commercial financing. The second criterion
was identifying those countries in which the costs of managing the
program were equal to or very close to the cost or the size of the
program itself.

The third area that affected a couple of countries was those in
which we felt the policies of the government, particularly our abil-
ity to access and work directly with the people of those countries,
were such that we could not be successful. In some countries, the
impact of our resources has been minor because of the poor quality
of partnership, and we did not feel it was appropriate to continue.
And those were selected.

Mr. Penny. In the countries in which USAID will continue a
presence, is there a focus on supporting subsistence agriculture as
opposed to agricultural production for market? Is there any sort of
general rule that you follow? Are we focusing on subsistence agri-
cultural first and then once that has been established, moving
more in the direction of crops that might be sold in the market-
place or exported?

Mr. Brown. Sir, there are two things to emphasize. One is given
the overall compression on the 150 account and in the AID budget,
resources for agriculture are, as in most other areas, less than they
were, as far as the numbers I have. In fiscal year 1994, we expect
to provide something like $200 million total in agriculture, not in
research alone, but in total, for DA and DFA alone. The total agri-
cultural level for all USAID managed programs is $405 million.

In terms of what specific activities are undertaken in a specific
country, we base that on a process, a country-based strategy in
which we look at what the problems are, what our comparative ad-
vantages as a bilateral donor are, what other donors may be doing.
We seek, then, to best shape our program to the needs of that coun-
try. For example, in Guatemala, and in most of Central America,
the focus has been on export agriculture. That is where growth will
occur. That is where the small farmer, the poor farmers can really
achieve sustainable increases in income and where we can actually
get a reduction in poverty in the rural sector.

In other areas of Africa, it varies based on country conditions so
there is not a single unique answer to your question, but basically
we look very carefully at the country's circumstance in determining
how best the U.S. taxpayer resources can be invested in achieving
sustainable development and sustainable changes in people's lives.

Mr. Penny. Can you give me any specific examples of why AID
has been involved in development efforts that might relate to the
production either for subsistence purposes or for marketing pur-
poses some of these nontraditional crops.

Mr. Brown. One of them is certainly the fast growing variety of
tree. It basically has been extensively used in reforestation activi-
ties.

Mr. Penny. That was discussed by the earlier panel.

Mr. Brown. I think that was an important breakthrough. An-
other one, again, based on my experience and not being an econo-
mist and not an agriculturalist, I do not remember the name of the
specific legume, very much like the winged bean described here, in
the Patan, as we have been trying to work to reduce the deforest-
ation of the microbiosphere reserve. One of the crops that has been
used to get away from slash and burn agriculture has been a high
protein winged bean in the area; people who have never grown that
crop before are growing it. It was the work of a U.S. PVO, CARE,
in partnership with local communities that made that possible.

Also, the budget analysis that we do on a macrobasis, does not
reflect the extent to which there has been a use of, and interest in,
and support for, either growing crops in areas where they have not
been grown before or adapting things to areas in which they are
particularly important. Certainly getting out of the corn and bean
kind of slash and burn agriculture in the tropical low lands in Gua-

temala is the key to providing economic incentive to the mainte-
nance of the Natural Forest Reserve.

Mr. Penny. If you are dealing with individual farmers in many
cases you are also dealing with very small tracts of land and in
that way it would seem some of these fruits and vegetables might
be a more suitable crop than a lot of other alternatives. Certainly,
more suitable than row crops.

Mr. Brown. There are a lot of issues around introducing a new
species. I think John outlined a number of things that are related
to that: marketing, experience, taste. One of the things that I feel
most concerned about is that the negative impact we can have on
encouraging people to do things that aren't profitable. That is, they
cannot afford to fail — they are substituting one crop for another
and if it doesn't quite work out for them, especially poor farmers,
they fail: They cannot afford to fail.
Mr. Penny. Can't take the risk.
Mr. Brown. I think it is something in development we must be

very certain about so there is a difference also I think between

Mr. Penny. There are two levels. One is can't afford to fail in
terms of a crop that has no market and another is the encourage-
ments of crops that at least guarantee them food for their own fam-
ily-
Mr. Brown. And, again, I think talking about the introduction

of green crops in central Patan is an example.

Mr. Penny. Mr. Allard.

Mr. Allard. I thank the panel for being here. I had a few ques-
tions that I wanted to pose and since Mr. Brown just finished, I
will follow up a little bit with him. You have $200 million in your
budget. You said that. How much of that that goes to alternative
crop research?

Mr. Brown. That answer, I would have to specifically provide
that number for the record.

[The information follows:]

For the record: USAID provides $19 million in direct funding to research on alter-
native crops.

Mr. Brown. By alternative crop you are referring to the work
that was discussed by the initial panel. Basically, most of the re-
search that we invest in agriculture goes to international research
centers and also in partnership with the U.S. universities in a pro-
gram called the CRSP program, joint research activities.

The major ones have been in the past in small crops, such as
peanuts. There are a number of them, but the total research budg-
et is not huge — plus, also I, frankly, do not know what other inter-
national research centers may be working on alternative crops, per-
haps I can provide that to your office.

Mr. Allard. If you would supply I would appreciate it.

Mr. Brown. I will also say for the first time the agency has es-
tablished a research advisory council and in the reorganization
when Brian Atwood became administrator, in looking at what we
were doing in general in research and not just in agricultural re-
search, that had been an ad hoc relationship between choices of re-
search expenditures and agency policy.

With Carol Lancaster, who is the deputy administrator, who is
the chair of the research council, my staff is doing the staff work

for that in addition to the technical side by the global bureau, and
I think we are, for the first time, trying to get a firm handle on
what we are doing and then what should we be doing. So the issue
about sustaining expenditures in research is quite important in a
very compressed budget environment and I think we are now try-
ing to bring a policy dimension to our choices on research so that
what we then choose to invest taxpayer funds in the context of de-
velopment, we will be able to sustain them.

Mr. Allard. Do you work with other agencies in trying to deter-
mine where you want to spend your money as far as alternative
crops, you work with the Department of Agriculture. Do you work
with industry?

Mr. Brown. In terms of how the — I have not been deeply in-
volved, certainly, in the determination of decisions on the research
budget at this point. There are consultations and we expect to
broaden those consultations around the sort of research that AID,
does the research USAID should be focused on as opposed to re-
search that should be done; an issue is the extent to which AID-
funded research is more focused domestically or has other constitu-
ent pieces.

Mr. Allard. You were answering some questions here to the
chairman of the committee. Were you using the term slash and
burn agriculture?

Mr. Brown. Yes.

Mr. Allard. Slash and burn agriculture. Could you give me some
examples.

Mr. Brown. Going into basically a natural forest area and the
basic crop that producer wants to produce is corn or beans. They
then clear the land, burn — mostly burn and not use the natural for-
est cover, plant the traditional crops. Usually, for example, in many
tropical forest areas the soil is very thin and very weak. This meth-
od usually can produce crops for only a couple of years.

Mr. Allard. Do we have enough land in production to feed this
world's population now?

Mr. Brown. That type of agriculture is the very one we are — one
of those we are — trying to develop alternatives to because it is ex-
tremely environmental

Mr. Allard. No, no. My question is, do we have enough land
today to produce food for the population of the world?

Mr. Brown. Today? Yes.

Mr. Allard. And where should we turn to expand production,
where can we turn to expand that production?

Mr. Brown. Production would have to be in the long run expan-
sion, improve your technology.

Mr. Allard. Where?

Mr. Brown. Technology.

Mr. Allard. But where can we improve that production? I mean
geographically in this world? Which regions?

Mr. Brown. If I look at the world as a total market, then expan-
sion of production as long as there is sufficient levels of income
should provide sufficient levels of production. We should be looking
to expanding production, for example, in areas which are less re-
source-rich, less rich in water resources.

Mr. Allard. So you can't expand production in desert areas.

Mr. Brown. That is one possibility.

Mr. Allard. Where is the water going to come from?

Mr. Brown. Basically, you are looking at crops

Mr. Allard. Where is the water going to come from.

Mr. Brown. You are looking for crops that don't require that in-
tensive use of water.

Mr. Allard. I don't know of a plant that doesn't need water.

Mr. Brown. They all do.

Mr. Allard. What is a plant that doesn't need water?

Mr. Brown. I do not know.

Mr. Allard. What.

Mr. Brown. I do not know.

Mr. Allard. You see we are talking about slash and burn agri-
culture. And then you are saying that you are going to grow crops
in desert or semidesert areas without water.

Mr. Brown. No, sir, that is not what I mean.

Mr. Allard. Pardon?

Mr. Brown. Basically, you are looking for areas in which crops
can be grown within areas which have less abundant rainfall.

Mr. Allard. That is semiarid areas.

Mr. Brown. As one potential, yes.

Mr. Allard. How are we going to grow more food in those areas
without water?

Mr. Brown. There are possibilities expanding production in low
rainfall areas.

Mr. Allard. Are you suggesting that we can irrigate?

Mr. Brown. There are places in which — again, using Guate-
mala— small-scale irrigation has resulted in production increases.

Mr. Allard. Does that require storage of water?

Mr. Brown. Most of those rivers are very shallow, well-irrigated
systems.

Mr. Allard. Guatemala has never struck me as a semiarid area.

Mr. Brown. It is not.

Mr. Allard. Colorado has. Arizona, Nevada in our own country.
And do you think it is essential to grow crops in those areas to
store water?

Mr. Brown. In the United States, I really don't know.

Mr. Allard. Well, you see, you are making some statements
here, slash and burn agriculture. What does that mean — if you are
thinking about expanding the food supplies and increasing produc-
tion on land, to me, that is not a very scientific approach. It is an
emotional term and I am going to chastise you a little bit here
today because I think it is inappropriate to use that type of termi-
nology in testimony on this committee. And the reason I pursued
this into other environmental issues is you conveniently say we
just slide it over into semiarid areas.

When you talk about semiarid areas and you are talking about
irrigation agriculture, which requires storage of water and that is
not going to — you are not going to raise food-producing crops in
semiarid areas unless you store water so you can irrigate in the
high temperature times of the season, which is August and Sep-
tember in the Northern Hemisphere. And so I think there needs to
be a lot of thought about how you are going to grow agriculture —
increase production.

I happen to believe that agriculture is compatible with a lot of
the environmental interests, but if you happen to use a slash and
burn, that is purely an emotional term. Has nothing to do with
science, and I think we need to be looking at these proposals on
a scientific basis and I would encourage you to think more in terms
of scientific basis of your arguments than an emotional term like
that.

Mr. Brown. I couldn't agree more. That approach to agriculture
is the most environmental damaging and what we are trying to
seek alternatives to, I can assure you.

Mr. Allard. Ms. Tucker, you talked about competition with the
foreign countries. And you mentioned the regulatory burden.
APHIS, for example, I think has a certain responsibility to protect
some of the crops that we do have in this country. And the fruit
fly in California comes to mind and it seems to me that there are
certain things, for example, we could import from other countries
into Alaska and because of climate up there we would never have
to worry about the consequences of threatening some of our crops,
but on the other hand, you may bring it into California or Florida
and it might create a real problem.

Can you suggest some areas where we could maybe bring a more
common sense approach to our regulations that would help you in
meeting the needs of what we are talking about today through al-
ternative crops.

Ms. Tucker. Well, the point you make is very good and is actu-
ally being used. Certain crops which would not be importable to the
southern regions of the United States can be imported into Alaska
or Maine or certain areas of the northern part of our country.

I think an important role might be made with the cooperation be-
tween industry and groups like APHIS to set up some joint councils
so that industry can provide some practical expertise to APHIS as
they are working on streamlining their activities and so that the
two groups can work together to see what is going on to facilitate
procedures regulatorywise and on the practical side from the indus-
try's perspective.

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you. I don't have any more questions, Mr.
Chairman.

Mr. PENNY. Mr. Barlow.

Mr. Barlow. As you know, our Federal budget is being reduced.
We are moving to a balanced budget as quickly as we can. And I
represent western Kentucky. We have many small- and medium-
sized farms in western Kentucky, looking for new products, new
ventures in agriculture so that we can diversify incomes and
strengthen farming. And what I am looking for as the Representa-
tive from western Kentucky is how our U.S. Department of Agri-
culture agencies can encourage and help farmers in my district to
diversify into new crops, improve the gross incomes and the net in-
comes of their farming operations.

And the taxpayers, the people in my district, look to their Fed-
eral Government for return on their tax dollars in just the ways
that I have described. So what I am looking for as I review the
hearings and the testimony before these hearings, are ideas for leg-
islation, ideas for program development in the Department of Agri-
culture that can help my farmers diversify their crop and animal

agricultural operations so that their incomes can be improved. And
to the extent that there are programs that aren't helping my farm-
ers, I would submit to you all that they will be within the course
of time, be ripe for budget cutting. Because we are in a period
where we are spending, as the chairman has pointed out extraor-
dinarily capably on the floor of the House many times, we are in
a period where we have got to balance our budget.

And the priorities are, from my standpoint, how can I help my
farmers to improve their economic situation so that our district and
our State and our Nation can be strengthened financially? And I
would ask you for ideas how and I have brought this up with the
previous panel, ideas on how we can in western Kentucky improve
our agriculture. Thank you.

Mr. Penny. I am curious to know which crops, fruits or vegeta-
bles you believe might have the most potential for marketing here
in the United States, the crops that aren't sold to a great extent
now. Maybe a better way to ask this question is like where is the
next kiwi? Where is the next star fruit because until recent years
you didn't see those a lot on the produce shelf and now they are
the craze and my kids love kiwi and I didn't even know what it was
until about 6 years ago.

Where is the next potential? What do you see coming along?

Ms. Tucker. The introduction of things like kiwi did need a
champion. In this particular case it was Frieda Kaplan of Frieda's
Finest, who the purple box belongs to. But more and more now we
don't see as much of a need for a champion as consumers have
been demanding more variety. They are traveling more. They are
seeing what is eaten overseas and they want to have the same
thing at home.

