UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--x

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON :

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND 21ST CENTURY :

AGRICULTURE (AC21) :

SEVENTEENTH PLENARY MEETING :

:

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--x

A meeting in the above-entitled matter was held on Wednesday, November
28, 2007, commencing at 8:42 a.m., at the USDA, 1800 M Street, N.W.,
Waugh Auditorium, 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C. before:

Michael Schechtman, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official

Patricia Layton, Chairperson

[A P P E A R A N C E S]{.underline}

Abby Dilley, RESOLVE

Cynthia Sulton, HW&W

Kathy Grant, RESOLVE

[MEMBERS OF The AC21 PLENARY COMMITTEE]{.underline}

Patricia Layton, Chairperson

Stephanie Whelan

Carol Tucker-Foreman

Margaret Mellon

Alison VanEenennaam

Jerome Slocum

Guy Cardineau

Leon Corzine

Nancy Bryson

Michael Dykes

Greg Jaffe

James Robl

Michael Engler

Fuller Bazer

Adrian Polansky

Bowen Flowers

Paul Saxton

Marcia Holden

Daryl Buss

Steven Pueppke

Randy Giroux

Russell Kremer

Elizabeth Milewski

Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Absent

Bradley Shurdut, Absent

Kathleen Jones, Absent

Sarah Geisert, Absent

Duane Grant, Absent

[A P P E A R A N C E S]{.underline}

[Page]{.underline}

Dale Moore, Chief of Staff, USDA 24

[P R O C E E D I N G S]{.underline}

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Good morning. This is the seventeenth meeting of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture\'s Advisory Committee on Biotechnology
and 21st Century Agriculture or AC21. My name is Michael Schechtman and
I\'m the Executive Secretary and Designated Federal Official for the
AC21.

I hope everyone had an enjoyable Thanksgiving. To my left is the AC21
Chair, Dr. Patricia Layton, who also chairs the Department of Forestry
and Natural Resources at Clemson University. She\'ll providing remarks
in a few minutes. To my left and right are our facilitators, Ms. Abby
Dilley and Ms. Kathy Grant from the organization RESOLVE and Ms. Cynthia
Sulton from the organization HW&W who are our partners in helping us
make the advisory committee process work.

We have around the table members of this advisory committee and several
*ex officio* members of the committee representing other federal
agencies and the State Departments of Agriculture and others should be
joining us as well over the course of this meeting.

We\'ll have some additional USDA visitors to this meeting as well. I\'m
delighted to note that later this morning we\'ll have the USDA Chief of
Staff, Dale Moore, to underscore the importance of your discussions for
USDA and express USDA\'s appreciation for the work you\'re doing.

In addition, tomorrow morning we will have Rebecca Bech, the Deputy
Administrator for Biotechnology Regulatory Services from USDA\'s APHIS,
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, here to provide some
updates and to consider the committee\'s discussions on the set of
questions provided to the committee by APHIS last time related to a new
voluntary program under development by APHIS referred to as the
Biotechnology Quality Management System. This will be introduced in more
detail tomorrow.

I should note that committee members Duane Grant, Brad Shurdut, Nick
Kalaitzandonakes and Sarah Geisert will be unable to attend this
meeting. Duane and Nick are out of the country. Sara has a work conflict
and Brad is scheduled for hip surgery today so we should all wish him
well. We have been in touch with them to try to understand their
particular interest and issues concerning the draft document you\'ve
been working on and also will be in touch with them immediately
following the meeting so that we can have a smooth process for
completion and delivery of the completed paper to the Secretary\'s
Office.

We will, as usual, have a very full agenda so we ask that when the
meeting is in session conversations need to be limited to those between
members. The public will be invited to participate by providing comments
to committee and USDA this afternoon between 3:30 and 4:45.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. SCHECHTMAN: As I said, the public will be invited to participate by
providing comments to the committee and USDA this afternoon between 3:30
and 4:45. For members of the public, we\'ll request during the public
comment period I will need hard or electronic copies of your remarks.
We\'ll be preparing the Minutes of this meeting a computer transcript of
the meeting will also be available within about six weeks or so. We hope
to get the Minutes and all meeting announcements up on the Web.

USDA, the AC21 rather, has a website linked to the overall USDA website.
It can be reached through USDA\'s main biotech portal at www.usda.gov by
clicking on agriculture, then on biotechnology, then on the committee
name. For members of the press who may be in attendance, you\'re welcome
to speak to whomever you wish during the breaks of our meeting and
before or after the meeting itself. We ask that you not conduct any
interviews or request comments from members while the AC21 is actually
in session.

I and the AC21 Chair will be available for questions and comments at the
end of each day of the meeting. I\'d like to request that all members of
the AC21 as well as all members of the audience and the press, should
any be here, please shut off your beepers, cell phones, and blackberries
while in the meeting room. Bathrooms are located outside the restricted
access doors through which you were let in.

For information of members of the public let me indicate that the AC21
has two distinct general charges from the Secretary of Agriculture and
its charter: examining the long-term impacts of biotechnology on
agriculture and the work of USDA, which this committee has interpreted
to mean over the next five or ten years; and addressing pressing
specific biotechnology-related issues identified by the Secretary.

