**Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21^st^ Century Agriculture
(AC21)**

**Thirteenth Plenary Meeting**

# August 29-30, 2006

**Washington, D.C.**

# Draft Meeting Summary

On August 29-30, 2006, the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) convened the thirteenth plenary meeting of the Advisory Committee
on Biotechnology and 21^st^ Century Agriculture (AC21). The meeting
objectives were:

-   To present the Committee's latest consensus report, entitled,
    "Opportunities and Challenges for Agricultural Biotechnology: The
    Decade Ahead" to the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture.

-   To introduce new Committee members.

-   To consider outside presentations, organize, and begin work on the
    effects (in terms of planting decisions, markets, and rural
    communities) of coexistence issues on the development and use of new
    crops derived through modern biotechnology.

The AC21 includes representatives of industry, state and federal
government, nongovernmental organizations, and academia. The following
AC21 members were in attendance: Dr. Patricia Layton, Dr. Daryl Buss,
Mr. Leon Corzine, Dr. Carole Cramer, Dr. Michael Dykes, Ms. Carol Tucker
Foreman, Mr. Duane Grant, Dr. Josephine Hunt, Dr. Gregory Jaffe, Dr.
Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Mr. Russell Kremer, Dr. Margaret Mellon, Dr.
Steven Pueppke, Dr. Bradley Shurdut, Mr. Jerome Slocum, Dr. Alison Van
Eenennaam, Ms. Lisa Zannoni, and one of two new members, Ms. Sarah
Geisert. Dr. Patricia Layton chaired the meeting. *Ex officio* members
Adrian Polanski, Secretary of Agriculture for the State of Kansas, Dr.
Elizabeth Milewski, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Dr. Kathleen
Jones, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, along with two new *ex
officio* members, Marcia Holden, a research biologist at the National
Institute for Standards and Technology, and Sharon Wiener, Senior
Advisor for Agricultural Biotechnology at the Department of State, also
attended. Dr. Michael Schechtman attended as Executive Secretary and
Designated Federal Official for the AC21. He also chaired the meeting in
the absence of Dr. Layton on the first day of the meeting. Ms. Abby
Dilley and Ms. Kathy Grant of RESOLVE, and Ms. Cynthia Sulton of HW&W,
facilitated the meeting.

A full transcript of the proceedings was prepared and will be available
on the USDA website [www.usda.gov](http://www.usda.gov/) by clicking
"Agriculture" on the option bar at the left, then "Biotechnology" on the
option bar at the right, then on the committee name and this particular
meeting.

Below is a summary of the proceedings.

**I. Welcome and Introduction of New Committee Members**

Dr. Michael Schechtman opened the proceedings at 8:30 a.m. by welcoming
all the members, including one of two new members of the Committee, Ms.
Sarah Geisert, General Mills, the two new *ex officio* members, and the
public in attendance to the thirteenth meeting of the AC21. He briefly
introduced facilitators Ms. Cynthia Sulton of the consulting firm HW&W,
and Ms. Abby Dilley and Ms. Kathy Grant of the consulting firm Resolve.

Dr. Schechtman announced that the Committee had completed a significant
piece of work entitled, "Opportunities and Challenges for Agricultural
Biotechnology: The Decade Ahead," which would be presented to the Deputy
Secretary of Agriculture at this meeting. He explained that the
Committee will begin work on its next project, addressing the impact of
coexistence considerations for agriculture, after hearing presentations
on relevant topics from a series of outside presenters. Dr. Schechtman
pointed out that several background documents, previously distributed to
AC21 members and subject to discussion or reference during the course of
the Committee's deliberations, are available to the public:

-   The revised AC21 Charter

-   The AC21 Bylaws and Operating Procedures

-   A package of biographical sketches of all of the current AC21
    members, including new members

-   The draft meeting summary prepared from the twelfth AC21 meeting,
    held on March 27-29, 2006

-   Two earlier reports that were adopted by consensus in 2005.

Documents specific to this meeting include:

-   The provisional agenda for this meeting

-   A draft summary from a work group that met via conference call on
    July 18 to help frame the next work project for the Committee.

Dr. Schechtman noted the Secretary of Agriculture's August 18
announcement regarding a detection of an unapproved transgenic rice
variety in some long grain rice from the south central states. He
explained that the unapproved variety is very similar to other
engineered varieties that have previously cleared U.S. government
regulatory procedures and that it has been determined to pose no
environmental or safety concerns.

