48 



out that fish are good for you to eat, as an anticancer, et cetera. 

 There is a market. How we will prove it, I do not know. 



As you know, we have between a $4 and $5 billion a year balance 

 of trade deficit with regards to fish products or seafood products in 

 the United States. So, a lot of that is consumer driven by the per- 

 ception that by eating seafood they will be healthier. 



With regards to your comments about the economic estimate — 

 anyone that gives you an absolute estimate is of course only tread- 

 ing very lightly in the area where they have knowledge. But if the 

 Japanese invest $1 billion per year, we clearly have a perception 

 of a market well in excess of $1 billion. And so we are talking 

 about in the billions. 



With regards to your question about the impact on the environ- 

 ment, many of these things, as I said before, are value-added prod- 

 ucts, not necessarily vast harvesting of the ocean, but, instead, de- 

 riving products. They could be waste products. They could be prod- 

 ucts that we are not using presently. So, I do not see this as being 

 a massive fishing effort, for example. 



The one example that does exist where we have derived through 

 traditional biotechnology for many years products from the sea is 

 the harvesting of kelp throughout the world, particularly off of San 

 Diego. And it turns out that kelp is harvested and it grows back 

 rather rapidly. And Kelco, the company, goes through with chop- 

 pers and harvests almost as if it is an agricultural crop, and comes 

 back and extracts the algin in this case. 



The Japanese and others have extracted algae. We extract 

 carrageenan. I do not see any major impacts with this controlled 

 harvesting of that sort. But I would argue that most of the marine 

 biotechnology, in fact, in many cases, is a substitute for wholesale 

 harvesting of the marine environment and, instead, is promoting 

 mariculture, aquaculture, making it economically more feasible, 

 providing a product that is better. 



So, I do not see that as sort of an impact for marine bio- 

 technology, per se. 



Senator Kerry. Well, I have been talking about the possibilities 

 of aquaculture in this country for a long time. We are getting fur- 

 ther and further along, slowly. When you measure what other 

 countries are doing and what they have been investing over the 

 years, we are way oehind. And the potential is enormous. I mean, 

 obviously, I think as the market shifts, also, and as we encounter 

 problems with fishing stocks, we may see an investment jump, and 

 the market may indeed have elicited an appropriate response. 



But I do think you are right on target in highlighting the need 

 for a much more significant governmental-private sector joint part- 

 nership here. And I am going to see how we can build on the efforts 

 in the House and introduce legislation here that will help to do 

 that. I think it will be a very important new frontier and one that 

 begs our greater involvement. 



I really want to thank you for taking the time to be with us 

 today, sharing your commitment, and your insights on where the 

 road could go. 



I am going to leave the record open, because I am told some 

 other colleagues may have questions. And we would obviously like 

 to be able to follow up with you gentlemen, I think, as resources 