The committee has already completed several significant pieces of work
related to these charges and the three previous AC21 consensus reports
are available for the public on the table in the back of the room. Over
the next two days the committee will work on several different topics.
First, we expect to complete one project related to both charges on the
impact of coexistence consideration for agriculture. The committee will
work to resolve the remaining issues as detailed in the most recent
draft and in comments from members and set up on a course for our usual
finalization process for documents. I\'ll have more to say about the
upcoming work later.

We will also, as I mentioned earlier, have updates tomorrow from USDA\'s
regulatory agency with biotechnology specific responsibility, APHIS, and
discussions relating to implementation and outreach for the new
Biotechnology Quality Management System.

Finally, the committee will listen to a series of presentations, two by
committee members and three from outside speakers, relating to
transgenic animals addressing technical development and their
implications, general status of government regulatory procedures for
these animals, information for assessment of potential actions by the
producer community, by the downstream elements of the production chain,
and by consumers and some of the social and ethical dimensions around
this topic.

These will be the first presentations on the topic for the committee as
currently constituted so we want to get the issues out on the table at
this point. We have decided to present some background information and
perspective prior to sending our initial charges on this topic as the
chief of staff will explain to you in his remarks. It is USDA\'s intent
to bring to you specific topics relating to transgenic animals, probably
two, maybe three of them, in an order that we\'re determining.

We hope to have you deliberate on several issues but we would like to
develop the charges in an organized, relevant, and logical fashion and
not attempt to discuss the broad topic all at once. As Mr. Moore and I
will discuss, formulating these charges have been and is a challenge for
a number of reasons, including factors directly related to this topic
such as ongoing internal discussions among the various affected
government agencies as well as other external factors affecting the
speed with which we can finalize the charges such as having a new
nominee for Secretary undergoing a confirmation process, someone who
certainly, of course, has an interest in this topic and in your
deliberation.

Having said all this as background we wanted to get the committee
started working in this direction and to do that we have asked several
speakers to give presentations on a range of topics on transgenic
animals in order to begin the substantive shift towards these topics and
provide context and background settings similar to what we did for
plants and crops, all in anticipation of the specific charges.

We\'ll be asking you to look at some of the general issues to help USDA
think broadly about and prepare for what may be coming. Ultimately the
charges and the associated topics on which we will focus will, we hope,
continue to take fullest advantage of the very broad range of interests
and expertise on this committee. Because this committee is not a
specific science committee nor an industry committee nor a risk
assessment committee nor a consumer-based committee, but, instead,
diversely comprised, this committee has the opportunity to provide us
with unique insight on these complex issues.

As I said, just in the back of the room, there\'s a table with reading
documents and background documents on them. Please take only one copy of
each. For this meeting we have a series of documents. There are a number
of background documents which include the official AC21 Charter, the
AC21 Bylaws and Operating Procedures, a package of biographical sketches
of all the current AC21 members, old and new, the draft meeting summary
prepared from the 16th AC21 meeting held on August 1st through 2nd,
2007, and a draft work summary prepared from the discussions of the
small group which met on September 17, 2007.

There are also two sets of USDA press releases and statements, one
relating to the announcement by APHIS of its general plans for the BQMS
and a second relating to the conclusions of its investigations of the
unintended low- level presence of genetically engineered LL rice in the
U.S. long grain rice supply, and the lessons learned as a result of that
investigation. Rebecca Bech from APHIS will have something to say about
the various developments to you tomorrow morning.

Finally, we also have as background for the public the earlier three
AC21 consensus reports that were developed in 2005 and 2006 on that
table. Specific to this meeting we have a few documents. First, the
additional agenda for this meeting. Second, a document from APHIS
describing in some more detail some of their current thinking on the
Biotechnology Quality Management System that they\'re developing. Third,
the most recent compilation of comments on the coexistence paper under
development.

It\'s a complicated document, but, when we reach that point of the
agenda I will explain how the bracketing on the text is supposed to
look. Fourth, one last compromise or worked-over draft in which we\'ve
attempted to capture comments that seem to clarify the text and
suggested some other topical language in places where there are still
different points of view among committee members.

Committee members should have received the last three documents and they
should, either over the weekend or on Monday of this week. Apologies for
the late delivery. As you know, comments on the coexistence paper were
coming in as late as last Tuesday and the APHIS document on the BQMS is
also a work in progress.

Please note on the agenda for this meeting that there are breaks
scheduled this morning and afternoon.

For members of the public who wish coffee, coffee is available
downstairs on the ground level in a restaurant outside this tower. Also
on the agenda let me note that we are again planning on a period of one
and a quarter hours for public comments from 3:30 to 4:45 p.m. today. We
want to be responsive to the needs of the public and we will see as the
meeting progresses how we need to structure that time. If there are no
commentors we will find other uses for that time. As always, we will be
very busy.

Members of the public, if you wish to make a comment and you have not
done so already, please be sure you have signed up at the door so we can
plan that time. From USDA\'s perspective there are three main objectives
for this meeting. They are first to complete all substantive work on the
paper addressing the question, "What issues should USDA consider
regarding coexistence among diverse agricultural systems in a dynamic,
evolving, and complex marketplace?" and develop a plan for finalizing
the paper and presenting it to the Office of the Secretary of USDA.