A lot more' restaurants are being very creative in using a number
of different items and so I don't think we will have one new item,
but a number of them coming on at once, like carambolas and dif-
ferent types of mangos, better quality papayas.

Mr. Penny. As you look at the table over there, what products —
can we import any of those right now, with EPA and APHIS and
everybody?

Ms. Tucker. We are importing a lot of those. The horned melons,
the baby potatoes, the mangos, the Asian pears.

Mr. Penny. They are OK. They are pretty juicy, although they
got a rough skin to them. But I assume you are supposed to eat
the skin, is that all right? The Asian pears?

Ms. TUCKER. Yes. But supermarkets, what they are trying to do
to promote is a lot more taste testings in the stores. Consumers are
very hesitant to spend sometimes sizable amounts on new items
that they have no idea what they taste like or do with them so it
is a consumer education process.

Mr. Lamb. There is one product rambutan, which Nancy men-
tioned which is still not allowed in because of APHIS quarantine
restrictions which are probably without biological basis that I think
would be a large

Mr. Penny. What is that?

Mr. Lamb. Rambutan. In fact the hairy litchi.

Mr. VlETMEYER. This is not a rambutan. A rambutan is bigger
and has long hairs, a very dramatic looking fruit. It is related to
this.

Mr. Lamb. In part that comes from the large Haitian population
in the United States, large and growing, which is already used to
that fruit in their own country, but it doesn't grow in the United
States at this time.

Mr. Penny. We didn't see that in the slide presentation, did we.

Mr. Lamb. I don't think so.

Mr. Singh. I have one slide, if you would like me to show.

Mr. Penny. Sure, go ahead. While we are waiting, there is this
winged bean over here. Is there any large-scale production of that
winged bean going on right now or is that the sort of crop that is
basically a garden crop or a subsistence farming crop at this point?

Mr. Lamb. I am not aware of any large crop.

Mr. Penny. Do we sell it in the stores in the United States?

Mr. Lamb. It is a specialty item in the gourmet stores, but it is
a product that has tremendous potential primarily as a foodstuff in
the producing country.

Mr. Penny. If we are selling in the United States, it is probably
domesticated.

Mr. Lamb. It is not one that anybody is asking for.

Mr. Penny. Not a big demand. In your organization since your
total focus is produce is there an interest in this and do you see
market potential for this winged bean?

Ms. Tucker. I see greater market potential for more of the fruits
that are eaten immediately and they don't have to be prepared or
fixed in special ways.

Mr. Penny. More so than the vegetable items.

Ms. TUCKER. It is that with vegetables much more of an edu-
cational process has to be done with American consumers.

Mr. Penny. People need to know how, in what ways they can use
and serve them. Is this ready to go? All right. Can we just get a
quick look at it?

Ms. Tucker. That is it.

Mr. Penny. You have to peel this thing in order to eat it, I as-
sume.

Mr. VlETMEYER. It breaks open very easily. The shell just breaks.

Mr. PENNY. And there is a fruit on the inside. Is it easy to get
at?

Mr. SlNGH. It is very juicy and, of course, it looks bushy from
outside. Inside it is very juicy. It has white pulp with a seed vary-
ing in size and the pulp is very tasteful. It is a very unique and
different taste. No other fruit tastes anywhere near it.

Mr. Lamb. Congressman, guessing that market is obviously very
important but very tough. One of the major crops in Guatemala
that was mentioned by Steary in the 1970's was not a major export
but now provides a livelihood for approximately 5,000 families and
they ship about 30 million pounds a year, represents 5 million dol-
lars' worth of the exports or more. It is iffy to pick things which
are winners.

Mr. PENNY. If we were to do one thing through the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture as it pertains to your market potential, what
might that be? Would it be consumer education programs, would it

be the APHIS and to speeding things on the import side, what
would the one recommendation be?

Mr. Lamb. In my case it would be to speed up to give more re-
sources to APHIS and give it impetus to accelerate the approval
process and at the same time to allocate resources to ARS to do col-
laborative research to run through the required protocols that
prove that products don't have a biological basis for not being im-
portable.

Mr. Penny. OK. I thank you for your testimony this morning. It
has been educational. And I appreciate the time that you have also
spent with us and the help that you have provided in shedding
some light on this little-known subject. Thank you so much.

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:!

REVISED COPY

Statement of Dr. R.B. Singh
Senior Officer, Research and Technology Development Division
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

on
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF MINOR AND EXOTIC
CROPS FOR ENHANCED FOOD AND ECONOMIC SECURITY

to:

The U.S. House of Representatives, Sub-Committee on Foreign

Agriculture and Hunger - Washington, D.C., June 9, 1994

Mr. Chairman and Honourable Members of the Sub-Committee,

I am honoured to convey greetings of our Director-General, Dr. Jacques Diouf, and
testify on behalf of FAO before this Sub-Committee on issues concerning research and
development of lesser-known alternative crops for enhanced food and economic security
around the world.

In addressing the issues, permit me to reiterate that FAO sees the issues of food
security, poverty alleviation, economic security, environmental protection, and sustainability
intimately interdependent. Therefore, in my testimony, I will briefly outline the food
security concerns, the sustainability concerns, especially conservation and utilization of
genetic resources, as well as research and development strategies for judiciously exploiting
potential minor and orphan crops. Finally, I will highlight FAO's work in this field and
areas of possible collaboration between FAO and USA in our resolve to wipe off hunger
from the face of the Earth.

The Global Food Scenario

Hunger persists in several parts of the global village. This is despite the world having
witnessed an unprecedented growth in food production during the past three decades. Today,
some 781 million people in the developing countries, one-fifth of the total population, are
chronically malnourished. The largest numbers (some 523 million), though declining, are
to be found in Asia, but those in Sub-Saharan Africa have been increasing rapidly, both in
absolute terms, from 94 million to 175 million, and as proportions of the region's total
population from 35 percent to 37 percent, between 1960 and 1990. In Africa, population
growth will outstrip growth in food production for a long time to come. If the current trends
continue, it is estimated that in the next 25 years or so, Africa will have a food shortage of
250 million tons which is 20 times the current food gap. In Asia, food demand toward the
year 2000 will grow by 2 percent, whereas food production is estimated to grow at 1.3
percent.

It is distressing that there is high prevalence, an estimated 200 million, and increasing
numbers of malnourished children under five years of age in parts of Africa, Asia and Latin
America and the Caribbean. Moreover, more than 2,000 million people, mostly women and
children, are deficient in one or more micronutrients; children go blind and die of vitamin
A deficiency.

-2 -

Even though enough food is available in the world, hunger persists as the poor usually
lack adequate means to secure access to food. Twenty-five developing countries, mostly in
Africa, were unable to assure sufficient food energy for their population at the end of 1980's
even if their total food energy was evenly distributed within each country. Given the
prevalence of poverty in these countries and their inability to import food, the importance
of producing more food where it is needed the most to ensure food security can hardly be
over-emphasised. Often this would mean using more marginal lands and managing harsher
environment.

On the other hand, in most industrialized countries, government price policies aimed
to promote and protect domestic production, combined with higher yields resulting from new
technology, have led to overproduction and gluts of some of the main crop and livestock
products. Farm incomes have declined and farmers have become increasingly dependent on
subsidies, which are under continuing pressure to be cut (and would hopefully be eliminated
after the enforcement of the GATT Agreement) so as to check overproduction and reduce the
increasing costs of farm support programmes.

The technology which led to intensive agricultural production is under attack by
environmental lobbies. Increasing concerns have ben expressed over the limited number of
crop species, not only from the point of view of genetic vulnerability, but also because of
the declining prices of conventional crop products. Changes in the eating habits and new
consumer demands for specialty products are opening new markets, for example, the demand
for diets containing low proportion of saturated fatty acids. There is also a perceived rise
in demand for ethnic food due to changing demographic forces.

The Sustainability Concern

There are increasing signs of natural systems being pushed ever closer to their limits.
After the mid-1980s, the global grain production had fallen behind population growth. The
world catch of fisheries which climbed from 22 million tons in 1950 to 100 million tons in
1989, is not only stagnant but even slightly declined during the past four years. Livestock
production is also slowing down. Unless these trends are reversed and checked, there will
be no lasting food security. In other words, sustainability is an inseparable component of
food security.

Degradation of soils and other natural resources, loss of biodiversity and various
forms of pollution linked with excessive and inappropriate use of agrochemicals are
widespread. There are increasing evidences of plateuing off or even decline of yields,
productivity, and profitability of major agricultural systems, such as rice-wheat cropping in
the Asia-Pacific Region, the system which saved millions of people from hunger.

An estimated 300,000 species of plant exist on the planet Earth. Of these, anywhere
between 10,000 to 50,000 are edible, and about 4,000 or so of these edible plant species
have fed human societies at one time or another. FAO's global nutrition survey has shown
that about 200 plant species enter national statistics on food and nutrition and could be
considered as widely cultivated, and 20 of these account for most of the world's food.

But, just three, rice, wheat and maize, supply almost 60 percent of the calories and
protein humans derive from plants. And, products of plant origin make up 93 percent of
human foodstuffs. It shows that not only the vast majority of the world's edible plants have
yet to be developed to their potential, but also a good number of crops, with proven
potential, remain under-exploited.

As a result of thrust on short-term gains, market pressure, and pressure for meeting
food needs through intensive farming, a limited number of crops and a few varieties of each
crop have been emphasized in various production systems, often discarding the indigenous
crops and varieties, contributing to impoverishment of the genetic base of our food supply.
In India, for example, ten rice varieties will soon cover three quarters of an area whereonce
over 30,000 different varieties were grown.

The reliance placed by the world economy on a relatively small number of major
crops means that there is always a need to look at alternatives, and this has never been more
true than now with increasing concern expressed at the loss of biodiversity, species
destruction, changing environmental conditions and deteriorating nutritional balance. The
countries must be liberated from "nutritional colonization."

The minor and underexploited crops contribute to food security and nutritional
adequacy in several ways. Firstly, they broaden the food base. Secondly, they enhance
nutritional value of diets and help to balance protein, vitamin and mineral intake. In Africa,
an estimated 80 percent of vitamin A and more than a third of vitamin C are supplied by
traditional food plants. Thirdly, they improve household food security. Many of them are
known as "famine crops", as they are drought resistant, can be grown without expensive
inputs and have good storage quality. Fourthly, they increase crop productivity, conserve
soil and increase soil fertility. Finally, they increase household and national income. Yet
these crops have received little research and development support.

The Paradox of Genetic Richness and Food Insecurity

It is paradoxical that the agro-ecoregions which are rich in biodiversity, particularly
in the tropics and sub-tropics, are also the regions of high concentration of malnourished and
hungry people. It is quite possible that the neglect of the veritable forms of indigenous food
is one of the main reasons for the food scarcity and undernutrition. For instance, in Africa,
the world's hungriest continent, there are more than 2,000 food plants which could fill the
food basket, especially in the leaner months and under stress conditions, as a good number
of them are adapted to the harsher conditions and give respectable yield when mighty crops
like rice, wheat and corn fail to produce any yield.

The wealth of crop varieties built up over thousands of years is now being lost at an
alarming rate. FAO estimates that since the beginning of this century about 75 percent of
the genetic diversity of agricultural crops has been lost. Globally, some 40,000 plant species
could be lost by the middle of the 21st century.

Over vast tracts of land, the traditional diversity of crop varieties has been replaced
by monocultures of high-yielding ones requiring irrigation and high applications of pesticides
and fertilizers. Yet many of the varieties being lost may contain genes that breeders and
biotechnologists could have used to develop even more productive varieties or to improve
resistance to pests.

Alongwith the loss of indigenous genetic resources are eroded the knowledge
accumulated by local people over millennia. Rural communities and indigenous peoples in
the developing regions may be poor, but they are often rich in the knowledge of how to tap
biodiversity. Forest-dwellers use at least 1,300 plant species for medicines and related
purposes. They have contributed to the discovery of an estimated three quarters of plant-
derived prescription drugs widely used in the developed world. Traditional knowledge of
"famine foods" and plants that can be used for food during the "hungry season" just prior
to harvesting have long sustained rural families.

Examples abound of plants valued locally that only now are being explored in a
systematic way. Extracts of the endod berry (Phytolacca dodecandra) , a traditional source
of soap in Africa, have proved lethal to snails but harmless to other animals and humans.
This discovery could provide a breakthrough in the fight against schistosomiasis, a disease
carried by freshwater snails that claims the lives of an estimated 200,000 people in Africa
every year. Extracts from seeds of the neem tree (Azadirachra indica), used for centuries
by Indian farmers to protect crops and stored grain, have proved highly effective against
insect pests.

Minor and Underexploited Crops Revisited

It is the most crucial time to think of conservation, improvement and utilization of
under-exploited, lesser known, minor or orphan crops, on three main counts.

Firstly, one-fifth of the humanity at large in the developing world is hungry and
malnourished, and is staring in our faces for more food - the fundamental right of all men,
women and children.

Secondly, useful species are disappearing at an unprecedented high rate from the wild
as well as from farmer's fields in the hinterlands. We could lose many valuable but
unknown species and varieties before their worth can be evaluated. This includes the lesser
known food crops which remain outside the realm of scientific knowledge, not because of
any inherent inferiority, but because they have not been studied.

Thirdly, new and emerging technologies, such as biotechnologies, can be harnessed
to hasten the pace and precision of restructuring and improving our crop and plant resources
and agri-processes to produce varieties and products to meet new productivity and quality
demands. What our forebears did in hundreds and thousands of years in selecting, improving
and evolving rice, wheat, and maize to their present forms, could be achieved in a much
shorter time span for several of the under-exploited plant species.

A list of neglected crops (cereals, pseudo-cereals, fodder/forage, fruits/nuts/palms,
oil crops, pulses, roots and tubers and vegetables) is given as Annexure I. FAO has been
researching on several of these crops, and feel that the following may be of greater interest
from the point of view of food security and agribusiness (medicinal, ornamental and aromatic
and essential oil crops have been excluded).