Dr. Schechtman congratulated the Committee for completing its third, and
by far most challenging, consensus report on fundamental topics relevant
to agricultural biotechnology. He encouraged them to take the same
cooperative spirit into their next project.

Dr. Schechtman then invited the new Member, Sarah Geisert, to introduce
herself.

Ms. Geisert explained that for 23 years she has been with General Mills,
where she plays a leadership role in global regulations and product
safety. She has been working on biotechnology since 1996. She noted that
she grew up on a farm in Missouri and received degrees from Tulane and
the Universities of Missouri and Nebraska.

**II. Review of March Meeting Minutes and Agenda Outline**

Ms. Sulton referred the Committee to the draft meeting summary of the
twelfth AC21 meeting held on March 27-29, 2006. She asked that any
comments on the summary be provided within one week, so that the meeting
summary could be finalized and posted on the USDA AC21 website.

Ms. Dilley reviewed the ground rules and agenda for the meeting,
reminding the Committee that at their last meeting they had discussed
two new charges from the Secretary and had requested that the Secretary
indicate which charge was the greater priority. After learning the
priority was the topic of coexistence, a Work Group met by conference
call to take a first cut at refining the charge and developing a work
plan and agenda for this meeting.

Ms. Dilley made two points to help frame the Committee's discussion on
coexistence. She suggested that, in thinking about what coexistence
means and what tools would foster coexistence, it is helpful to think of
peaceful coexistence as a journey not a destination. She also put
forward the notion of coexistence as a means of preserving choice -- for
producers, customers, and consumers.

**III. Review of Work Group Discussions on New Topic**

Dr. Schechtman explained that the USDA is asking the Committee to
consider coexistence issues among different types of agricultural
production and how they might be addressed or minimized in the future.
He reminded the Committee of USDA's broad interests in supporting all
aspects of agriculture and the industries that derive from it, as well
as in protecting consumers and the environment.

He noted that at the last meeting and in the subsequent open-ended work
group conference call on the subject, it was clear that not all members
of the Committee were comfortable with the suggested scope for the
discussions. Several concerns were raised:

-   The need to start by examining the present situation in order to
    realistically explore the future,

-   Questions whether "peaceful coexistence" is a realistic goal coupled
    with a difficulty understanding the intended meaning and a need that
    the Committee consider whether "peaceful coexistence" will be the
    term of art to be referenced in their work.

-   A range of views on whether the question should be looked at very
    broadly or more narrowly.

Dr. Schechtman stated that the Committee will need to consider how to
articulate a scope of work that addresses USDA's interest in the topic
while at the same time is a formulation that committee members feel is
appropriate. The Committee will also need to wrestle with the question
of whether and/or how to include consideration of potential products in
food crops intended for non-food uses, or to refer to them in the
document.

Dr. Schechtman suggested that it would be helpful if the discussions
were not framed in the context of biotech versus non-biotech or organic.
Nor should the report debate whether agricultural biotechnology should
or should not be a part of agriculture insofar as it is a reality
acknowledged in the Committee's previous discussions. He emphasized that
the information being requested by the Secretary's office is practical
information characterizing a potential or actual problem and providing
thoughts about what may or may not be useful in the future.

Dr. Schechtman also reminded the Committee that the USDA is looking for
a relatively short report---not a detailed exposition---that can be
completed in a year. The Department is not specifically requesting to
receive consensus recommendations.

Dr. Schechtman then set the stage for the discussion by providing some
statistics about agricultural production for organic and biotech:

-   Organic agriculture is about 2.5% of agricultural production, but is
    perhaps the fastest growing segment of agriculture. A considerable
    portion of organic production is focused on local markets and
    restaurants, especially for fruits and vegetables, and is focused on
    seasonal use.

-   Biotech production is at present largely concentrated in grains and
    oilseeds. There has been vast penetration in a few crops: 89% of soy
    this year, 83% of cotton, 61% of corn. Most of the production of
    corn and soy is intended for use as animal feed, not for food.

-   In one fruit crop, papaya, biotech production is significant, on the
    order of half of production in the main growing area in Hawaii.

-   For the major grain and oilseed crops in the U.S. for which there
    are transgenic varieties in commercial production, organic
    production is vastly smaller. In terms of acreages for organic
    production and for total crops, the following statistics compare
    2003 organic acreages, which would be underestimates for 2006, with
    2006 biotech acreages:

    -   Of the roughly 80 million acres of corn grown in the US in 2003,
        about 106,000 acres, or about 0.13%, were certified organic,
        versus about 49 million acres this year in transgenic corn.