Second, to discuss the new Biotechnology Quality Management System
proposed by USDA\'s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and also
views on a series of questions relating to its implementation; and,
finally, to consider a few initial presentations setting the stage for
USDA\'s work for \-- this committee\'s work rather on transgenic
animals.

Let me note that for this meeting we have modified our initial plans for
beginning work on transgenic animals for several reasons which I\'ve
alluded to already; time constraints on beginning this topic and to
resolve the additional work that we need to complete our current charge
on coexistence as well as the response to the request from APHIS to
provide input on the BQMS proposal and, as mentioned, publications and
timing of this work relative to other activities going on in the
government around transgenic animals.

Being without a specific charge on the subject at this meeting, however,
provides the opportunity to present and broadly discuss the number of
topics related to transgenic animals as background and as general
information. We intend to provide information to you prior to the next
meeting to help formulate a work plan based on the committee\'s initial
charges in this area and we hope to be able to jump right into the work
plan at the next meeting.

USDA\'s Chief of Staff will provide some thoughts as to our interest
here but we also request the forbearance of committee members especially
those with particular interest in this area as we move forward. Rest
assured that we do plan to devote much time to this area. I intend to
complete all plenary work on the coexistence paper today and any
additional work required will be done via email or conference call
consistent with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

So, we will have time in our next plenaries to devote to the topic.
I\'ll save my other remarks about today\'s work on coexistence for a bit
later. Let me instead turn to our committee Chair, Dr. Patricia Layton,
for her welcome and thoughts and for her introduction to the USDA chief
of staff when he arrives.

DR. LAYTON: Good morning. It is so wonderful to be back in D.C. and see
you all again. As it always is, I learn so much whenever I come to this
committee and I enjoy sharing and hearing your views and I think this
week is going to be a particularly pleasant charge for us to finish up
the coexistence document and I think to also start, and I think it\'s
really important to reiterate what Michael said, to be able to start
with a series of discussions and sharing of knowledge about where we all
are or where things are on the topic of transgenic animals without
having a specific charge.

Sometimes we get very torn up over what this word means versus what that
word means in our charge and I think it\'s good to have an open floor
right now to hear presentations and discussions and sort of understand
where everyone\'s coming from, an open session without having that
charge to worry about. So, I\'m particularly looking forward to this
kind of opening for our round of work for the next portion of the
committee\'s work when they do get a charge for our next meeting.

I do know, however, that the Federal Register notice went out about
people\'s terms expiring and I have to plead ignorance. Whose term is
expiring? Does anyone know? Okay. And I\'m just going to ask because I
don\'t want us to be at our last meeting without having a lot of fun
with you all, which of you, are any of you not planning to remain on the
committee? Okay. You\'re not planning to remain on the committee. Randy?

MR. GIROUX: Reapply.

DR. LAYTON: To reapply. If you didn\'t reapply. Okay. So, we\'ll
certainly want to get Randy\'s thoughts before we leave on tomorrow
afternoon.

MR. GIROUX: That\'s because I\'ve maxxed out my term.

DR. LAYTON: Aah.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: There\'s one more year.

DR. LAYTON: You can go one more year.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: It is going to be an exciting two days, I think. I\'m very
pleased that the Chief of Staff, Dale Moore, will be with us, joining
us. I am looking forward to tomorrow to Rebecca\'s work on Biotechnology
Quality Management System. Years and years ago in one of my former
worlds I actually worked on the environmental quality management system
under ISO and I can\'t wait to see how this \-- every word was
negotiated in those contracts, those issues, so, it will be a fun week,
a fun two days, I think, and we\'ll all learn and I really thank the
members of the committee who were going to be giving presentations. I
think we\'ll really enjoy those and learn from each other.

We are still going on with the agenda. So, welcome and I encourage us to
do one thing today or one main memory of doing things and that is \--
well, actually, two, three things. One is we want to remember we\'re in
the process of finalizing this document so let\'s make sure that we are
giving our honest, constructive feedback and in that respect, you know,
if you don\'t like something please come up with an alternative if you
don\'t like it. So, that\'s my kindergarten rule thing.

So, if everybody is, you know, constructive in getting this done I think
that we all want to put coexistence behind us this week. Okay. Not that
it will ever go away, but, I just want to make sure that the committee
can get this document over with and out the door and have it to greet
our new Secretary as he takes his oath of office, whenever that may be,
and we don\'t know when it will be.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Hopefully he doesn\'t get it that day.

DR. LAYTON: Yes. Not that day. Okay. Now, the other thing is that for
our facilitators are going to try and help with this, but, our
transcriber has a hard time seeing past the column to see names at the
far quarter, far right quarter, so, simply say your names as she calls
on the person so that the transcriber can easily decide who is speaking
so that will facilitate that. If by chance we forget to call your name
it would really help the transcriber if you say at least your name
before \-- if you didn\'t hear it, say your name if you\'re in this
quarter. I think she can see the rest of the names and get that down
because we want to make sure that we are getting the appropriate name on
the appropriate person when we\'re making comments for the record.
Because I have to sign off on these records and I don\'t want to have it
saying the wrong person or just man said versus lady. We can figure that
out. So, if you would bear with us on that.