Oca: an exceptionally hardy Inca plant (O.xalis tuberosa, Oxalidacae), oca is still a
staple of Peruvian and Bolivian Indians and, in the past 20 years, has become popular
in New Zealand where it is known as "yam" and served boiled, baked or fried. Since
the climate of New Zealand is similar to North America and Europe, oca has the

potential to become a common vegetable in the Northern Hemisphere, as well as in
the highlands of Asia and Africa.

Arracacha: the Inca root (Arracacia xanthorthiza, Umbelliferae) has potential around
the globe. In the Andes, it is often used in place of the potatoes, especially because
arracacha costs only half as much to plant and harvest. Residents of the region boil
or fry it as a table vegetable or add it to stews. Its taste brings to mind a mixture of
celery, cabbage and roasted chestnuts flavour.

Pejibaye palm {Guiliehna gasipaes): whose fruit contains carbohydrates, oil, minerals
and vitamins in good proportions for the human diet. Native to Central America, this
palm has been called a nutritionally balanced oil food, but remains unknown even in
parts of the tropical world that are chronically malnourished, and where it can be
grown successfully.

Jessenia polycarpa: occurs in the rainforest of the Amazon and is an important oil
bearing palm whose oil is similar to olive oil in appearance, composition and culinary
quality. It is a commercially produced edible oil in Colombia, but virtually unknown
to the rest of the world.

Both the Pejibaye palm {Guiliehna gasipaes) and Jessenia polycarpa were field-tested
in selected South East Asian countries by FAO Regular Programme and have shown
great promise, especially under low rainfall conditions, usually unsuitable for oil
palm, the predominant oil tree in the world. However, the work could not be
sustained due to shortage and non-availability of funds.

Potato bean (Apios americana): was once an important Indian food over the entire
eastern half of North America. The Pilgrims survived their first winters by living on
the good-tasting, golf-ball-sized tubers. It contains several times the protein of a
similarly sized potato.

Adzuki bean (Vigna angularis): Japan's second most important bean, after the
soybean, is as little known outside Japan as the soybean was outside Asia just 50
years ago. These small, reddish-coloured oblong beans have been popular in Japan
for 1500 years. The Republic of Korea gives high priority to this bean and its
research and development activities have rendered it as the first ranking bean crop of
the country. Other countries in the region have shown interest in commercialising
it. Rice bean, winged bean, faba bean, moth bean, horse grain, hyacinth bean and
Khesari (Lathyrus sativus) have high potential. More researched and known grain
legumes such as pigeonpea and chickpea also remain highly underexploited.

Bambara groundnut: is one of the high potential but underexploited food legumes of
Africa. Being a "poor man's crop" it has received very little attention from the
scientists. Yet, it has potential to become a "rich man's crop" if due R&D attention
is given. There are indications that while the crop is ideally suited to semi-arid areas,
it also thrives under humid conditions. Further, it is highly resistant to pests and
diseases, is tolerant to low fertility soil conditions, fits into various cropping systems
and is well balanced nutritionally. Due to its wide adaptability, the crop can be
grown in most areas, where other food legumes generally fail to do well.

Grain amaranth, Chenopodium fagopyrwn and tef, "poor man's grain crop", are
ideally suited for stress environments. Some of these grains are suited to high
altitudes and are the main source of food security for people in those far off habitats.
Preliminary research has shown that these crops could compete favourably with the
conventional grain crops. Besides, some of these grains contain unusually high levels
of both total protein and essential amino acids.

Tropical fruits form an enormous reservoir of plants for humanity. There are some
3,000 different species of fruit in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, but
only a few - bananas, pineapple, papaya and mango have been developed into major
crops. Other tropical fruits are also largely grown like avocado and many citrus
varieties. Among the possibilities for future development are:

Naranjilla (Solatium quitoense) and cocona (Solatium topiro) are fruits with refreshing
juices that are highly esteemed in Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Guatemala, but are
practically unknown in North America and Europe.

A large number of tropical fruits from South and South East Asia, namely,
Artocarpus, mangostene, durian, sago palm, rambutan, langsat, salak and custard
apple, labelled as minor fruits, are already becoming popular in exotic markets and
their demand is increasing fast. Several of these fruits have very high potential to be
introduced in other parts of the world and, in fact, some of these are already being
tried commercially in Australia.

Hawthorn, a fruit essentially restricted to China, is extremely rich in iron and
calcium. It's vitamin C content is approximately 17 times that of apple. Moreover,
the fruit is claimed to be an effective cure for arterio-sclerosis and hypertension.
Another fruit, Rosa roxburghii, is also extremely rich in vitamin C, about 50 times
that of the sweet orange and 10 times that of the Chinese gooseberry or kiwi fruit.
These fruits are eaten fresh, but can also be processed into juice, wine, jam or the
whole fruit preserved in syrup. Large scale plantations of these fruits are being
developed in China and hold great promise for introduction in other analogous
regions.

From the point of view of food security and sustainability, scientists should gather
and evaluate all the crops in the world's desert regions in search for edible plants that
would grow in Africa's arid zones. Among the possibilities are various species of
cactus (Opuntia and other species), which are native to the Western Hemisphere's dry
lands. If any single plant type can stop the relentless expansion of deserts, the
bristly, water-filled cactus would be an excellent candidate.

Cacti produce fruits, green vegetables, forage, gum for adhesives and thickening
foods, and strong fibres. In addition, living cacti provide fences, windbreaks, food
and cover for wildlife, and they suppress erosion and stabilize sand dunes.

The United States contains several arid plant species that should be of worldwide
value, such as the tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) , long grown for food by the
Indians of the Southwest U.S. and Northwestern Mexico. It thrives in hot and arid
regions as well as in the poorest soils.

- 7 -

In the Kalahari region of southern Africa, there is the maram bean (Tylosema
esculentrum or Bauhinia esculenta), which has good tasting seeds with more protein
than peanuts and more than twice the oil in soybeans.

It is gratifying to note that several new crops are being developed to diversify
agricultural production in the USA. These crops include: Crambe (Crambe abyssinica),
meadowfoam (Limnanihes alba), rape seed (Brassica napus, B. campestris), cuphea (Cuphea
spp.), Apiaceae, lesquerella (Lesquerella fendleri), Vernonia (Vernonia galamensis), Stokes
Aster (Srokesia laevis), jojoba {Simmondsia chinensis) and kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus).

Likewise, in Europe, the emphasis is also on new fibre, oil and protein crops, such
as cuphea, jojoba, crambe, meadowfoam, castor bean, coriander, high erucic rape, high oleic
sunflower, flax, Miscanrhus, sweet sorghum, Jerusalem artichoke, and lupines.

Research and Development Strategy

In the search for new enterprises, one approach is to seek new uses and market
opportunities for existing crops. Another is to diversify production by the development of
new crops, in the broad sense of both crops new to cultivation and those that are presently
under-utilized but with potential for greater production and wider use. So far, limited
progress has been made on these lines. An exception has been the dramatic increase in
production of oilseed rape associated with the development of cultivars with low contents of
erucic acid and glucosinolates. This, in effect, created a new crop for which there was a
market demand and which could be fitted easily into existing cropping systems.

A number of criteria must be used to assess prospects of new crops, as listed below.

1. Cost-effectiveness; there should be a net gain to the farming family as well as to the
national budget.

2. Economic creditability, taking account of the economics right through the production
chain from production to market.

3. Compatibility with the GATT Agreement.

4. The avoidance of distorting the market for existing, viable products.

5. Systematic accounting of the environmental gains (or losses).

6. Social and cultural acceptability.

7. Technological feasibility.

Based on the above criteria, the selection of crops and technologies will differ from
country to country and region to region within a country. With the implementation of the
GATT Agreement, the research and development needs to increase cost-effectiveness of
production, value addition and marketing and the scope of specialty production according to
comparative advantages will be major factors in selection of crops as well as their research
priorities.

Often, in context of traditional food crops, despite their strategic importance, the
priorities are misplaced. For instance, Ethiopia, the cradle of agriculture in the Near East
and North Africa and one of the major centres of diversity of cereals, has been in the news
for mass starvation and hunger of its people during the past few years. The situation would
have been worse had Ethiopian farmers not domesticated the unique and hardy crop of tef
(Eragrostis tef). It grows well under harsh environmental conditions, it is nutritious, not
attacked by weevils in stores, and has few pest and disease problems in the field. Besides
being the most suitable crop for vast marginal lands, tef is often grown as a contingency crop
when wheat and maize wither away under moisture stress, and farmers keep tef seed as
strategic seed reserve. Yet, this most strategic crop for food security in Ethiopia has
received least research and development attention. Other countries in the region could also
benefit by growing tef or by popularising other lesser known crops such as finger millet,
pearl millet and fonio, which are not only nutritious and rich in iron and other minerals, but
are also adapted to harsher environments.

Not only funding and policy supports to minor crops are inconsistent, but also the
research planning and extension is usually ad hoc. And, the results, no wonder, are equally
inconsistent. The following framework is recommended for new crops R&D:

• initial identification of potential new crop (based on adaptability, profitability,
marketability)

• preliminary testing (agronomic, farmer acceptability, commercial viability
readdressed)

• research and development (integrated, participatory, farming context, system
approach)

• commercialization; linkage with industry (contiguous with R & D).

No new or old, minor or major crop/product/technology would perform in a vacuum.
There must be an appropriate socio-economic milieu for the new crop to unfold its full
potential. The new crop must fit in the existing cropping/farming system. It should match
with the economic, physical and technical settings of the intended target. The starting point
should be to assess the existing socio-economic fabric and identify local needs and constraints
focused on the new crop and each component of the technology and various linkages,
particularly the public-private sector linkage. The second step should be to define the new
level of socio-economic status intended through application of new technology. The third
step is to identify and procure appropriate technology (one or more or all components), or
develop a new one which will bring about the desired transformation. This may involve
"buy or make" decision which should be based on comparative advantages and ease of access
to a foreign technology. Finally, marketing, distribution and commercialization is pursued.

As mentioned earlier, research and development support to minor and under-exploited
crops has been extremely low and fragmentary. We must not forget that it takes adequate,
consistent funding to discover, develop and market new crops and new products/uses.
Lately, in the USA, through the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Centre (AARCC) and the National Competitive Research Initiative (NCRI), in EEC through
European Collaborative Linkage between Agriculture and Industry (ECLAIR), and in some

-9-

of the developing countries such as India, China, some financial and human resources have
been deployed for minor crops, but these are highly inadequate.

While continued research and generation of appropriate technologies are fundamental
to progressively enhanced and sustained production of the new crops, they will have only
limited success unless accompanied by appropriate government policy and programmes,
adequate infrastructures and institutional supports, and linkages among various actors,
including farmers, and particularly industry. Access to productive resources and information,
especially by resource-poor farmers, input and credit supplies, and markets should be clearly
and consistently assured to the new and minor crops in the same way as to conventional
crops.

The Role of FAQ and Member Nations

FAO Director-General, Dr. Jacques Diouf, has given highest priority to increase food
production in low income, food-deficit countries (LIFDCs) in the work of the Organization.
He has availed himself of the advice given by a group of internationally reputed experts,
assembled in a high level seminar on this aspect in Rome, from January 22-28, 1994. Some
of the major recommendations which are relevant to the present hearing were the following:

"In order to provide a sharp focus for its work, FAO should launch a special
programme to increase food security in LIFDCs. Tins should be directed towards action at
the country level. It should be based on a production-oriented strategy to increase aggregate
availability of food, reduce yield variance, and increase agricultural employment and income
in a sustainable manner. Among LIFDCs, Africa should be the main focus of concern.

Tlie strategy should be technology-driven, focusing in a first phase on technology
transfer. FAO should assess what technologies are available but insufficiently exploited, and
what key issues require farther research in different agro-ecological zones in LIFDCs. Wliere
technological packages suitable for dissemination have been identified, FAO should help
governments to determine what complementary actions, if any, need to be taken to provide
incentives for widespread adoption of the new technology. Particular importance might be
attached to the supply of inputs and the assessment of market prospects for increased output.
A special effort may be needed to mobilize resources for the training of national staff who
could extend the new technologies to farm level.

In order to get off to a quick and practical start, the Organization might consider
launching a small number of pilot projects. These should be focused on technology, and
should aim at achieving results in a short time-span. Tliey would thus have a demonstration
effect, as well as enabling FAO and its partners to hone their skills in project design. "

The Director-General emphasized that in analyzing the above recommendations
lessons should be learned from the "Green Revolution" of the 1970s and 80s, so as to launch
a new "Green Revolution". To this effect, the use of more productive technology should be
complementary to measures ensuring sustainability of production systems and social equity
in the sharing of benefits derived from the intensification process. The framework and
strategy for research and development of minor and underexploited crops for enhanced food
and income security augurs well with the guidelines provided by the high level seminar.
With the thrust on increased production where it is needed the most, and considering that
crop diversification through adoption of minor and underexploited crops would lead to

- 10-

enhanced and sustained productivity, especially under vast rainfed and marginal areas, the
work on these orphan crops will constitute an integral and important component of the FAO's
reinvigorated approach to food security, nutritional adequacy and sustainable and equitable
agricultural development.

FAO has been developing indicators for assessment of technologies, including
cropping patterns and the place of new and under-utilized crops in given farming systems,
to promote sustainable agricultural and rural development. Through country and regional
level projects, the Organization has been promoting participatory approach for problem
identification, technology generation and transfer. Some of the projects are characterising
variability of crops and their genetic resources in various farming systems and are promoting
the role of biotechnology for exploitation of indigenous resources for enhanced productivity,
production of secondary metabolites of high value and for conservation of germplasm.