    -   For soy, of the roughly 73 million acres, about 122,000, or
        about 0.17%, were certified organic in 2003, versus 65 million
        in transgenic soy.

    -   For cotton, of the roughly 13 million acres, 10,000 acres, or
        about 0.08%, were certified organic, versus 10.8 million acres
        of transgenic.

    -   The acres not accounted for by organic or transgenic constitute
        everything else: conventional production, organic-type
        production that was not certified, and production using other
        agricultural systems.

    -   For wheat, which is used much more for food than feed, organic
        production was relatively higher than for other grains---about
        234,000 acres out of 62 million, or 0.38%. There are no
        transgenic wheat varieties currently being grown commercially.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All of these numbers, which are an order or magnitude or so smaller
    than the overall percentage of organic production, collectively
    indicate that organic production makes a relatively larger
    contribution in fruits and vegetables rather than in the particular
    crops in which biotech varieties have had such enormous penetration.

-   Soy and corn crops are grown in many states in the U.S., though
    obviously they're concentrated in the Midwest and south. Cotton is
    grown throughout the south, from Virginia southward on the east
    coast all the way across to California.

Dr. Schechtman explained that the USDA organic rules have a list of what
are called "excluded methods," one of which is genetic engineering.
Therefore, genetic engineered varieties are not to be used in organic
production. If all other appropriate organic practices have been
followed, when some pollen from a GE variety on a neighboring field
pollinates an organic crop, that crop does not automatically lose its
organic certification. In this case, however, the crop may not meet
contractual specifications or consumer expectations.

Dr. Schechtman then noted several current practical issues that are
relevant for organic and other non-biotech farmers including: the
availability of seed that meets particular specifications in terms of
biotech content, the overall ability to cultivate and produce products
that meet consumer and/or supplier expectations, and responses to
problems. These concerns have so far been articulated most specifically
for the crops where biotech varieties are most widely adopted. However,
if GE varieties of fruit and vegetable are developed, the issues would
become more relevant to those crops as well.

**IV. Presentations on Coexistence**

In preparation for discussion of the coexistence topic, the Committee
heard five presentations. All of the power point presentations are
available on the USDA website [www.usda.gov](http://www.usda.gov/) by
clicking on "Agriculture" on the option bar at the left, then
"Biotechnology" on the option bar at the right, then on the committee
name and this particular meeting.

**A.** Allen Williams, Cerro Gordo, IL: "Perspective of an Organic and
Conventional Corn Farmer"

Mr. Williams began by explaining that he grows organic (blue corn,
soybeans, cereal grains) and conventional (white corn, soybean seed,
yellow corn) crops. He no longer grows biotech crops. He then went
through slides showing the basic economics - comparing the price of
seed, insecticide, and herbicide - of how he makes decisions about
growing biotech versus conventional crops. In addition to economics, he
noted that the aesthetic value of a weed-free field was an important
consideration. In deciding to grow organic versus conventional crops, he
considers factors such as comparative soil loss per acreage,
environmental impacts, and social implications.

Mr. Williams then discussed some of the special challenges in growing
organic crops, including: more intensive labor needs for weed control;
pest control; the need for thorough clean-out of equipment; the need for
constant good communication with neighbors; and burdensome paperwork
(e.g., affidavits for every operation).

In response to the Committee's questions, Mr. Williams made the
following additional points:

-   In organic farming, it is not a requirement to use organic manure,
    but its use has to be documented just like fertilizer.

-   Communication with neighbors includes sharing information about
    buffer zones, as well as talking with service suppliers such as
    fertilizer and pesticide applicators.

-   He adjusts planting dates to address pollen drift and weed control.

-   He also uses global positioning for guidance for his cultivators and
    sprayers.

-   For reasons of purity and economics, he raises much of his own seed.

-   If, for a particular contract, he uses conventional seed for an
    organic crop (usually for corn), he has it tested for two approved
    biotech events, for resistance to rootworm and to corn borer.

-   Contracts address different percentages of tolerance, depending on
    the end user.