We have a very full agenda. We have a lot of work to do especially today
and we want to get to the opportunity for public comment. As I
understand it, no one has signed up yet for public comment but that\'s
not to say that we won\'t have public comment. I wanted to compliment
everyone last time on the public comment period. That went very well. I
know that we all didn\'t necessarily agree or support or some of us did
agree and support the commentor but I think we handled it very well and
I really appreciate our ability to do that and move right back into our
topics and get our work done.

And, so, if we have public comment today I hope we can do that also so
that we can move quickly back into our executive work. Now, I\'d like to
go move into the overview of our agenda and the summary of our meeting
from last time so that everyone\'s on the same page because I know that
not everyone was here at the last meeting and I want to turn to Cindy
for a review of the meeting or a review of the agenda?

MS. SULTON: The meeting.

DR. LAYTON: The meeting summary from last time. Cindy.

MS. SULTON: All right. You all should have received and, if not, have
copies available to you, the summary of the 16th plenary session of
AC21, August 1 and 2, 2007. The meeting was pretty much dedicated to the
coexistence report. However, we started with a wealth of introduction of
three new members and one new *ex officio* member and a review of our
management agenda. We were pleased to have Rebecca Bech, the Deputy
Administrator of the Biotechnology Regulatory Service, who gave us
updates on regulation of products of agricultural biotechnology and
explained to us how APHIS was considering the development of a
Biotechnology Quality Management System, BQMS. She presented for the
committee\'s consideration three questions and asked that we just get
back to her on the process, and those three questions were, What
incentives could be developed to increase participation by industry and
academia?; What information about the program should we develop and
include in an out strategy?; and How might the system be utilized
internationally?

We then off to discuss the draft paper. We were assisted in that by
having actually three documents, a highlighted document that showed all
these comments from the members that we received from the previous
draft, one that compiled those comments, and then we were benefitted
from a draft which two members of the committee put together on the
wording and basically worked off a third draft.

After working off \-- working on the paper we discussed \-- we had a
brief introduction of the new work that the committee would be
considering at the next plenary session which includes Biotechnology
Quality Management System on the animal side of biotechnology as
previously discussed by Dr. Schechtman. Also, previously we had a public
comment from a William Freese from the Center for Food Safety who
commented on the committee\'s previous report entitled \"Opportunities
and Challenges in Agricultural Biotechnology, the Decades Ahead\" and
asked the committee consider the potential long-term, negative
implications of herbicide tolerance.

We then moved to the discussion of our work plan and that plan was to
develop a new draft based on the deliberations of that meeting and work
on the sections that we had consensus on in developing language for the
new section, circulating that new document for review and comment and
potentially having conference calls and other circulated drafts for
review by the members.

We talked about gaining additional available information from BRS
regarding the BQMS and we commented on any conference calls with those
members who were unable to attend the meeting. The meeting was then
adjourned. What I\'d like to ask if there are any changes or corrections
to the Minutes and if there are you could provide them to Dr. Schechtman
within the next two weeks so we can post these Minutes on the Web. Thank
you.

MS. DILLEY: A couple of brief comments on the agenda. Michael\'s already
pretty much gone through the overall agenda for the next two days. It\'s
basically divided into three main parts. Today is dedicated to
completing, or looking toward completion, of the coexistence paper.
There are two drafts in the back that you should have in front of you
when we begin discussion on the document and that is the one that has
tape on the side, you\'ve got a copy from the one back here that says at
the top it lists, "Latest 11/25/07 compiled comments on coexistence
paper." That is a compilation of comments that we received on the 11/2
document. So the 11/2 document was the one that went on that was a new
draft based on the meeting. We had comments on that and then we got
additional comments on the next round of the paper and what you see
before you is a compilation of the comments on that draft.

And then you have another document that had 11/25/07 in the upper
right-hand corner. That is basically because it was starting to get so
confusing to read through a document without a comment but we wanted to
have that in front of you we made a clean draft that attempts to
integrate comments as much as possible and give you a clean document to
work from. You can talk about whether you want to work from that
document or not. It doesn\'t have any status, any official status at
this point.

It was our best attempt to take the comments that we had received over
the course of a couple of drafts that were circulated to the committee,
take those comments and do what we could with integrating those comments
with some that are, as you can see from that draft, highlighted in
yellow that we talked about and some other things. It\'s not to the
exclusion of other comments. I\'m sure you all will have additional
comments or wonder where some of your comments may have gone or lie,
they weren\'t adopted. It\'s just a first run attempt to try to take as
many comments and try to integrate them into the draft as possible.

So we could work from both of those documents. We do have on hand the
compilation document that was circulated to all of you. That\'s the 11/2
draft. If we need that we will certainly hand that out. We can put that
out. We just thought that maybe starting with three documents might get
a little bit confusing and that\'s an older draft. But, we can certainly
supply that for your reference and use during that discussion.