FAO's Member Nations realize the importance of under-exploited traditional food
plants in nutrition, food security, rural income and their national economies. In 1985, the
FAO Committee on Agriculture, and in 1992 the International Conference on Nutrition
(ICN), requested that the Organization should assist Member Governments in developing
programmes for the promotion of traditional food plants. Specifically, Governments were
urged to:

• assess the importance of locally produced traditional crops in the subsistence sector
and their economic and nutritional importance in national food supplies,

• to take into account the nutritional value of these crops and their cultural place in the
community in order to prevent a decline in their use,

• to develop an appropriate agricultural policy through adequate producer prices and
credit facilities aimed at increasing production, storage and marketing of traditional
crops, and

• to promote with international research institutions genetic improvements in traditional
plants and to develop technologies for the preparation of convenience foods for urban
markets which correspond to local taste.

FAO is working with Member Governments to promote greater awareness of the
importance of traditional food crops to nutrition, food security and the economy. It is
assisting Member Nations to develop programmes for the promotion of underexploited
traditional food plants through:

• surveys and studies to assess the consumption and utilization of traditional food plants
and to determine their importance in household diet and food security,

• promotion at national, regional and household level of local production and
consumption of traditional food plants^

• workshops and seminars designed to increase national and regional awareness of
traditional food plants,

- n -

• publishing policy briefs, to increase awareness among policy makers, and resource
books for agricultural workers,

• field projects aimed at increasing production and consumption of traditional food
plants at household level and training field workers in culturally appropriate methods
of food preparation/preservation,

• support to public education programmes, including recipe competitions and
publication of local recipes.

Perhaps the biggest gap which would hamper policy decisions is the lack of a
specifically targeted information system on new and underexploited crops. Although a
number of databases exist, they are fragmentary and do not lend themselves to a systematic
understanding and analysis at global, regional and national levels. A comprehensive database
on these crops should be developed to provide logical basis for cooperative and enhanced
international attention to the problems of new crops. FAO is establishing a global
information system on plant genetic resources which should be able to bridge this serious
gap-
Work on new and underexploited crops should be carried on in context of the
increased awareness of the value of genetic resources in both the public and private sectors.

Over the past two decades, the question of control, ownership and access to genetic
diversity has come to the fore. International cooperation with respect to biodiversity has
been complicated by the efforts of some countries to extend intellectual property rights to
genes, plants, animals and other living organisms.

The concept of farmers' rights, pioneered by FAO, aims to help correct this
imbalance. Access to genetic resources is balanced by the recognition that farmers and rural
communities, especially in the developing world, should be rewarded for their contributions
to the creation, conservation and availability of biodiversity. These rewards should be no
less than those received by breeders, who benefit from breeders' rights.

The idea behind the International Fund for Plant Genetic Resources envisaged by the
Member Nations of FAO is to give practical expression to the concept of farmers' rights.
The International Fund is intended to compensate those who have donated germplasm to the
world community by providing the technology, information and funding needed to conserve
and utilize their plant genetic resources.

FAO has been developing the Global System for the Conservation and Utilization of
Plant Genetic Resources since 1983. Core elements are the intergovernmental Commission
on Plant Genetic Resources and an International Undertaking on Plant Genetic resources.
The Commission provides the neutral forum where countries can meet to cover issues related
to genetic resources for food and agriculture. The Undertaking contains a wide range of
provisions governing the gathering, conservation, exchange and use of plant genetic
resources, as well as monitoring and reporting on the state of these resources. The Fourth
International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, planned for 1996, should be
able to develop and adopt a Global Action Plan for Plant Genetic Resources.

- 12 -

In conclusion, policy development, planning, and action on full exploitation of minor
crops for enhanced and sustained food and economic security would require goodwill of all,
whether researchers or farmers, public sector or private sector, which are involved with the
research and development of these crops. Even if significant progress is made on policy,
information and institutionalisation of research and development of these crops, the need for
international cooperation among all countries will be absolutely essential.

Eventually, it would be safe to believe that a number of new crops will ultimately
emerge as winners, however, that will depend on a combination of market acceptability,
research information, effective technology transfer systems, economic incentives, and above
all, persistent involvement of scientists and commitment of governments.

Provided adequate financial and technical assistance is made available, developing
countries should be able to develop a greater capacity to benefit from their underexploited
crops and plant and animal genetic resources. USA, other national programmes and
international agencies are urged to provide the necessary support towards this end.

Mr. Chairman and Honourable Congressmen, in closing, permit me to submit that
FAO is committed to ensuring food security of all men, women and children in this world.
It is gratifying that FAO Special Council, which met only a week ago, has approved the
Director-General's proposals on the policies, programmes and structure of the Organization
in which he gives top priority to food security. The U.S. delegation to the Council had
shown strong solidarity with the new FAO initiative. Keeping in view the common goals of
FAO and the U.S. Sub-Committee on Foreign Agriculture and Hunger, the Organization
looks forward to continuing to work closely with you and the Sub-Committee in promoting
the role of underexploited crops for improving food security and agricultural production in
the countries where this is most needed.

(Attachment follows:)

ANNEXUREI

Tentative list of neglected food and forage crops

Name of species

Pseudo-Cereals:

Amaranthus spp.
Chenopodium spp.
Fagopyrum spp.

Cereals: Minor millets -

finger millet
finger grass
fonio

foxtail millet
little millet
barnyard millet
proso millet
sawa millet
kodo millet

Bromus mango

Coix lachryma jobi

Enchinocloa spp.

Eragrostis teff

Fodder/Forage:

Andropogon gayanus
Aristidia adscensious
Arisridia mutabilis
Cenchrus ciliaris
Chloria gayana
C. roxburghiana
Cynodon dactylon
Dichanthium annulatum
Digitaria macroblephara
Eragrostis curvula
Lathy rus spp.

Schmidtia pappophoroides
Stylosanthes spp.
Trifolium alexandrinum
Vicia spp.

- ii

Forage trees:

Acacia torrilis
Acacia albida
Balanites negyptiaca
Salvadora persica
Zizyphus Mauritania
Grewia tenax

Fruit/nuts/palms:

Actinidia chinensis
Adansonia digitata
Annona cherimola
Annona muricata
Annona squamosa
Agrania sideroxylon
Averrhoa carambola
Bactris gasipaes
Berchemia discolor
Crataegus pinnatifida
Ceratonia siliqua
Citrullus vulgaris
Citrus grandis
Cocos nucifera
Cordeauxia edulis
Guilielma gasipaes
Hippophae rhamnoides
Hyphaene natalensis
Jessenia polycarpa
Juglans spp.
Malus spp.
Olea europaea
Opuntia ficus-indica
Passiflora edulis
P. ligularis
P. quadrangularis
P. mollissima
Persea americana
Physalis spp.
Phoenix dactylifera
Pistacia spp.
Prunus spp.

(cherry, plum peach, almond, nectarine)
Punica granatum
Pyrus spp.

Ricinodendron rautanenii
Rosa roxburghii
Sapotaceae

- in
Fruit/nuts/palms: ..cont/d..

Chrysophyllum caitiito

Manilkara zapota

Ponteria sapota

P. campechiana
Scleroacrrya birrea
Solatium muhcatum
Solatium quitoense
Solatium topiro
Tamarindus itidica
Ximenia caffra
Ziziphus spp.

Other tropical fruits such as:
Artocarpus
mangostene
durian
sago palm
rambutan
langsat
salak

Oil crops:

Carthamus rinctorius
Guizotia abyssimca
Sesamum indicum
Voandzeia subterranea

Pulse/Legumes:

Macrotyloma uniflorum
Lablab purpureus
Lupitius spp.
Pachyrhizus crosus
Pachyrhizus spp.
Phaseolus acutifolius
Psophocarpus tetragonolobus
Tylosema esculentum
Vigtia subterranea
Vigtia atigularis

Roots and tubers:

Andean roots and tubers:
Apios americana
Aracacia xanthorrhiza
Canna edulis
Lepidium meyenii
Mirabilis expansa
Oxalis tuberosa
Polymnia sonchifolia

- IV -

Roots and tubers: .. cont/d..

Tropaeolum tuberosum
Ullucus tuberosus

Xanthosoma spp.

Colocasia esculetitum

Dioscorea spp.

Pachyrrhizus tuberosus

P. erosus

Vegetables:

Abelmoschus spp.
Corchorus olirorius
Crorolaria brevidens
Cucurbits:

Cucurbita ficifolia

C. moschata

C. maxima

C. argyrosperma

C. pepo

Cyclatuhera sp.

Sicana sp.
Cucumis spp.
Gytiatulropsis gynandra
Lycopersicon spp.
Malva spp.
Rumex spp.
Sechium spp.
Sinapis alba
Solarium aethopicum
Solatium spp.

STATEMENT OF

DR. DANIEL E. KUGLER. DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AGRICULTURE AND HUNGER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 9. 1994

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, as Deputy-
Administrator of the Cooperative State Research Service at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, I appreciate the opportunity to describe
activity underway in the Department relative to new and alternative
crops and their implications for American agriculture as well as
agriculture around the world.

Scientists estimate that the plant kingdom consists of over
one million species. Yet, only about 300,000 have been cataloged.
Mankind has domesticated about 3 00 plants for human use- -mainly
food. Plants cultivated intensively for consumption are referred
to as crops. Ten annual grain crops (barley, common bean, corn,
millet, peanut, rice, rye, sorghum, soybean, and wheat) constitute
about 80 percent of the plant nutrients consumed by humans. In the
United States, about 90 percent of the cereal crop is used as feed
for animal production.

The agriculture of the United States is based on crops that
were once considered new. Despite its large size, the United
States is a deficit area for native crops species. Through a
process of introduction and trial-and-error , US agriculture has
become based on a rather narrow group of crop species. The
agrarian history of this country is in many ways a chronicle of the

rise and fall of new crop species. Even maize, the major grain of
Native Americans, represents introductions from Central America in
preColumbian America along with beans, pumpkins, and squash. Other
New World crops such as tomato and potato were later introductions
to American agriculture. Colonists introduced wheat, rice, barley,
and oats; most of our fruit and vegetable crops come from Europe
and Asia.

There were many new crop failures along the way; historical
examples include indigo, tea, and tung. The Twentieth Century, a
period when crop patterns stabilized, continued to witness the
introduction and development of new crops. Successful examples
include soybean, now one of the major crops of US farmers, avocado
(in California and Florida), macadamia (in Hawaii), and pistachio
(in California) . Some native crops were actually developed abroad;
for example, sunflower commercialization is due to breeding efforts
in the former Soviet Union.

As a result of the present concentration of crops, many
growers have relatively few alternatives; meaning that low prices
on major commodities can have a substantial economic impact. New
crops offer alternatives to increase farm income, improve diets,
lower costs, expand markets, diversify agriculture and products,
increase exports, and decrease the need for selected imports.
Promotion of alternative grain crops in the United States could
also serve as a form of world food security because many of the
preferred cereal grains (e.g., millet, teff) in food deficit areas
such as Africa are not yet widely grown in the United States.
Promotion of selected crops that can be grown for fuel, fiber, and
a wide array of industrial products could serve to reduce our
reliance on imports, decrease acreage devoted to feed grains that
are in surplus, and provide a stronger economic base for American
farmers and rural communities.

Interest in new crops has increased as a result of a number of

interacting forces. One is the upsurge of concern in the past 20
years in germplasm diversity which developed after the southern
corn blight epidemic of 1970, as a result of the susceptibility of
a widely used male-sterile cytoplasm to a new race of the fungal
pathogen Helminthesporium mavdis. Other contributing factors
include: low agricultural prices for major commodities over the
last two decades; increased interest in biodiversity and crop
diversification; the continued strength of the environmental
movement which has spurred interest in alternative agriculture;
increased demand by consumers for new culinary products; and the
rise of ethnic foods due to changing demographic forces. Finally,
economic forces reward successful innovators. These rewards
attract the few entrepreneurs who can obtain capital and are not
deterred by high risk.

New crop research has intensified in the United States with
the recent thrusts of alternative agriculture programs. This
includes the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Program, the Alternative Agricultural Research & Commercialization
(AARC) Center, the ARS National Center for Agricultural Utilization
Research, and the CSRS Office of Agricultural Materials. In
addition, a number of State Agricultural Experiment Stations have
active programs or centers (e.g., Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri,
Oregon, North Dakota, and Idaho) . There are at least two new
national organizations associated with alternative crops: The
Association for the Advancement of Industrial Crops (AAIC) and the
New Uses Council. The AAIC is sponsoring a new crops conference in
Argentina from September 25-29, 1994. The New Uses Council is
sponsoring a new uses/new crops Agricultural Summit on June 22,
1994. Finally, the Rodale Institute, a private foundation involved
with alternative agriculture, has been active particularly with
development of grain amaranth. Two national symposia in Indiana
have led to the publication of two comprehensive reference books on
new crops: Advances in New Crops (1990) and New Crops (1993) .
USDA and the Departments of Energy and Defense are co- sponsoring

Biobased Products Expo 1994 on December 5-7, 1994 in Kansas City.
Expo '94 will showcase products made from renewable materials.

Despite the efforts on new crops, there has been no concerted
national policy to accelerate their introduction, development, and
commercialization. Because of the complexity of new crop
development, it is difficult to make rapid progress. In fact, the
case can be made that we really do not know precisely how to get
the job done. The development of crops was a process perfected by
primitive peoples over untold generations, most of them centuries
ago. It is almost impossible to develop a native plant into a new
crop in a few years, and long term funding is difficult to obtain
without results. There are other hurdles too. Federal subsidies
in the form of crop price and income support limits the
introduction of new feed grains. It is also difficult at times to
gain support for new crops from traditional agricultural
constituencies. Finally, there is a catch-22 problem: growers
will not plant without markets, and users will not develop a use
without an assured supply of the agricultural material.