-   To further clarify his slides he explained that: the net income for
    different categories did not include income figures for government
    payments; the figures comparing conventional and biotech soybeans
    did not include the 50 cent premium in his area, but even with the
    50 cents, the advantage is still to biotech soybeans; and the
    figures on gross revenue did not include the additional management
    costs that organic farming entails. However, in his area, the return
    per acre far exceeds the additional management costs.

-   With regard to the Committee's work on coexistence, Mr. William's
    said his biggest concern has to do with the seed supply. He foresaw
    the contamination of the seed supply coming quickly, leaving organic
    producers with a very small supply of seeds from which to choose. He
    expressed the view that there should be two standards for seeds, one
    for biotech and one for conventional and organic.

**B.** Don Cameron, Helm, CA: "Perspective of an Organic, Conventional,
and Biotech Farmer"

Mr. Cameron explained that he farms organic, conventional, and biotech
crops. He described several examples of procedures he puts in place for
growing specific crops.

Mr. Cameron defines coexistence as the ability to grow similar organic,
conventional, and biotech crops on the same farm area without affecting
one another. For him, coexistence has nothing to do with organic,
conventional, or biotech; it has to do with variety separation. Farmers
need to know the life cycle of each crop, including the flowering period
and how far pollen can travel. Farmers also need to cooperate with their
neighbors and run transparent operations. For example, he sends out
letters every year to all his neighbors explaining where he is going to
have organic production and what crops he will be growing.

Mr. Cameron pointed out several challenges he faces. First is the real
challenge of seed production, which he sees as the most meaningful
source of contamination. Most seeds are hybrids that are not kept by
farmers for replanting. In California, he has to plant certified seed,
which he buys under contract. He uses conventional seed for organic --
untreated, no pesticides - because organic seeds are so difficult to
obtain.

Another challenge for Mr. Cameron is pollen risk, which he addresses
with both physical and temporal separation. He also noted the
significantly more difficult management difficulties in growing organic
crops. For example, he spends over \$1,000 per acre weeding basil,
cilantro, and cotton. Related to this are labor challenges. Farmers rely
on migrant laborers, many of whom chose to work in fields where they are
not required to bend over on their hands and knees all day. In
California, immigration policy has also turned into a big issue.

In response to the Committee's questions, Mr. Cameron made the following
points:

-   Given labor constraints, challenges of weed control, and the
    economic risk of yield fluctuations, he is unlikely to increase the
    percentage of organic crops much beyond the current ten percent.

-   He sees pesticide drift as a bigger problem than having a biotech
    crop planted next to another crop.

-   The reason there is a limited supply of organic seeds is because
    there is such a small market for them and it is not economically
    feasible to grow them.

-   He does not see the need for USDA Risk Management Agency insurance
    on the purity of his product because he is confident that he has no
    contamination. Rather, he would prefer to see the money spent on
    insuring organic crops against loss.

-   He gets some assistance from USDA, for example, on thermal
    defoliation for cotton, but he gets more assistance from local
    universities, because they know the local issues better.

-   He has seen an increase in nutrient levels in his soils that are
    farmed organically.

-   When buying seeds, he does not inquire about the percentage of any
    biotech event.

-   He thinks that the organic industry for labor-intensive crops will
    move offshore because of labor costs and constraints.

-   His contracts sometimes specify distance requirements between his
    contracted crop and the nearest plantings of the same crop. He would
    not sign a contract for zero adventitious presence.

**C.** Caren Wilcox, CEO, Organic Trade Association: "Perspective from
the Organic Trade Association"

Ms. Wilcox began her presentation by outlining the history of her
organization and of organic farming in the U.S. She then showed several
slides describing how organic is defined. She noted that the USDA
recently acknowledged that organic is the fastest growing segment of
U.S. agriculture. It currently has 2.5% penetration in the U.S. market.

Ms. Wilcox identified several challenges facing organic growers.
Currently, organic producers bear the cost of testing, if certifiers
believe that, due to no fault on the part of the farmer, an organic
product has come into contact with a prohibited substance or was
produced using excluded methods.

Ms. Wilcox also stressed the lack of parity in funding and resources
from USDA for the organic sector of agriculture. Resources are needed to
ensure that standards are upheld and support is available for farmers
transitioning to organic farming. She pointed particularly to the lack
of economic data studies and production data. Without this information,
organic producers and processors are at a distinct disadvantage when
deciding which crops to plant to meet market demand or how much
insurance they need for compensation in case of a loss. She also
encouraged the USDA to increase coordination within USDA around organic
practices.