So, today we\'ll work from those drafts and hopefully by the end of
today have a good sense of having worked through the entire draft and
how close we are to completing the document and then if there are
additional discussions we need to have tomorrow in order to set up a
plan for finalization as mentioned to the Secretary then we\'ll talk
about that then should we not come to that by the end of today. It
depends on how much work that\'s going to take to finish the draft
document.

And as Pat has already mentioned, we will, of course, have public
comment and if we do not use all that time for public comment, if we
need the time we\'ll come back to the draft paper. If not, then great.
We\'ll stop for public comment and then adjourn the public comment when
completed.

Then tomorrow we have two sessions, the morning starting with a
Biotechnology Quality Management discussion. Michael\'s sent out an
email I think a couple of weeks ago with a draft agenda that had a link
to the proposal. It\'s APHIS\' proposal on the program, is that right,
with additional background? There\'s also the copies that you mentioned
back here and Cindy just read for you in a summary is a list of the
questions and those have remained the same.

So, they have tried to provide some additional material. As Michael
said, it\'s a work in progress. We had the one page document that was
circulated prior to the meeting. If you don\'t have a copy of that, that
is back there. Those are materials that would be helpful to at least
glance at before we get into the discussion tomorrow when Rebecca Bech
is here and you will provide some additional information and we\'ll have
that conversation.

Then after a break we\'ll make the shift to the third portion of our
meeting into transgenic animal portion of the agenda and we have five
presentations. People have been asked to have about 25 minutes, I think,
of comments and then we\'ll have some Q&A to explore a wide range of
topics that we have in those five presentations and then we\'ll come
back to setting up our work plan for between now and the next meeting.

As Michael said, the charge is a work in progress on transgenic animals.
So, hopefully we\'ll have \-- depending on when we have the charges
we\'ll have different kinds of opportunities to set up a work plan
between now and the next meeting and maybe consulting with members,
having a \-- we\'re not sure yet. This really depends on when we get
them, what they look like, how we need to set up our work for our next
meeting and we don\'t have that next meeting figured out but we\'ll
probably meet in three months or so for the next meeting.

So, we\'ll develop the work plan certainly to complete the coexistence
paper and whatever we need to do and then there will be some outstanding
work that will need to be done between now and the next meeting
together, work plans on transgenic animals, deliberations around our
charges when we get those.

So, any questions about the overall agenda? All right. Then we\'re at
that point where Dale is speaking.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Let me go check on his progress coming in.

MS. DILLEY: We will put out the 11/2 compilation as well if people want
to take them. They\'ll always be available back there. If not, then
we\'ll make the decision about what documents we want to work from and
how when we start that discussion. So, why don\'t you watch your
documents and they\'re in order and we\'ll pick up from Dale when we
know what the status of Dale Moore coming here. All right.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken)

DR. LAYTON: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Did everybody get their
documents that we\'re going to be looking at in just a few minutes? All
right. It is with very, very great pleasure that I am here to introduce
two gentlemen from USDA today. First, Mr. Jeremy Stump, who is on my far
right, who is the Senior Advisor on Biotechnology and many other
matters, but, specifically in our case on biotechnology, and then our
guest of the day for his comments to us and we\'re very, very grateful
for him to be here and make comments this morning, Mr. Dale Moore, Chief
of Staff, USDA. Dale?

MR. MOORE: Thank you. Good morning, everybody. And Jeremy\'s on my far
right too. That\'s political. I\'m the resident smart aleck of the
Department so I apologize up front, but, I do appreciate having the
opportunity to visit with you all. As you all are very much aware of the
importance and the time and energy that the department has placed,
focused on issues related to biotechnology simply because we\'re excited
about where the technology is headed and some because the technology is
headed in areas where it raises a lot of excitement.

And as we put those kind of two juxtaposed against each other everything
from the science, you know, technical side of the equation and assuring
that we\'ve got a good regulatory framework to manage that as well as
getting the input that you all provide combined with the fact that
occasionally it becomes a trade issue, it becomes an international
issue, and we get a whole lot of folk \-- okay, Carol\'s back so we got
to quit talking about that, we\'ll go on to the next one. I\'m just
kidding, Carol. I like that Kansas State program that you\'ve got on.
Did you notice that, Adrian? That\'s a good Kansas State color. I like
that.

We have an area of discussion that we at USDA are anxious, probably too
strong a word, but, certainly have a keen interest in starting to
explore the boundaries and it certainly poses some challenges. One of
the things that you all talk about quite a bit is the coexistence issue
and it\'s something that fascinates me. I smile every time I see that
word. It\'s a challenge for Congress, between the House and the Senate,
between the Republicans and Democrats, it\'s a challenge between the
Republicans and Republicans and Democrats and Democrats on Farm Bill
issues, with us and the Hill, and as we approach it from the biotech
side of the equation, you know, the science is marching on, there are a
number of different avenues that the technology\'s being explored and,
frankly, as I picked up in reading some of the science papers, I know
you guys have as well, there are some areas where kind of the technology
forefronts are kind of changing course a bit and kind of coming back and
looking at different directions because I know it\'s promised the
ability of a particular pathway to generate the biotechnology synergies
isn\'t panning out, but, there are, you know, again, new horizons
opening up and things being explored at the same time.