At present, despite the obstacles, there is significant
research and development on new crops, but it is scattered and
fragmentary. Support from Agricultural Experiment Stations in
nearly all states has declined due to reduced budgets, and they
have chosen to focus more on basic research and biotechnology.
Private industry has not focused on new crops as they tend to view
them as speculative, given the short financial horizon of American
firms. While interest in new crops is high in the farm community,
the individual risks are very large and some farmers have been
"burned" by speculative schemes such as the Jerusalem artichoke
scam in Minnesota.

New crops offer opportunity for helping world agriculture and
addressing the hunger issue. By no means will new crops resolve
these issues by themselves. Furthermore, many of the new crops are

not really new. For example, ARS And CSRS have supported efforts
to develop natural rubber from guayule--a plant often listed as a
potential new crop that was actually used by Native Americans
centuries ago.

DOMESTIC RESEARCH

In cooperation with other Federal agencies, industry, and
State Land Grant Universities, USDA continues to conduct work on
alternative food, industrial, and fiber products.

NEW CROPS FOR FOOD AND FEED

Purdue University, the University of Minnesota, the University
of Arizona, the University of California, Oregon State University,
Delaware State University, and North Dakota State University are a
few of many academic institutions that have pursued a vast array of
plants as potential new crops. Included are: euphorbia, fennel,
gumweed, niger, psyllium (breakfast food soluble fiber) , borage,
calendula, camelina, quinoa, sesame, fenugreek, coriander,
dimorphotheca evening primrose, caraway, lunaria, stokes aster,
safflower, pearl millet, lupine, faba bean, field pea, lentils,
chick peas, buck wheat, triticale, emmer, speltz, fanweed, milk
vetch, crown vetch, partridge pea, foxtail dalea, sainfoin,
treefoil, flatpea, Illinois bundle flower, intermediate wheat
grass, Canary seed, flax, and mustard.

NEW CROPS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES

Examples of new crops being researched by ARS include cuphea
for detergents and lubricants, lesquerella and vernonia as food
additives and industrial products, guayule as a resin/latex
substitute for rubber, jojoba for cosmetics, and kenaf for fiber
products. Plant species as a source of pharmaceuticals and
cosmetic additives include taxus (for taxol), meadowfoam,
arrowroot, verbena, and various wild legumes. -Many of these
species have the potential to be grown around the world in

temperate or subtropical environments, either in arid or semi-arid
areas. Many are suitable for labor-intensive production which is
characteristic of developing countries.

The Office of Agricultural Materials of CSRS is pursuing
activities to develop new and traditional crops for industrial use.
This includes cooperative work with ARS , universities and private
firms. Activities include plant breeding and crop production,
chemistry and chemical/process engineering, product testing and
market development. Many projects are cooperative with the
Department of Defense and aimed at dual-use (military and civilian)
applications. Examples include biodegradable polymers for starch-
based products with performance characteristics similar to
plastics; oil; selective soil conditioners and poultry litter
adsorbents from kenaf; truck and aircraft tires and antifoulant
paints and coatings from guayale; high performance nylon 1313 from
crambe; and biodiesel fuel from vegetable oils and animal fats.
The Office of Agricultural Materials specializes in removing
barriers (technological, economic, institutional) which restrict
advancement toward commercial investment and entry in the
marketplace of renewable materials and their products.

The Alternative Agricultural Research & Commercialization
(AARC) Center with its private sector partners has a number of
investments and proposals to develop and commercialize products
from new crops. These include: insulation, yarn, and specialty
fibers from milkweed floss; cosmetics and lubricants from
lesquerella; high performance lubricants (cutting oils, automatic
transmission fluid additives, and concrete form release agents),
detergents, and personal care products from industrial rapeseed,
Canola, and crambe; specialty paper products from hesperaloe;
newsprint, composite building materials, seed mats for establishing
sod and/or controlling erosion from kenaf fibers; chemicals such as
ethanol from switchgrass and other perennial grasses; and
detergents from cuphea.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS

USDA agencies cooperate with U.S., universities, and
international organizations such as the United Nations and the
Organization of American States to assist developing countries in
agricultural technologies and issues.

Examples of ARS effort include ground peanuts as forage in
Africa and South America, and introduction of new species/genotypes
through the National Plant Germplasm System. Technical advice and
alternative crop introduction programs are also underway for Asian
and South American countries to discourage production of narcotics
crops. In the latter case, ARS is in the process of developing an
agrof orestry/al ternative crop program in cooperation with the U.S.
Embassy and government of Peru. ARS programs in the former Soviet
Union include viniculture introductions in Georgia and Holdaua, a
canola-based biodiesel fuel project with Belarus, and plant
germplasm exchanges with institutes such as the Vavilov Institute.

The AARC Center has participated in two international meetings
in the past year. One was with the Second European Conference on
New Industrial Crops and New Products; the other was in Denmark and
addressed obstacles to commercialization of new crops and new
products .

CONCLUSION

If new crops are to make a significant impact domestically and
in the world, a coordinated national policy and international
cooperation would be most helpful. Development of new crops
involves many disciplines, such as agronomy, botany, food science,
chemistry, engineering, economics, and marketing. Furthermore,
broad scale cooperation is needed among researchers, farmers,
industry, and the financial community. The general consensus is
that a number of alternative crops will make it, and some will make
it big. However, the winners will depend upon a combination of
market acceptability, research information, income incentive, and
enthusiastic and persistent champions in both the private and

public sectors. Program support of alternative crops by the
Federal government would be - a wise economic investment in the
future, both domestically and for feeding the world in the future.

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer
questions. I have colleagues from several agencies available for
technical expertise as this testimony has covered areas handled by
numerous agencies.

New Industrial Uses,
New Markets for
U.S. Crops:

Status of Technology and
Commercial Adoption

Prepared by

Jonathan Harsch

Glenwood Springs, Colorado

for

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Cooperative State Research Service
Office of Agricultural Materials

August 1993

Preface

This publication is a broad-based, popular report on the industrial uses of crop,
animal, and forest products. Its three main purposes are to:

• Briefly describe the current status and future potential of bio-based materials;

• Facilitate networking among interested individuals and organizations by provid-
ing readers with a list of contacts at the end of each chapter; and

• Highlight the opportunities for private-public partnerships in developing and
commercializing new products from agricultural commodities.

The need for a report of this type was recognized during two conferences titled
"Commercializing Industrial Uses for Ag Commodities." The first conference was
held in March 1989 in Overland Park, Kansas, and was sponsored by four
Midwestern State Departments of Agriculture — Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and
Missouri. The second conference was national in scope and occurred in March
1990 in Washington, D.C. That meeting was sponsored by the National Association
of State Departments of Agriculture; several Federal agencies, including USDA. the
Small Business Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority; prominent
private agricultural businesses; major agricultural commodity associations: and
other organizations.

When former Secretary Madigan announced in December 1991 that the
Department of Agriculture was intensifying its efforts in the area of industrial
crops and products, the need for such a publication became even more apparent.
This publication was first released as an advance copy at the Bio-Based Products
Expo 92, St. Louis, Missouri, on October 6 - 9, 1992.

Acknowledgements

Daniel Kugler (USDA Cooperative State Research Service [CSRS]), Paul O'Connell,
and Joseph Roetheli (USDA Alternative Research and Commercialization Center)
took the lead in developing this report, and were instrumental in outlining its
structure and format. L. Davis Clements (CSRS) and Lewrene K. Glaser (USDA
Economic Research Service) provided significant research, reviews, and
comments.

This report was prepared under agreements between CSRS' Office of
Agricultural Materials and Hudson & Harsch. Much of the information was gath-
ered by interviewing leading individuals from academia, government, and industry

to determine the current status of agricultural industrial materials technology and
its commercial adoption. Jonathan Harsch is particularly responsible for the com-
prehensiveness and readability of this publication.

Trade and firm names are used in this publication solely for the purpose of pro-
viding specific information. It does not constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture over other products or organizations not mentioned.

The views expressed herein are those of the participants and do not necessarily
represent the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Contents

Foreword: Agriculture at the Crossroads

The Honorable Mike Espy,

Secretary of Agriculture

1. Transforming the Vision Into Reality:
How To Make It Happen

Sam Brownback, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture

2. Castor and Lesquerella

Strategic Value of Unique Oils Sparks Interest

3. Corn 8

New Industrial Uses for Corn Could Tap
Underutilized Capacity of U.S. Agriculture-
and Boost Farmers' Profits

4. Crambe and Industrial Rapeseed 12

Environmental Pressures Boosting Demand for
Specialized Oils Could Trigger Growth in
High-Erucic-Acid Crop Acreage

5. Dairy Products 18

Dairy Products Customized for Food Uses Today —
for Industrial Uses Next

6. Diesel from Crops 22

"Biodiesel" Offers Farmers Opportunity

To Progressively Grow More Fuel —

and Opportunity for Big Cities To Reduce Air Pollution

7. Ethanol from Crops 28

Role for Ethanol as Clean Air Fuel
Additive Strengthens Demand

8. Forest Byproducts 32

New Methods, New Markets Promise Greater
Utilization of Forest Products

9. Guayule 38

Plowed Under After World War II,
Guayule Rubber Bounces Back

10. Jojoba 42

Ready Market for Specialty Jojoba Oil —
Once the Price Is Right

11. Kenaf 46

Kenaf Pulp and Fiber Commercialization Slow and Costly
Despite Proven Economic and Environmental Benefits.

12. Livestock Byproducts 50

Livestock Industry Ready for Livelier Industrial Future.

13. Milkweed 54

Milkweed Floss Fiber —

a Real Comforter for the Northern Plains

14. Polymers from Crops 58

Biodegradable Polymers Offer Environmental Benefits
Compared With Petroleum-Based Plastics

15. Soybeans 62

From Soy Ink to Soy Fuels, Soybeans Could Become a
Major Industrial Raw Material

16. Taxol and Other Pharmaceuticals from Plants 66

Taxol from Yew Trees: A New Cancer Treatment —

and Warning of the Importance of Protecting Plant Resources

17. Wheat 70

Higher Yields Promise New Industrial Uses
While Enhancing Food-Supply Stability

Afterword: The Opportunity Is Now 75

Alan Tracy, Wisconsin Secretary of Agriculture,
Trade, and Consumer Protection .

Summary Table of Crops and New Uses 36

Foreword

Agriculture at the Crossroads

The Honorable Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture

The need for change is a call for action. Agriculture today is yet again at a cross-
roads which will redefine our stewardship of the land and direct the uses of the
products of the land to further the development of our communities and Nation.
As the seal for the Department of Agriculture states, "Agriculture is the foundation
of manufacture and commerce" and our rural communities are the pulse of that
foundation. We must turn to farmers and scientists, entrepreneurs and politicians,
teachers and media, and all levels of government to share in strengthening our
mission, achieving real changes, and improving quality of life.

Agriculture's role in manufacture and commerce is manifest in many ways...
the foods we eat, the building materials we use, the clothes we wear. That role is
strengthened whenever agricultural plant and animal commodities and products
reach the shelves of our domestic markets and find their way into the shopping
baskets of peoples of other nations. We must always be seeking to discover, devel-
op, and promote products and technologies which have their origin in a plant or
animal material. The bottom line is jobs for our people, markets and value for our
endeavors, and health for our economy and Nation.

This publication, "New Industrial Uses, New Markets for U.S. Crops: Status of
Technologv and Commercial Adoption, " expresses actions to achieve change...
lifting the image of agriculture up to high technology while engaging the practical
uses of science for the betterment of commerce and community. There are new
products from traditional crops. ..plastic-like polymers made from starch, high-
strength composites from wood fibers, printing inks and varnishes from soybean
oil. There are new products from new crops. ..oil-absorbent booms from kenaf,
lubricants from crambe and rapeseed, natural rubber from guayule, cosmetics and
industrial greases from lesquerella, and anticancer treatment from the Pacific yew.

Investment in R&D to open new industrial uses and new markets for our agricul-
tural community is a responsibility we must embrace. It is aimed at achievement,
based on empowerment and reliance on creativity. It is a welcome part of the
Department's broad commitment to rural development and world agricultural
leadership.

(The complete report is held in the committee files.)
(Additional attachments are held in the committee files.) 1

Prepared Statement of
Noel Vietmeyer

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I would like to thank you for allowing me to
testify today on the issue of the development of new crops. I am speaking today on my own behalf,
although the insights I describe mostly derive from insights gained during my two decades of work at
the National Research Council. My message is that there is a cornucopia of little-known plants, as
well as some animals, that can be big resources for the future. Also, that some of these species have
such outstandingly valuable qualities that they can literally be the tools for solving a number of the
so-called global problems. Today, everyone is worried that these global problems will bripg .chaos
and calamity to the planet, but by harnessing the wealth of potential new natural resources we have a
good chance of overcoming these looming hazards to life on earth.

If you were an extraterrestrial come here to assess the world, you'd be delighted by the
wealth of different species all around, but appalled at the earthlings' almost total lack of appreciation
for most of them. Take just one example: food plants.

As far as the world's supply of sustenance is concerned, your scouting report would note that
at least 20,000 plants have edible parts and might potentially be used as crops, but humans farm only
about 150. Indeed, in 1993 a mere dozen or so make up most of the earthlings' entire food resource.
Out of 10,000 grass species, for example, only eight (wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, pearl millet,
barley, rye, oats) are significant food crops, despite the fact that people consider cereals to be "staffs
of life" and the bases of most of their various civilizations. Out of 3,000 fruits of the tropical zones,
only four (mango, papaya, banana, pineapple) have been brought into major planetary production.
Out of 3,500 mammals, only four (cattle, sheep, pigs, goats) are significantly employed for food.
And out of 9,000 birds, only one (chicken) is a truly global resource.

Doubtless your report would cackle with scorn at this woeful record, but suddenly you would

see a new vision: if there is such a wealth of unused biodiversity down here, you'd think, couldn't
we fix the place up and make it run better, both for the people and for the planet as a whole?

Now, with increasing enthusiasm, you consider various global problems, and, Io, answer after
answer becomes apparent.