Ms. Wilcox pointed to the recent detection of an unapproved transgenic
rice variety as an example of the kind of catastrophic economic loss
organic farmers could potentially face. She noted that a major rice
producer on the West Coast says he faces the possibility of losing
everything he has built because, in his view, another company was not
careful and not regulated.

In response to the Committee's questions, Ms. Wilcox made the following
points:

-   If organics come in from overseas, they need to be certified to the
    same standards as would be applied in the U.S.

-   She does not foresee any refinements to organic rules or labeling in
    the near future.

-   She clarified several points on her slides: a producer must be
    certified as an organic producer in order to sell to someone who
    will label their product organic; even "made with organics"
    products, which must be 70% organic, cannot use excluded methods for
    the other 30%; and farmers who sell less than \$5000 of organic
    product do not have to do all the same paperwork, but they do have
    follow all the same steps as larger farmers.

-   As of today, no organic producer has lost certification due the
    presence of an excluded biotech method.

**D.** Lynn Clarkson, CEO, Clarkson Grains: "Meeting the Challenges of
Biotech-averse Markets"

Mr. Clarkson began by explaining that he is neither "pro-GMO" nor
"anti-GMO," just pro-happy client. In his world, every client wants
identity preservation in order to provide distinct products or
processes, to gain market access, and allow for traceability. He
achieves identity preservation through contracts, protected production,
segregated storage, and 3^rd^ party verification. He described the Pure
Green program as an example of how his company incorporates all these
measures in response to client demands. He noted that he meets the
non-biotech demands of his most stringent customers by drawing on
production from many sites and "cherry picking" the materials that meet
the most stringent specifications.

Mr. Clarkson then outlined several challenges including contract
standards, proving compliance, and the lack of a national standard for
seed purity, production, storage, handling, and shipping. He also
reiterated the potential harm resulting from the detection of an
unapproved transgenic rice variety by noting that, after working for 40
years to get into the Japanese rice market, the door is being shut in
our faces in light of those recent events. He then mentioned, as
potential solutions to the challenges he raised, technologies that could
enhance seed purity and genetic markers for new biotech events. He also
suggested that, with all the new genetic events that will be pouring
into our system from breeders around the world, there is a need for a
little more regulation.

Mr. Clarkson raised the question of whether it is best to have an
organic program based on the traditional process definition or one based
on testing for tolerance level. He concluded by asking for regulation
that does not inhibit development of biotech traits, negotiation of an
internationally accepted testing protocol, and an agreement on a party
to do testing and sampling that would be accepted by everyone in the
production chain.

In response to the Committee's questions, Mr. Clarkson made the
following points:

-   He only tests for approved events.

-   The cost of the premium Pure Green program is 50 cents per bushel; a
    more minimal program costs in the range of 10-15 cents a bushel.

-   In the 5% of cases where he has experienced rejection of a product,
    the source of the problem is usually the failure to clean bins or
    equipment or the failure to pay sufficient attention to pollen
    drift.

-   The typical identity preservation program he uses works for corn as
    well as soybeans.

-   An increased demand for bio-fuels will not decrease demand for
    identity preservation in food crops. However, the price for these
    non-biotech products may increase.

-   There is a significant cost advantage when delivering containers of
    identity preserved products to the Asian market if the containers
    are returned full rather than empty.

-   The cost of freight is becoming a major issue. For example, it is
    cheaper to move a ton of product by water from Buenos Aires to the
    East Coast than by freight from Chicago to the East Coast.

-   If the gap between supply and demand in the domestic market
    continues to increase, buyers will turn overseas to meet the demand.
    As a result of this and the differential in transportation costs,
    domestic farmers are for the first time seeing competition
    domestically from international markets.

-   For those domestic clients who want to set a standard for tolerance
    levels, he currently is recommending the European standard of 0.1
    percent.

-   He thinks the supply of organics has not kept up with demand for a
    number of reasons: organic farmers, unlike conventional farmers,
    cannot hand off to third parties some responsibility for the farming
    operation; they sell to receiving points 100 to 200 miles away not
    just to a local grain operator; they cannot just sell on any one
    day; and they tend to be isolated from other farmers.

**E.** Nick Kalaitzandonakes, MSMC Endowed Professor of Agribusiness,
University of Missouri: "The economics of alternative purity
requirements under conditions of coexistence."

Dr. Kalaitzandonakes went through a series of slides showing: the costs
of supplying commodities under different adventitious presence levels,
how the costs vary by the size of the market to be supplied, and how the
costs are distributed over the supply chain.