We have the issues and, you know, I\'ll use the LL rice situation where
the technology is there where the industry itself, the producers on up,
do not want to utilize that technology yet. The marketplace does not
want to utilize it, yet it\'s out there and it creates a whole bunch of
situations and challenges and problems.

The next frontier that I think is starting to bud a bit is on the
transgenic animal front. We have seen and participated, several of us,
in projects, initiatives, etc. on everything from pharmaceuticals to
academic curiosity on the transgenic animals and where that money leads.
But, as in all these things with bio, you know, we have to be concerned
with what happens. First of all, you\'ve got the safety, the efficacy
kinds of questions, and then you\'ve got the acceptance kinds of issues.

You have the greatest technology in the world but if we have not done a
good job of assuring the public of its safety and its efficacy, if they
are not ready to accept it we\'re going to be, you know, fighting on a
series of issues and just make it impossible for us to move policy
forward simply because we\'re fighting the same old battles over and
over and over and that\'s where you all come in and having them coming
in on a number of different kind of fronts.

Michael and Rebecca had indicated earlier to you that we\'ve got these
ongoing discussions within not just USDA but within the Federal
Government as to how the animal \-- how the regulation of animal
products and transgenic animals and all that process is going to work.
We\'re in somewhat of a difficult position simply because there is such
a broad-based discussion on these regulations going on, particularly
those that are not directly or even tangentially under USDA\'s
authority.

So, we\'ve got to work with our partners at FDA and in some cases the
EPA and there may be other branches out there that we need to touch base
on. Part of it is too that we have been trying to move some general
policy statements, ANPRs through the process to give you all something
to operate from, to look at, to react to and give us some feedback and
if you all have ideas and all, they\'re legal, on how to expedite the
federal rule-making process let me give you my email address so you can
send me those ideas because we definitely have been working and had
hoped before this meeting, well before this meeting, to get that
information to you so you could take a look at where we\'re leaning,
where we\'re looking, where we\'re needing some guidance.

So, we\'re in kind of one of those awkward situations of sort of kind of
knowing where we are going to be seeking comments, but, because we have
not got that entirely clear due to the Federal Administrative Procedures
Act, the legal gymnastics with that, you can offer some suggestions,
but, I cannot talk about where we are. But, I\'m anxious for your ideas,
you know.

But, we do want your help in taking a look at the big picture here.
We\'ve got, for example, looking over some of the notes here, we\'ve got
how our regulatory planners were regulating transgenic animals at the
50,000 foot level, how they might be apportioned, how you might see them
apportioned to various federal agencies, how some transgenic animals
are, you know, if they\'re not intended for food or feed use and where
those authorities might lie because, again, you know, the partnership
and the collaboration and the collaboration and cooperation between us
and you got particularly FDA as well as, you know, the administrative
working group, you know, we need some thoughts and inputs on that.

I know several of you work quite closely, you know, probably more so day
in and day out with FDA than with USDA given either the products,
commodities that you work on or the particular areas of interest that
your group or industry is particularly focused on because of their
jurisdiction.

APHIS, as I mentioned, is actively considering this proposed rulemaking
to explore these possible, you know, regulatory pathways and they\'re
under an expanded animal regulatory authority. Like a lot of things with
biotechnology, you know, we have discussed before and I know you have
discussed pretty constantly, there are a broad range of authorities out
there, none of which were really specifically designed to handle, you
know, biotechnology, but, a more like, you know, the Noxious Weed Act.
Pretty certain that my granddad was writing letters on that when he was
half my age way back when. Transgenic animals and biotechnology was not
necessarily something that most farmers were thinking about back in the
20\'s and 30\'s.

We need to better understand what the farm level implications are of
having transgenic livestock animals for non-food use; what the
implications would be for us, us being USDA. How do we regulate folks
like Adrian? How do the states regulate it? He\'s got that smile on his
face like he\'s not quite sure how this is going to work either.

So, with that, I appreciate the fact that, you know, I appreciate you
and Abby felt too that we make sure we had a good balance and range of
speakers today. I know we\'ve got a packed up tight agenda and, you
know, given the fact that we\'re all here to cooperate I can talk, you
know, till you all just get up and decide you need another bathroom
break, but, I think I\'ll shut up and let you guys ask me some
questions.

You\'re always the first one to get your card up. DR. MELLON: I\'m just
delighted.

MR. MOORE: How are you doing?

DR. MELLON: I\'m just fine. But, I am kind of taking off of your
comments about acceptance or general acceptance to this part of the
problem that you\'re referencing.

MR. MOORE: Part of the challenge.

DR. MELLON: The challenge, sorry. Part of the challenge and as well as
the regulatory mess which really is also a very big challenge. But, with
those things in mind I would just like to relate my experience. About a
month ago going to Dubuque to attend a conference that is an organized
animal biotechnology and sitting down with one of the representatives of
BIO who was very nice, you know, kind of assured me that I would really
be impressed by the strength of the system that was being put together
by the government to deal with the \-- with animal biotechnology.