Hunger. Out of the more than 19,000 unappreciated edible plants, about 2,000 are native to Africa.
At least 200 of these could be filling up the food basket in that, the world's hungriest continent.
Given a little recognition and research support by the authorities, these native plants could be brought
forward to supplement the handful of introduced food crops (rice, corn, peanuts, cassava) that now
hog the spotlight and the financial spoils. After all, the neglected plants are the foods of the
forebears. Tef, the staple of Ethiopia; finger millet, the basic grain of Uganda; pearl millet, which
fights the Sahara better than any other cereal crop; fonio, the delicious grain of West Africa; even
Africa's own native rice-these would be valuable tools for helping Africa feed itself and for use in
many more regions besides. Tef and finger millet, for example, are rich in iron and/or calcium, and
both could be outstanding for women's nutrition everywhere.

Malnutrition. Among the thousands of unloved and unappreciated edibles are fruits and vegetables
with properties undreamed of by the textbook writers. An Amazonian fruit called borojoa has a
protein composed largely of essential amino acids, the protein building blocks that are vital for human
growth and health. Another, called araza, has 10 times more vitamin C than oranges. Yet other
fruits have substantial vitamin A, the lack of which annually blinds more than a million Third World
children. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of vegetables with vitamin-A-rich leaves are scattered across

the tropics where, beyond the blindness, millions of children sicken and die from causes that a little
vitamin A would help cure.

And these thousands of tropical fruits and veggies are not the only overlooked weapons for
fighting malnutrition. When sprouted, finger millet and a number of other grains produce enzymes
that can liquefy starchy foods. A few human researchers have already found that the process can be
used to create drinkable forms of rice, cassava, wheat, corn, potato, and other staples. The process
holds out the promise that small malnourished bodies in Africa, Asia, and Latin America could be
enjoying homemade liquid foods like the commercial ones American mothers buy in little bottles in
supermarkets.

Reforestation. Yes, this planet is lacking in trees, but the tropical zone, where Western people think
the worst deforestation is occurring, has year-round warmth and could be the best of all locations for
growing more forests. Further, there are perhaps 20,000 tropical tree species to choose from.
Several hundred of them are not only fast-growing but are superbly suited for providing food, fodder.
or medicines to the people, or fertility to the soil. And people in the tropics like to plant trees, if
only for shade and protection from the blistering heat. One of the people-pleasing species, leucaena
{Leucaena leucocephala), is already sweeping around the tropics. Adopted mainly by peasants rather
than politicians, it is probably the leading tropical-reforestation tree in 1993, but dozens more are
waiting in the wings, their talents and abilities still untested in global performance. Brazil's
bracatinga (Mimosa scabrella), Australia's tropical acacias {Acacia mangium, A. auriculiformis. and
others), the tagasaste (Chamaecytisus proliferus) of the Canary Islands, and various species of Albizia
are just a few examples.

Increasing Farmland. The world does seem to be running out of land for producing food, but it is
only land for the few upper-crust crops that is topping out. Areas where many of the thousands of
lowly species will grow is plentiful and unexploited. Millions of acres of soil that is dry, acid,
aluminum-rich, salty, waterlogged, heavy, or covered in tenacious weedy grass (to mention just a few
conditions) are lying idle, despite the fact that productive food, fodder, or forestry plants adapted to
each of them can be found quite easily.

Sustainable Production. Although humans have recently made a great to-do over the fact that
farmland fertility is running down, there are about 18,000 legume species that are nature's tools for
restoring and maintaining nitrogen fertility in soils. Many of these legumes are trees; others are
spreading species that protect the land a like carpet of compassion. Malaysia, one of the few
countries to exploit such "cover crops," has much to teach the world, but a thorough rummaging
among the legume species will turn up many highly promising species that can lead all countries into
a natural way for keeping their farms from degrading further.

Desertification. The fact that the earth's deserts are inexorably expanding can be traced, at least in
part, to the human's penchant for cattle, corn, and other resources that are poorly adapted to dryness.
But Aborigines of Australia, Indians of the American Southwest, nomads of the Sahara, and other
desert dwellers know dozens of food plants, as well as some animals, that can defy heat and drought.
Here, as in the cases above, fitting the species to the environment could create a farming system that
is compatible with the conditions. Arizona's Papago Indians once had a thriving Sonoran Desert
agriculture based on tepary beans, sunflowers, special corn varieties, and other crops. Some tribal
elders and a coalition of enthusiastic non-Indian volunteers are now saving the old seeds and bringing

back the useful plants that sip rather than gulp moisture. A new way to defy desertification is thus
being opened up.

Rainforest Loss. Driving the relentless onslaught on the tropical forests is the simple human desire
for a better life. No one in 1993 hates forests (as Europeans did in the Middle Ages), but millions
want land to farm or lumber to sell. Give them an attractive alternative, and the destruction will
decrease. Here, the unloved species can help. The Amazon, for instance, contains some 200
different fruits and nuts. Although businesspeople have already developed industries around the
cashew, Brazil nut, chocolate, guava, and passionfruit, they have disregarded the other 195. The
fruits of the Southeast Asian rainforests are almost as diverse. Employing the existing resources of
the forest is one way to upgrade and help save the species-rich natural habitat. With such "economic
ennoblement," the forests could be raised in rank and made more valuable standing than stripped.
The chances of preserving these priceless sites would then jump remarkably. The local people would
fight to preserve what is around them because they would get a better life and livelihood from the
living trees than from the dead ones.

Moreover, every tropical forest these days is surrounded (or even suffused) with unused land.
The penniless Brazilian fleeing the city, for example, must cross the vast expanse of scrubland known
as the cerrado to get to the Amazon. Upgrading those little-used areas will place alternatives to
rainforest destruction in the path of the land-hungry hordes. The situation is not unlike that in the
United States, where in the 1850s people at first hurried across the immense and implacable "Great
American Desert" to get to California. But once Mennonite wheat and a few other crops were
available, many of the settlers found their promised land in what became Kansas and Nebraska: the
whole idea of a fearsome wasteland in the nation's heart proved a mirage, and California was spared

the hordes that might have overwhelmed its then-fragile resource base.

Like Brazil, the countries of Asia and Africa also have vast wastelands near their rainforests.
In Asia, for instance, at least 100 million acres are occupied by a tenacious weedy grass (variously
known as cogon, imperata, kunai, lalang, and alang alang). Click a camera almost anywhere in the
rural countryside of the Philippines, Indonesia, or Thailand, and your film will have captured mostly
this grass. But species that can conquer cogon are known. Acacia mangium, the above-mentioned
Australian rainforest tree, has already demonstrated that it can turn areas occupied by tenacious
grasses (as well as weedy scrub) into forest in as little as five years. In fact mangium is so good at
clearing land and creating forests that people in the Dominican Republic have recently dubbed it the
"green machete." For all that, it has yet to be employed as a tool for reclaiming the millions of acres
from the grip of grass.

Overpopulation. Perhaps the most serious underlying cause of almost all the blue planet's
environmental problems is the skyrocketing number of people. With the human population projected
to double in the coming decades, thoughtful earthlings are wondering if anyone will be able to live
decently and if there'll be any wildlife, forests, or open spaces left. But according to the botanical
records, at least 4,000 of the plants around them have been used for contraceptive purposes at some
time or another. If only a handful prove effective and safe in modern practice, millions will have the
preventive for unwanted conceptions growing on all sides. Moreover, this could be a method that
proves free of cost, free of interference from authorities (secular or religious), and even free from
macho husbands never satisfied with anything less than nine sons.

In the final summary of your scouting, report you will note that this is a well-endowed planet

beset by looming disasters that only look as if they are insoluble. A fixation on too few crops, trees,
and livestock is the basic cause of the humans' lack of progress in overcoming their global problems.
The earth's handful of major resources are excellent, even miraculous, but more are needed. And
hundreds more are available. Putting them to work and thereby diversifying the resource base will
produce a world that is better balanced for a long, steady, and reliable future.

The strange thing is that many energetic and motivated earthlings would dearly love to
explore and develop this new horizon. All they need is some guidance from scientists as to which of
the thousands of species seem best to tackle. To paraphrase one of the earthlings' greatest seers.
Winston Churchill, "Give them the tools and they will finish the job!"

The author, a staff officer at the National Research Council, specializes in finding and publicizing
natural resources that could help solve economic, environmental, and humanitarian problems,
particularly those of developing countries. His work has largely been supported by the Agency for
International Development (AID).

STATEMENT OF TERRENCE J. BROWN

ASSISTANT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR

FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM COORDINATION

U. S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE

ON FOREIGN AGRICULTURE AND HUNGER

JUNE 9, 1994
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Subcommittee,

I am pleased to address you today concerning the issues of development and
promotion of alternative crops for farmers and agribusinesses around the world; the role
these crops have in enhancing economic development for producers, especially smallholder
producers, and processors in the developing world; and the implications these crops have to
improved food security.

In addressing your concerns, I would first like to outline U. S. Agency for
International Development's (USAID's) approach to agricultural development, within which
the development and promotion of any particular crop rests. I would then like to discuss
USAID's specific experience in promoting the development and marketing of nontraditional
agricultural exports, presenting the impact those exports have had on producers and
consumers in both the exporting and importing countries. Finally, I would like to address
nontraditional agricultural exports and their relation to food security.

I. A Systematic Approach to Agriculture:

Agricultural development is central to economic growth for most of the world, since
most of the world's people live and work in the agricultural sector. Moreover, the world's
poor are disproportionately represented in the agricultural sector. Thus, for many developing
countries, agricultural development is closely intertwined with the question of rural poverty.
Approaches to assisting in the development of agriculture are as complex as those for
alleviating rural poverty. USAID has responded to this challenge by identifying and
concentrating its agricultural development activities on a set of issues which are internally

consistent and mutually reinforcing: improving agricultural productivity (including research
and inputs); increasing efficiency in agricultural marketing systems; improving rural
infrastructure; and promoting food security.

This integrated approach is consistent with USAID's emphasis on sustainable
development. In economic growth, the environment, health and population, and building
democracies, our emphasis has been on building indigenous capacities, establishing open
institutions, and fostering participation as the cornerstone of a civil society. Agriculture is a
crucial part of the development challenge, and we are supporting activities that sustain
economic development, respect the long-term viability of the environment, and promote
improved health and democratic traditions. This approach is predicated upon an
understanding that we cannot tackle development issues as a series of isolated issues. The
success of our development efforts hinge, in many cases, upon the broader social, political,
and economic frameworks of the societies which we are attempting to assist.

For USAID, agricultural productivity has traditionally addressed the development of
agricultural technologies, including providing significant levels of support to basic and
adaptive research efforts. Also important have been inputs vital to supporting agriculture,
such as credit, fertilizer, seeds, and extension services. While supporting these activities,
USAID has increasingly recognized that agricultural technologies have to be made more cost
effective, environmentally sustainable, and responsive to farmer needs. Also, new ways of
doing business and new partnerships need to be established to reduce costs and improve
product development and service delivery — partnerships between international and national
research centers, between developing- and developed-country based institutions, between
private and public sector institutions, and between the farmers and the institutions which
serve them.

• Returns to technology development in Kenya, for example, have been calculated to be
in the neighborhood of 50 percent - that is, each dollar invested in agricultural
technology development has yielded one and one-half dollars worth of agricultural
output. Kenya is an unusual African nation in that it has been able to sustain yield
increases averaging nearly 3 percent per year during the 1970s and 1980s. Without
that growth, Kenya's maize production would be half its current level (roughly 1.5
million metric tons rather than 3 million metric tons in an average year), and rural
incomes and nutrition would have be much lower as well.

Much of USAID's work has concentrated on agricultural marketing; without
appropriate marketing systems that treat smallholder farmers as equal and important
producers, there is little hope that smallholders can become more than subsistence producers.
Therefore, markets must be made to work more equitably and effectively. Deregulation and
privatization of agricultural markets and marketing entities, legally-guaranteed rights of
market access, broad participation in markets, and reasonable transportation facilities are
required.

• In Malawi, USAID efforts to increase agricultural marketing opportunities have
already resulted in approximately 40,000 farm families (some 250,000 people) gaining

access to competitive international markets for their produce. This has increased cash
incomes by seven-fold over the last few years. Participating farmers reported that
this cash income enabled them to buy food during the recent drought, as well as
providing resources for fertilizer, improved maize seed, school fees, and bicycles.
The program is designed to reach one million farm families, the entire smallholder
sector in Malawi, by the end of this decade.

• In Uganda, USAID's Agricultural Non-traditional Export Promotion program has
helped the nation reduce its reliance on coffee as the main source of foreign
exchange. First approached by a group of some 500 farmers to help diversify their
agricultural production, USAID supported a series of policy and regulatory reforms
that opened up small-farmer access to foreign exchange and agricultural markets, and
provided direct technical assistance to agricultural producers and exporters. As a
result of these reforms, the growers began exporting ginger, chilies, bananas,
pineapples, passion fruit, vanilla, and okra, helping boost Uganda's agricultural
exports eight-fold over a four-year period. Much of this is produced by women —
more than 70 percent o\ the vanilla is grown by female farmers. In the words of one
association's chairperson "with USAID assistance, we have been able to raise the
incomes and the standards of living of our members, more than 500 families."

• In Cote d'lvoire. an association of traders, acting on a study produced by USAID and
the World Bank, convinced the government to break a transport monopoly in the
livestock trade. The result was increased competition, lower meat prices for
consumers, and higher prices for Sahelian herders. While USAID is phasing out of
Cote d'lvoire. we can learn from our successes and apply the lessons elsewhere,
particularly in the Sahel.

• In Honduras, the multi-year P.L. 480 Title III program (1992 - 1994) provides
commodities valued at $1 1 million to support the government's continuing efforts to
reform agricultural sector policies and adopt key reforms in land tenure, price
controls, and natural resource management, thus affecting both availability and
access. The program's local currencies are being used to support a variety of
activities, including the strengthening of private sector organizations designed to
provide needed support to small farmers, strengthening the capacity for agricultural
policy analysis, a food stamp program for mothers and children at risk from
malnutrition, and improvements in rural infrastructure.