He explained that identity preservation costs vary drastically based on
the market size, threshold levels, crops produced, and production
location. He also emphasized that cost and risks can vary significantly
depending on whether standards are process or product-based. The share
of costs also changes considerably from one part of the food chain to
another.

Dr. Kalaitzandonakes further explained that markets have been very good
at finding where there are low cost production possibilities and making
them available when the demand is there. He noted that pricing for crops
has been very close to the cost of production, as would be expected in a
competitive market. He also pointed out that there have been very few
examples of failures of the market to deliver what the customer wanted.

Dr. Kalaitzandonakes concluded by emphasizing that it would be a mistake
to assume that this system would work in exactly the same way if a
global regulatory framework were applied across the market.

In response to the Committee's questions, Mr. Kalaitzandonakes made the
following points:

-   The costs and difficulty of supplying material at a particular
    percentage level depend not only on the percent adoption of
    biotechnology but also on the percentage of non-biotechnology
    products.

-   The size of the market can be so small that it is not economically
    justifiable to invest in the production of seeds for that market.

-   Where the market is working well, there is no need to step in and
    create broad-based standards. However, where there have been market
    failures, there may be a policy intervention that would improve on
    what the market can do alone.

-   From an economic perspective, it is better to have ten different
    standards for tolerance than a uniform standard.

-   Economists define market failure in terms of externalities, such as
    pollen drift or asymmetries in information. For example, a market
    failure could exist when a demand is not being fulfilled by the
    market due to lack of information for production or pricing. It is
    also a market failure when one farmer is causing damage to the
    production of another farmer without incurring the cost of that
    damage. Industry structure, such as the existence of monopolies, can
    also result in market failure.

**V. Review and Discussion of Committee of Committee Charge**

(Note: The AC21 members discussed their charge on coexistence during
sessions on the first day and second day of their deliberations. All of
those discussions are presented in this portion of the summary.)

The Committee discussed several issues related to framing the discussion
on coexistence, the actual wording of the charge from the Secretary,
topics for discussion under the charge, and an orderly approach for
engaging in a discussion of the topics.

The Committee discussed several options for framing the discussion of
coexistence. Most members preferred using the term "respectful" rather
than "peaceful" coexistence. Several members expressed support for the
concept of coexistence as a means for preserving choice for producers,
customers, and consumers. Under this concept, the Committee's discussion
would be based on considerations for USDA in preserving this choice. One
member suggested looking at these considerations through the lens of
market failures.

The Committee discussed, but did not finalize, new language to reflect
the Secretary's charge. The draft language coming from the meeting is:
*"In an increasingly complex marketplace, what issues should USDA
consider regarding coexistence among increasingly diverse agricultural
systems?"*

Several topics for discussion under the charge were raised and then
arranged under general headings. The following is the draft outline of
potential topics for consideration relevant to coexistence:

[Regulatory Standards]{.underline}

-   Sampling

-   Testing

-   Adventitious Presence

-   Voluntary versus Regulatory standards and thresholds

[Compliance and Stewardship (possibly combined with above)]{.underline}

-   Monitoring

-   Third Party Verification

-   Contracting

-   Dispute Prevention and Resolution

-   Identity Preservation

[Infrastructure]{.underline}

-   Transportation

-   Storage

[Market Structure and Access]{.underline}

-   Capital Markets

-   Seed Supply/Availability

-   Competition

[Externalities]{.underline}

-   Liability

-   Pollen Flow/Contamination/Mixing

[Information]{.underline}

-   Data

-   Identification Markers

-   Tools to Facilitate Good Information and Decision-making

The Committee then discussed how to approach the discussions in upcoming
plenary meetings. They agreed that, if coexistence entails fostering
choice for producers, customers, and consumers, it could make sense to
start their discussions with an examination of what is happening in the
current marketplace. After that discussion, they would describe
concisely how the six categories of considerations above might affect
coexistence in the future, given various factors affecting the future
marketplace, or at least describe the relevant considerations for each. 
The description of these considerations would be brief.

They agreed that the current domestic and international marketplace
should be described with respect to the six categories listed (much
information already has been provided by speakers to date), and then the
future marketplace considered given several variables, including:

-   The international context, such as the various policy discussions
    and their impact on these categories of issues;

-   Potential introduction of new technologies (information
    technologies, etc.)