And I, of course, kind of said, what are we, onplants. If you\'re really
doing wide ranging thinking on these issues and they are complex I would
really \-- I mean, maybe I\'m wrong. Maybe you have reached out beyond
BIO to talk with other folks about these issues, but, I think, you know,
at these early stages it would be very appropriate to offer some
opportunity to people with a broad range of interest in the issues and I
would encourage if it\'s still possible to do that.

MR. MOORE: Absolutely. In fact, I mean, the idea behind is, it\'s part
of, again, limited on what I can refer to or say about what the scope
there is, but, reaching out to everybody is part of the process. I can
\--

DR. MELLON: But, you\'ve already reached out to BIO. I mean, she\'s
already got a real good idea of what you\'re talking about and, you
know, she\'s assuring me that once I find out, I too will be impressed.

MR. MOORE: The folks who reached out, I\'m not sure who\'s reached out
to BIO but they haven\'t reached out to me yet.

DR. MELLON: Maybe we\'re getting it in a different way. I\'m not really
\--

MR. MOORE: I can tell you this from experience in previous lives that on
any given day if everyone in this room told me they had something at the
Department that told them something that I was not yet aware of I would
not be a bit surprised because I used to do that myself. I\'ve still got
a box, I\'m not going to say where it is, that, you know, is full of
those, you know, memos that Dan Glickman was going to review or that Ed
Madigan was going to review that Ed, you know, decided they didn\'t
like, they, you know, tore them up an shredded them, but, somehow copies
of things get out.

We have folks that have reached out. I have heard, you know, for
example, every week my goal with Jeremy, Rebecca, Secretary Knight, and
Secretary Terpstra, and a couple of others sit down and kind of update
me on what\'s going on on biotech and it runs the full gambit. I get
updates as to what you\'re thinking about and what Chris is thinking
about, what Carol, what Nancy as well as what \-- you know \-- the whole
nine yards because folks are reaching in and talking to us.

So, be assured that we will reach out and get your opinions. And
Michael\'s taking notes to make several things sure we do that.

DR. LAYTON: Carol.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Good morning, Dale.

MR. MOORE: Good morning.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Two quick things. One, the agencies do from time to
time say that they are beginning the process of consideration of a major
new area and hold a series of hearings before there\'s an ANPR. But,
even though the ANPR is devised to give the public an advance isn\'t it
past what the agency\'s thinking is and so that has been formalized to
some extent so what Mardi\'s saying is it would be nice on something
this major if you just opened the doors and hold some public hearings
before the agency takes a position.

The second one is that we keep running into the problem and I know that
the science and technology office at the White House has been working on
it for four or five years now about how to apportion the regulatory
activities and that goes on and that the correct laws be written
anticipating the existence of the technology and there is a way to enact
that. You ask Congress to write a new law. The current law is not the
Ten Commandments. It can be amended and it\'s been submitted this is an
ideal time to look at it because you wouldn\'t have spent four or five
years of real smart people trying to figure out how to do this if it
were easy to do it under the existing law.

So, what\'s the new law?

MR. MOORE: Yes, ma\'am.

DR. LAYTON: Nancy.

MS. BRYSON: Hi, Dale, how are you?

MR. MOORE: I\'m doing well.

MS. BRYSON: Can you give us any sense on timing?

MR. MOORE: You\'re going to hate this, but, soon.

MS. BRYSON: A Christmas present?

MR. MOORE: Well, being politically correct maybe a holiday present, but,
I don\'t know how soon and given a couple of the comments I think till
we once make sure that we\'ve got Secretary Keenum who has got this
little Farm Bill thing going on the Hill, got a few FDA issues that
Secretary\'s supervisor\'s got us focused on as well, and then we have
next week, I can\'t keep track of the weeks here, but, at some point, a
week or two down the road, there\'s a big chunk of the administration
that\'s going to be over at JCBT in China. I\'d tell you what JCBT
stands for, but, I can\'t keep it straight. It\'s one of those
international things and they don\'t let me have a passport.

So, the bottom line is that there \-- the desire is, as folks have said,
we need to get, you know, some input on this area. We would like to get
it out PDQ and Carol\'s point is taken. It\'s still pretty much an issue
of getting our square peg to line up enough with the other square peg so
it goes through the round hole of the regulatory process including the
inter-agency part of this process. I don\'t know how long that may take.

As you may recall from the previous life that sometimes it\'s a more
interesting series of chutes and ladders than just getting it through
the departmental part. But, soon. Sooner than later. Yes, sir?

MR. BAZER: I participated in a couple, a few activities. One is here and
we also had a National Academy, they had a process they went through
with a far range of people. I called it an outreach, trying to get views
from a broad group of people to understand how they felt about cloning
and transgenics and those kind of things. So, the question is how much
is that going to weigh into what the charge is going to be eventually
with this committee?

MR. MOORE: Well, that\'s a really good question because, you know,
that\'s when the animal science side of me kind of bubbles up, there\'s,
you know, technically there\'s a difference between cloning and
transgenic animals and I know you all know that. Perceptively, you know,
they\'re sometimes hard to \-- even for most folks who are constantly
working in this area, you know, they kind of morph the two together.