Poorly developed small scale rural infrastructure can be an insidious impediment to
development. At the farm level, even African agriculture is competitive en world markets
despite its low level of technology and capital. However, when agricultural products are
transported, stored, processed and marketed, the costs escalate, driving a deep wedge
between the farmer and the consumer. This wedge lowers income for farmers, raises prices
to consumers, and creates a troubling bottleneck to agricultural and rural development. Out
in a village during the rains season, the most obvious bottleneck to agricultural development
is transportation.

In Tanzania, USAID has been involved in restructuring the way in which Tanzania
approaches rural road maintenance. Rather than providing the service directly, the
government now relies on a revitalized private sector to undertake rehabilitation.
Maintenance schedules are determined on the basis of economic criteria and the
government will be able to assume full tlnancial responsibility for the program by
next year. The results of this effort include freight traffic volumes on roads
increasing by 31 percent over the 1989 to 1991 period, the value of freight increasing
by three-fold over the same time, a decline in vehicle operating costs, and a decline in
passenger travel fares of 18 percent. More farmers are finding more ways of getting
themselves, and their produce, to market.

Policy reforms in Mali have increased transportation efficiencies. For example, in
Haute Vallee, district agricultural transport was privatized. By 1989-1990, all cotton
and tobacco was hauled by private trucking firms at a cost about 45 percent below
that of the parastatal trucking company. This increase in efficiency enabled cotton
and tobacco buyers to raise the price they paid to farmers.

II. Non-Traditional Agricultural Exports:

Domestic agriculture development alone is complex, but by adding international trade
to the mix, the number and sophistication of marketing transactions has been increased to the
point where their control by domestic agricultural institutions has been limited. Frequently,
export activities became an enclave industry, with limited ramifications on domestic
development. In this setting, export agriculture's contribution to agricultural development
was typically viewed suspiciously. Increasingly, however, USAID has seen that export-led
agricultural production is required to fuel broad-based, sustainable growth. By exploiting
export markets, rural incomes rise, giving smallholders access to the inputs that are required
to grow more productive food crops at lower costs. Increased incomes also allow for the
investments in education and small-scale businesses that are required to move people into
more profitable aspects of agriculture and other ventures. Thus, export agriculture has again
entered the picture, but with an increased concern for broadly distributed benefits accruing to
those involved in producing, processing, and exporting crops.

One useful approach to reviewing export-led growth for smallholders has been to look
at non-traditional crops and work out production, marketing, and export strategies for these
crops that are more consistent with broadly-based equitable development objectives. In many
countries, non-traditional agricultural exports (NTAEs) have included fresh fruits, spices,
vegetables, cut flowers, variations of traditional crops (i.e.. organic coffee and finger
bananas), and some indigenous crops.

The choice of appropriate NTAEs must be primarily determined by the market.
Producing items for which there is no market raises hopes but not incomes. Marketing
challenges abound, and USAID experience has shown that its limited resources have greater
impact when directed toward those crops where demand is already strong. As the system
matures, and producers, exporters, and crops become better known, the industry itself is in a

better position to take risks with new and unusual crops. There is often a natural
comparative advantage, too, for the smallholder producer's involvement with crop production
- relying on the small holder and family to provide the increased labor inputs required,
attention to quality, and ability to cultivate land intensively.

First round benefits to non-traditional agricultural exports include benefits to the
producers, processors, exporters, and to the economy. In the second round, consumers,
processors, and marketing entities also benefit. NTAEs allow farmers to increase incomes
and diversify risks. In one study, Guatemalan smallholders growing snow peas for export
earned profits 10 to 20 times larger than those of their previous maize crop grown for profit.
Smallholders growing vegetables also increased yields on their traditional food grain crops by
15 to 20 percent over their non-vegetable growing counterparts. Similarly, Malawian
smallholder tobacco growers earned sufficient profits to purchase improved maize seed and
fertilizer, increasing food production and productivity despite a severe drought.

Employment is another important benefit to the exporting nation. A recent USAID
study demonstrated that NTAEs in Guatemala employed the equivalent of 35,000 people,
full-time. Many jobs are held by women. Employment opportunities exist in production,
processing plants, and the input supply, distribution, and export businesses. In addition,
producing NTAEs has reduced the need for seasonal migration of smallholders to harvest
other crops. Finally. NTAEs generate export earnings with an especially high local value
added - often as much as 90 percent of the value of export receipts in central America.
Such active productivity spurs improvements in commercial infrastructure, including input
suppliers, service firms, processing plants, exporters, and transportation facilities.

Studies by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) have demonstrated
that the increases in household income associated with NTAE production in Guatemala and
elsewhere have led to increased household food expenditures and child nutritional status -
child weight for age measures improved significantly; pre-schoolers previously severely or
moderately malnourished found their health improved as their families entered into NTAE
production; and diet composition changed with higher incomes in NTAE producing families,
with more meat and protein sources, more vegetables, and higher priced foods being
consumed. Beyond improved nutritional status, NTAE producing families tend to have better
housing conditions, better basic services, higher health care expenditures and status, better
school attendance for children, and own more articles of household wealth, such as cook
stoves, pack animals, or even vehicles.

NTAEs are. of course, produced for export. Thus, many beneficiaries reside in the
developed world. Benefits to the U.S. from NTAE trade with Central and Latin America
have included benefits to transporters, importers, port service firms, and marketing agents as
well as consumers. Beyond crop trade, however, are the benefits associated with increased
incomes and purchasing power among the NTAE countries. U.S. horticultural exports to
this region have increased significantly, as have exports of agricultural equipment and
supplies. NTAEs help pay the bills.

USAID has been successful in increasing the distribution of NTAE benefits to

smallholders by applying the lessons learned from traditional agricultural development and
sectoral policy reform to smallholder production of NTAEs. Market determined crop and
commodity priorities are critical. Important, too, is explicitly identifying smallholders as
target beneficiaries. Traditionally, a lack of inputs such as credit, seeds, fertilizers, and
production information has impeded smallholder production of crops. In some instances,
laws prohibit smallholders from growing crops for export. In many others, marketing
systems which focussed on smallholder production of perishable crops did not exist. Thus,
in framing a response and determining an appropriate intervention, IJSAID has carefully
assessed constraints to smallholder NTAE production, and then sought to remedy those
constraints by enlisting techniques learned in more traditional agricultural production and
marketing activities.

Finally, not all efforts in this area have been unqualified successes. Pesticide use
among illiterate farmers, for example, stands out as a serious challenge in these activities.
So, too, does the threat of environmental degradation associated with both extensive and
intensive farming techniques. By working closely with smallholders, local governments, and
indigenous NGOs, however, USAID is taking every step to be aware of and responsive to
these threats, and to avert them before they become problems.

III. Non-Traditional Exports and Food Security

USAID defines food security as existing "when all people at all times have both
physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a productive
and healthy life." Food and development resources are increasingly invested to alleviate the
cause of disasters, and promote genuine and sustainable food security, rather than solely to
respond to disaster relief. Thus, investments in agriculture and rural development are closely
related to long-term food security efforts that alleviate the root causes of famine and disaster.

• USAID-funded research has demonstrated that food aid resources can assist in
improving food security, particularly in emergency situations. Recent research has
concluded, however, that the efficiency and cost effectiveness of such activities is
enhanced if emergency responses go hand-in-hand with efforts to make people less
vulnerable to the events which caused the emergency in the first place. Thus, the
importance of increased and diversified production, opened markets, appropriate
policy structures, micro-enterprise development, and usable roads are all components
of a comprehensive and cost effective food security system.

• In Sri Lanka for example, agricultural policy reforms supported by P.L.480 Title III
programs have produced impressive achievements, including the privatization of a
state fisheries corporation, an action plan for an extensive land survey and titling
program, revised plant quarantine procedures, reduction of export taxes on key
products including rubber, tea. a\m\ coconut, decontrol of flour and bread prices, and
restructuring of the Agricultural Insurance Board. Additional recent achievements in
the food grains sector have included elimination of the parastatal rice marketer's
monopsony position, and limited private sector rice imports which are a key step

toward the goal of full open and competitive private sector rice marketing. The move
to a more intensely competitive market for rice should produce greater efficiency and
result in lower prices and greater availability, improving food access.

P.L.480 Title III resources have proven effective in promoting market reforms which
enhance the status, participation, and incomes of smallholder producers. Included in this is
access to production and export of non-traditional agricultural exports. Such activities are
essential to averting recurrent disasters and promoting genuine food security. Thus, USAID
views with grave concern recent proposals to cut Title III funding levels in half.

By increasing incomes and providing producers with access to inputs and food they
could not previously afford. NTAEs directly help improve food security among smallholders.
In the case of Malawian smallholder tobacco, farmers told us that without access to tobacco
production during the drought years, both smallholder producers and their neighbors would
have starved — tobacco money enabled them to grow higher yielding varieties of maize which
matured faster during the drought, and tobacco income gave them money to buy food for
themselves, families, and neighbors as the drought persisted. In another example, a World
Resources Institute report discusses smallholder producers in the Ecuadorian highlands who
grow traditional crops for export, including quinoa, nuts, and ornamental plants. Farmers
benefit from increased income, consumption, and food security with a relatively lighter
impact on the highland environment.

USAID's approach has relied upon the lessons and successes of our agricultural
development programs to guide our efforts to promote non-traditional agricultural exports.
We've concentrated on supporting crops with strong external demand; modifying marketing
policies to include smallholders; and, on providing smallholders with the legal, financial, and
technical access they require to participate as full, profiting partners in this export trade.
The emphasis on smallholders has been deliberate and explicit. Malawi's smallholders saw
their cash incomes rise six to seven-fold during the first two years of USAID's program;
Guatemala's smallholder snow pea producers saw profits increase by 20 to 30 fold, and
maize yields increase dramatically as well. Everywhere, incomes, living conditions, and
enhanced food security are all served by these efforts and accomplishments. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for inviting me to testify before the subcommittee, and I look forward to working
on these issues with vou in the future.

MARKET DEVELOPMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE CROPS*

by John E . Lamb

Alternative crops represent a much more complex, dynamic and
exciting area of agriculture than most people realize. Although
there are some 20,000 known species of edible plants, only 110 have
been brought to market, and of that number just 22 provide much of
the world's food supply.

When thinking about alternative crops, the casual observer
tends to focus on food crops, which is also understandable since
they are so crucial to our daily lives. Yet just 22 of the 110
domesticated edible plants serve as the main food crops for the
world, and none of those plants originated here in the United
States (Popenoe) .

Among the alternative crops used for food, horticultural
products tend to get more attention than cereals, pulses and other
field crops. That is probably because of their intrinsic appeal in
terms of appearance, taste and aroma, their high sales value
(sometimes $5 . 00-$6 . 00/pound in the supermarket), the size of the
produce industry (at least $65 billion at retail and perhaps $15
billion at farmgate) and their key role in international trade
(surpassing corn, wheat and soybeans in U.S. export value for the
first time in 1991) .

Putting food aside for the moment, there are many inedible
plant species that can be exploited for non-food uses. As the
Committee well knows, alternative crops can and do provide animal
feeds, forage, sources of oil, fibers, bio-mass energy, ornamental
materials, and many different derivative substances.

The importance of alternative crops to industry is
significant, yet not well known. For example, about 50% of the
300-odd ingredients used by the flavor and fragrance industry are
produced from cultivated plants (Lawrence) . About 25% of modern
medicines contain at least one compound derived from higher plants
(Duke) . Alternative crops are also important to the colorant and
cordage industries.

This diversity of applications is possible not just because
there are so many different genera and species of plants, but also
because all parts of a plant can give rise to alternative products.
Not just the fruits but also the roots, stem, flowers, leaves,
seeds and the rest of the plant may offer potential.

Testimony presented by John E. Lamb, Associate Director (Trade and Investment), Chemonics International,
before the Hearing on Alternative Crops held on June 9, 1994 by the Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture and
Hunger, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives

Although the shortage of research money in recent years has
severely constrained their work, researchers in both industry and
academia are constantly looking for alternative uses of plants.

Even well-known crops can give rise to new alternatives. New
germplasm can be found and exploited, new varieties can be bred,
and through the marvels of genetic engineering specific traits can
be manipulated to improve pest and disease resistance, handling
characteristics, transit life, shelf life, appearance or taste.
Calgene's "Flavor-Savr" tomato, recently approved by the FDA, is
perhaps the most prominent example of an alternative crop developed
through human ingenuity.

The designation "alternative" actually relates more to
location than to the crop itself, because what is considered non-
traditional in one production area may well be seen as traditional
in another. Since quinoa has been used for 5,000 years by people
in the Andean Mountains, it is not an alternative crop to them, yet
it would be in the United States, where it has only recently
appeared in breads and pasta sold in health food stores .

The term "alternative crops" is often used as well to refer to
well-established crop grown in an unconventional manner; witness
organic coffee and hydroponic lettuce.

Advances in production technology can make or break both old
and new crops. Techniques that allow producers to advance or
extend production seasons are especially important for perishable
products, because they allow producers to fill in windows of
relative scarcity. A good example of this within the United States
is the introduction of day-length neutral strawberries grown under
plastic tunnels in the Southwest . For mango producers in Central
America and the Caribbean, flower induction technologies are now
being used to advance the onset of harvests from April -May back
into March and even February, when the prices are high enough to
justify investment in hot water treatment facilities needed to
satisfy plant quarantine requirements in the United States.

Finally, for any and all commercial crops, it is always
possible to look for alternative markets or to increase penetration
of existing markets through artful mixes of promotion,
merchandising and selling.

Notwithstanding these many alternatives, it is difficult to
think of a single example in recent years in which the
commercialization of crops previously unknown to world markets has
had a major economic impact on local economies.