-   Potential introduction of new products (e.g., value-added products,
    plant-made industrial products, products in new crops, etc.) and/or
    increased demands for various non-biotech derived products.

**VII. Presentation of Paper to Office of the Secretary, USDA**

On August 30, 2006, AC21 Chair Pat Layton presented the Committee's
report, "Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology: The
Decade Ahead," to USDA Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner. She explained that
the report covered 28 topics that some or all Committee members believe
will affect the USDA's work related to agricultural biotechnology in the
next decade. She noted that the report is a consensus report.

Deputy Secretary Conner accepted the report and, on behalf of Secretary
Johanns, thanked the Committee for their work. He explained the
Secretary was touring drought stricken regions of the country and noted,
relevant to the Committee's work, the role biotechnology plays in
helping to produce drought resilient varieties of corn and soybeans. He
also reminded the Committee that in the last decade 61 percent of the
corn, 83 percent of the cotton, and 89 percent of the soybeans planted
in the U.S. were biotech varieties.

The Deputy Secretary told the Committee that their report would be very
valuable as he and the Secretary work on the next Farm Bill and the best
broad-based policy going forward for American agriculture and consumers
over the next five, ten, or even fifteen or twenty years down the road.

The Deputy Secretary went on to address the recent Bayer Crop Science
notification to USDA and FDA that trace amounts of a regulated
genetically engineered rice, commonly referred to as Liberty Link (LL)
Rice-601, have been detected in samples of long grain rice. He stated
that both agencies have reviewed the available scientific data and
concluded that there is absolutely no human health, food safety, or
environmental concern. The protein in LLRice-601 is similar to other
regulated lines, LL Rice-62 and LL Rice-06, which have gone through
thorough safety evaluations and have been deemed safe for use in food
and in the environment. He also noted that the protein in LL Rice-601
has been approved for use in other products. Deputy Secretary Conner
explained that, based on a petition from Bayer and reports that LL
Rice-601 is in the marketplace, USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) will conduct a deregulation process, to
include an opportunity for public comment. He emphasized that USDA is
committed to moving the deregulation process forward as rapidly as
possible. APHIS will also conduct an investigation to determine the
circumstances surrounding the release of LL Rice-601.

In response to a question from the Committee, the Deputy Secretary
indicated that USDA does not plan to change its policy with regard to
testing deregulated products.

**VIII. Public Comment**

Public comment was received from Ms. Theresa Polk, Missionary Society of
St. Columban Office for Justice, Peace, and Integrity of Creation. Ms.
Polk reminded the Committee that their discussions and recommendations
can have profound repercussions for some of the world's most vulnerable
populations. She noted that, with so many species facing extinction each
year, companies must be held accountable for the contamination through
adventitious presence of food crops through open-air field trials. She
called for transparency with trading partners and aid recipients,
labeling as a minimum requirement for granting market approval or
access, and independent testing for health and environmental safety.
Finally, she asked for balance between the need to recoup research
investments and the need to protect subsistence farmers from the costs
of patented seeds that could exacerbate already desperate situations.

**IX. Discussion of Work Plan and Next Steps**

The AC21 discussed and agreed to the following next steps:

1)  **Develop a draft of the work plan to structure work on
    coexistence.** Dr. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes agreed to develop a
    preliminary draft to circulate to all Committee members for review
    and comment.  The flip chart notes from the meeting discussion will
    form the basis for the work plan outline.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  **Review topics identified during the meeting that also have been
    discussed in previous sessions and/or included in prior reports
    submitted to the Secretary in order to determine what, if anything,
    new needs to be developed on those topics relating specifically to
    coexistence.**  This review will help the Committee prioritize its
    work.

2)  **Determine what additional information is needed by the Committee
    and develop efficient and creative means to gather it.**  The
    Committee discussed several areas of interest and offered
    suggestions for future speakers or possible "white papers."  Given
    the limited time to complete the report (next spring -- three more
    plenary sessions), the Committee will need to prioritize possible
    useful topics, identify which information is essential to its work,
    and then consider options for gathering it.  For example, some ideas
    mentioned at the last plenary that may merit further investigation
    were having outside presentations on conference calls, developing
    white papers, etc.  There is also a need to do preliminary work
    before gathering information, including determining specific
    questions or areas the Committee wants covered.

**X. Conclusion**

Dr. Layton thanked Committee members for their work during the meeting
and adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m.