The main problems have been: scarcity of R&D funds;
uncertainties relating to market potential; the thinness of new
markets; difficulty in achieving the volume, consistency of supply
and quality that receivers and supermarkets want; competition from
alternative food products that compete for scarce shelf space; and
the newness of many entrepreneurs to export activities.

In Central America we are making good progress with entirely
new crops such as edomame from Taiwan, vernonia from East Africa,
and colored calla lilies from New Zealand. Yet in those cases we
were privileged to have access through USAID to the substantial
resources and time needed to carry out adaptive production and
post-harvest work, identify the best varieties, develop cultural
pactices appropriate to local conditions, flesh out target markets,
define presentations, packaging and packing, set up pilot tests,
and then work with growers able to move into commercial production
by introducing and distributing the product with appropriate levels
of promotion and selling support.

Yet in most situations, the costs and risks associated with
evaluating very unfamiliar plants and then converting them to
commercial production place them beyond the reach of businesses and
institutions in developing countries, even with external donor
support .

On the other hand, there exists a reasonably large group of
"non-traditional crops" that have not yet attained commercial
scale, at least for export markets, but which do have great
potential .

Over the past ten years, the most immediate impact on
developing countries from alternative crop development has come
less from new crops per se , than from the successful production of
already known crops in new ways.

These can include bringing new areas into production,
introducing new varieties, forcing or delaying seasons, using
unconventional technologies such as organic methods or drip
irrigation, exploiting new parts of the plant, adding value through
processing, improving packaging, extending transit or shelf life,
and accessing new markets.

Again in Central America, by emphasizing alternatives of this
type, we had substantial success with already known crops such as
winter melons, whose customs value to the U.S. market alone has
reached more than $60 million, as well cut flowers (more than $15
million) and specialty vegetables (more than $5 million) . Although
we can't claim credit for all that happened, during the five-year
period (1986-1991) that I directly ran a major non-traditional
agricultural export support project in Central America, the total
customs value of NTAE exports to the U.S. rose from $66 million to
$177 million, and they continue to rise.

I believe that the U.S. Government should continue to support
these trends, and the assistance that helped generate them.

Appropriately conceived and well -managed alternative crop
projects can generate substantial benefits to participants all the
way from field to fork, spill over into farm communities, touch the
consumer and spread through the economy as a whole .

Through alternative crops, producers can aspire to obtain
increased sales volume and value, diversify production and market
risk, and expand counterseasonal business activity. Taken
together, these impacts can result in higher net farm income--for
themselves, for their households and for farm laborers.

In developing countries, when alternative food products are
involved, small farmers can sometimes benefit even more directly
from enhanced food self-sufficiency, which can include higher
caloric intake, more balanced nutrition and a more varied diet.
Even when non-food products are involved, small farmers often
obtain much higher individual and household incomes than they could
otherwise attain as successive generations subdivide family plots
or exhaust the land through continued monoculture. And for most
alternative crops, wage laborers are better paid and work more days
in a year.

Processors of alternative crops not only enjoy some of the
same benefits as the producers, but can also look for greater raw
material supply over longer periods of time, which enables them to
spread the fixed costs of plant and equipment over larger volumes,
to make better use of permanent personnel, and to offer their
customers a broader mix of products.

Farther up the chain, exporters, importers, wholesalers and
distributors can realize similar benefits from diversity of supply,
economies of scale and spreading of risk.

As interest in "natural" products has risen over the last
decade, alternative crops have re-gained ground versus synthetics
for many industrial purposes. Users of naturally-occurring or
derived essential oils, extracts, oleoresins, tinctures and other
substances benefit from alternative crops to the extent that such
crops offer higher perceived value to their customers, lower raw
material costs, or enhance quality.

Thanks to alternative crops, or traditional crops grown in
alternative ways or timeframes, supermarkets, restaurants and
institutions can offer retail customers a wider variety of product
for longer periods of time, which usually means greater profits for
the retailers because of the high value and substantial margins
that most alternative products offer.

The consumer benefits directly as well. In their food
purchases, consumers enjoy greater diversity, better nutrition,
year-round availability, and sometimes lower overall food prices
caused by competition across products. Consumer health can also be
enhanced directly through medicinal plants and bio-active compounds
derived from them.

Supporting the chain of product ownership is a rich network of
suppliers of financing, equipment, inputs, transport and other
services that also stand to benefit from increased volume and
value, extended seasonality and increases in international trade,

all of which can flow from growth in alternative crops.

For the economy as a whole, such benefits can really add up as
well. Alternative crops can make a significant contribution to
employment, aggregate income, foreign exchange and overall economic
growth, while helping to slow migration from rural areas to
overcrowded cities. Moreover, to the extent that the development
of alternative crops reduces the need for producer or consumer
subsidies relating to traditional crops, governmental resources can
be freed up for other uses .

From the business point of view, then, the challenge is not so
much to identify and assessing alternative crops per se, but rather
to develop and execute new deals based on profitable and
sustainable combinations of species, variety, source area.
seasonality, production and post-harvest handling technology,
product form, presentation, channel of distribution, target market,
end-user and marketing strategy.

From the government's point of view, the main issue is how
best to support- -both financially and technically- -these efforts.

TESTIMONY OF

NANCY J. TUCKER

VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TRADE & DEVELOPMENT

PRODUCE MARKETING ASSOCIATION

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AGRICULTURE AND HUNGER

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Washington, D.C
Thursday, June 9, 1994

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for
inviting me to appear here today to talk about how the development and promotion of
alternative crops in developing countries will impact:

• Economic advancement for producers and processors in the developing world

• U.S. agribusiness and consumer interests

• Improved food security for developing countries

The Produce Marketing Association (PMA) is a nonprofit trade association
representing companies that market fresh fruits, vegetables, and floral products. PMA's
membership of 2,500 includes growers, supermarket retailers, foodservice operators,
importers, and exporters from around the globe. PMA members handle more than 90%
of the fresh produce sold in the U.S. (a $5.6 billion market).

Due to the nature of PMA's business, and to avoid duplicating the testimony of
other experts on this panel, I will address the first issue in general terms and spend more
time on the second and third issues.

Economic advancement in the developing world

For the past two and a half years, I have been working with organizations in
Central America that help farmers successfully switch from traditional crops such as
coffee, sugar, bananas, cotton, etc. which command low prices in the world markets to
high value crops such as fruits and vegetables.

Due to their higher rate of return and cultivation techniques, these alternative
crops are often better suited than traditional crops to smaller farmers. These crops can

Produce Marketing Association 2

100

enable the poorer people to stay on the land where they have lived and worked, as well
as use some of their current expertise and skills. Alternative crops also can offer
successful business opportunities to owners of large agribusiness operations.

But there is much to be done to make the transition from traditional to
alternative crops. The following is a brief overview of key needs:

• Research: what crops will grow well in specific regions

which of the crops are marketable (export and local)

• Transfer of technologies for these crops (soil care, cultivation, pesticide
application, harvest, packing, transportation, etc.)

• Training for farm workers, packers, transporters, retailers, etc.

• Improvements in the distribution system

• Equipment

• Marketing

• Trade links for exports

Benefits to U.S. agribusiness and consumer interests

For both U.S. consumers and agriculture companies there are benefits and
concerns regarding increased production of alternative crops in other countries. These
are outlined below.
BENEFITS

1. Variety. In 1975, there was a average of 65 items per store. Now, an average
supermarket will carry 280 produce items. The variety in this department, its color and

Produce Marketing Association

101

excitement, and its tie to healthy eating have made it popular among consumers.
Surveys conducted by the Food Marketing Institute show that "quality produce" is the
most important factor to consumers when choosing a supermarket. Not only is the
produce department popular, it is a significant contributor to the store's bottom line.
The produce department of an average supermarket will account for 10.4% of total sales
and 18.8% of its profit.

2. Year round availability. Production areas around the world have given us
contra seasonal availability. Many items that were once available for a only few short
weeks or months are now available year round. The number of fruits and vegetables on
this list is growing as international trade and production increases.

The consumers like it. These fruits and vegetables often become a regular part of
their diet, instead of being a specialty item eaten only at certain times of the year.

Year round availability is good for U.S. farmers, too. It gives them a lock on
valuable shelf space in the store. Instead of having to work with supermarket operators
to set aside shelf space for the item at the beginning of each season, the space is always
dedicated to that commodity.

3. Increased business opportunities. U.S. growers and importers have entered
into joint ventures and partnerships with farmers in other countries to be able to provide
fruits and vegetables to their customers throughout the year.

4. Increased markets for U.S. suppliers. Growers in other countries need boxes,
machinery, transportation, refrigeration equipment, and much, much more. The
international market is an important growth market for U.S. suppliers.

Produce Marketing Association 4

102

The above highlights the positive aspects of increased fruit and vegetable
production across the globe. We should also address the concerns. The statements
following each concern suggest ways these issues may be addressed.
CONCERNS

1. Food safety issues. We know that imported produce is subjected to the same
strict safety and sanitary standards as domestic produce. However, there is a perception
among some consumers that fruits and vegetables grown overseas are not as safe.

• The industry has information systems that respond to consumer concerns and
media inquiries. However, this is mostly reactive.

• To be proactive, a consumer education program could help inform the public
about the efforts of government and industry to ensure a safe food supply.

2. Competition. U.S. farmers are concerned that their international counterparts
will sell product during their season. Because this is an industry ruled by a strict law of
supply and demand, the influx of products can send prices down and not allow a
reasonable return to farmers in any country.

• International farmers need current information about the production "windows"
- the times when domestic (or other international) supply is low and they can get
a good return for their crops.

• Programs are needed to stimulate fruit and vegetable consumption (in the U.S.
and abroad) and balance the expected increase in supply.

• Better marketing is important to introduce new specialty crops produced
overseas to U.S. consumers.

Produce Marketing Association 5

103

• Government procedures for admitting new fruits and vegetables into the U.S.
need to be streamlined.

3. Failed ventures. U.S. and international companies have been burned in
international transactions. Unfamiliar regulations, different business practices, border
and customs problems, and unscrupulous people on both sides have soured international
business ventures.

• U.S. AID sponsored trade and investment projects have been very helpful in
screening potential business partners. Projects such as PROEXAG, referred to by
John Lamb in this hearing, have a proven track record of matching U.S. and
Central American companies.

Improved food security

I would like to put a little different twist on food security and expand it to include
health security. First our mothers, and now innumerable health agencies, have advised
U.S. consumers to eat more fruits and vegetables for better health - specifically to
reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer. A varied diet, including more fruits and
vegetables can help improve the health of many in developing countries.

In the U.S., there is the 5 a Day for Better Health Campaign - a partnership
between the National Cancer Institute and the Produce for Better Health Foundation, a
separate non-profit foundation housed at PMA headquarters. This program, which
encourages people in the States to eat a healthy diet, is stirring up a lot of interest
overseas.

Produce Marketing Association 6

104

Last fall, I spent two weeks traveling throughout the Philippines talking to
industry and government representatives who are interested in starting a 5 a Day
program. In September of this year I will travel to Panama to give a seminar on how to
start the program. Already there is the support of the Panamanian Cancer Society and
the Ministry of Health for such a program. Various European countries have either
begun a similar program or are in the initial phases of organization.

The situation in Mexico is a good example of how production, supply and
food/health security issues fit together. Due to the accords reached in NAFTA, it could
be difficult for Mexican grain growers to compete with the quality and lower prices of
grain from the U.S. and Canada. It is very likely that many of these farmers will turn to
cultivating alternative crops such as fruits and vegetables. The probable oversupply has
many leaders of the Mexican produce industry worried. They would like to start a 5 a
Day program in Mexico to increase demand, thus creating a better local market that will
allow adequate returns to the farmers. Of course, this has the added benefit of
improving the health of the local population as well.

Success for any 5 a Day program will not come easily, as people's eating habits do
not change quickly. But a concerted effort by government, industry, and health groups
(such as the U.S. 5 a Day program) can make a significant impact.

Summary

As can be seen from the above discussion, there are many factors that are
involved with a successful transition from traditional to alternative crops. U.S. AID

Produce Marketing Association 1

105

projects have facilitated this process in many countries. But when these projects or any
other type of outside intervention is over, there needs to be a local institution that can
continue some of the services and help the local industry grow. In the U.S. and other
developed countries, associations are the vehicle for accomplishing objectives that
individuals or companies cannot do on their own. For the agriculture industry in
developing countries, a local association can:

• Collect, store, and distribute information on technologies for these crops (soil
care, cultivation, pesticide application, harvest, packing, transportation, etc.)

• Develop and conduct training programs for farm workers, packers, transporters,
retailers, etc.

• Provide a forum for industry members to identify the key needs of agribusiness
in their countries and work on ways to address these needs (such as
improvements in the distribution system).

• Use conventions and seminars to provide professional development and
marketing insights and build their business through meeting customers and
suppliers.

• Use trade shows to showcase locally produced commodities to international and
local buyers; as well as promote equipment, products, and supplies to farmers.

• Communicate with a united industry voice to government on key issues and
regulations.

• Interpret government policies and regulations to the industry.

• Identify opportunities in a rapidly changing business world.

Produce Marketing Association 8

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

106

3 9999 05018 570 9

•Consolidate industry efforts for education and promotion programs such as 5 a

Day.

The development and promotion of alternative crops in developing countries can
have a positive impact on economic advancement for producers and processors in the
developing world, can provide new and enhanced opportunities for U.S. agribusiness and
new products for U.S. consumers, and improve food/health security for developing
countries. It is a significant undertaking that will involve assistance from developed
countries and cooperation from local governments and the agricultural industry. It is
important to create a system or organization within the country(ies) that provides
needed support and industry leadership. Then the benefits discussed above can be
realized and the concerns addressed.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this testimony. Please
contact PMA for additional documentation on any of the above information.

Produce Marketing Association

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Alternative crops and their potential to feed the world : hearing before the Subcommittee on Foreign Agriculture and Hunger of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, second session, June 9, 1994"

See other formats