The President\'s position on cloning is, you know, pretty clear and FDA
has been working on, you know, any kind of risk assessment, an overview
on a number of things on cloning for some time and it is a challenge to
get that, you know, to the finish line. I think part of what figures
into it as well and, again, you know, we talked about the acceptance.
You know, the consumer acceptance of the end products from, you know,
the food commodity, there is, particularly in the livestock sector, you
know, I recall this with StarLink, with some of these others when, you
know, the initial reaction was, well, it\'s approved for feed use, not
food use, you know, and at a certain time, you know, the solution is
well, what about my needs, meaning, well, the cows, the pigs, the
chickens, and whatever else gobble up all the StarLink and then we\'ll
have a problem because it isn't approved for food. Well, then, you know,
consumers raise the question, well, okay, if it\'s not approved for food
use they know it\'s in the animal that\'s becoming food, you know, you
get kind of jumbled up in that particular category and then, you know,
folks keep trying to bring the variations on, you know, Dolly the sheep
and all the variations of what happened to the cloned animal when they
get to the end of their useful life, if they\'re milk producers or
layers or whatever they happen to be, what happens to the F1, the F2
generation of those and how do you view those.

Is a transgenic F1 different than a cloned F1 offspring? You know, where
do they fit into that scene? That\'s not an answer. That\'s sort of
laying out, you know, the problem, the challenges, the issues of how we
deal with it because there are those that if folks, you know, in the
grocery stores aren\'t going to accept the product you\'ve got folks in
the livestock sector, you\'ve got folks in the grain sector, you\'ve got
issues with the rice folks. We don\'t want our marketplace, you know,
leaned up because this is not being accepted.

So you get back to this issue that the technical side of all of this but
not always does there seem to be as much focus or as much attention or
as much time and energy spent on making certain that as technology is
moving forward look at this great new thing we can do with, you know,
livestock, with crops so that, you know, the public side of the equation
is probably going to think that\'s cool, you know, when\'s it going to
get approved as opposed to, you know, passing laws or regulations or
whatever to say, you know, that can\'t go into the grocery store.

The cloned versus transgenic question too I think it becomes once you
get past the initial parts of that, you know, separating is, you know,
what are you trans-geneticizing for. In that particular incident, and I
think I mentioned this to a group and I know some of you were on the
panel then on the advisory group then that the farmer out in Illinois,
when we were going through the StarLink equation, at some town was a
strong supporter of BIO, but he said, you know, he told the
bio-industry, he said, I need something besides "I\'m a greedy bastard"
as a good excuse for why I\'m using bio crop. You know, what am I \--
you know, am I using less chemical that\'s good for the environment, am
I producing a commodity, in this case, corn, that\'s got more protein,
got more starch for ethanol production, got less phosphorus, you know,
all those different kinds of things, he said, I honest don\'t know. What
I know is, you know, it saves me money.

And that is a hard sell sometimes to folks, you know, outside of a
particular area, you know, kind of working on this continuum a bit so
that we\'re paying as much attention to how folks view what is going on
because I think in some ways that helps us anticipate where we need to
make sure we\'re not tripping ourselves up.

How\'s that for a good political non-answer sort of.

MR. BAZER: Well, yeah, but, what I understand what is being called a
transgenic. And it is reported we take a position on cloned animals for
pharmaceuticals, industrial as opposed to not and the transgenic,
what\'s the process we\'re looking at. I\'m saying that there are
already recommendations out there from different committees at USDA who
support it to look at this issue and what forms sort of the framework
for what you\'re going to charge us with.

MR. MOORE: I would have to say yes, but, I\'m still waiting to see what
that final charge looks like. So, I can\'t particularly say that exactly
and, you know, on top of everything else once I get a chance to look at
it then I have to run it by the Secretary to make sure what he\'s got to
say.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. We have three cards up and I want to respect your
schedule so three more questions.

MR. MOORE: I\'ll give to give shorter answers is what you\'re saying.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: Randy, Alison, and then Leon.

MR. GIROUX: Thanks for driving up this morning and I appreciate your
comments you made about agriculture biotechnology. I look at the way
that U.S. Government has approached crop biotechnology over the last
decade the Government\'s very much focused on safety, assuring foods
meet an environmental safety of the products, and then things like
consumer choice up to the markets to figure out.

I\'m listening to your comments and it seems to me your comments seem to
be on consumer preferences, on what consumers want, on what should be
brought to market, and am I hearing you incorrectly that the Government
will maybe look at \--

MR. MOORE: Yes, you are, yes, you are. I\'m speaking more ecumenically.
We, the Government, need to do whatever we do, you know, to tighten up
the regulatory process of self-assuring public safety, you know,
environmental safety, all those kinds of things. It is not Government\'s
place nor would it be philosophically certainly the President\'s
philosophy that the Government should get into the marketplace to
determine consumer preference.

For those of you that are on the consumer side of the equation, that\'s
your job. You know it\'s got to be truthful, it\'s got to be accurate,
it\'s got to be all those things. A good friend who worked on the Hill,
she was at an EPA pesticide division and I asked her one time, I said,
you know, if the law says that you have to regulate, you know, based on,
you know, the safety part but also on the efficacy. I never hear you
talk about efficacy. And she smiled and she said, Dale, that\'s simple.
She said, the farmers are in the room. We happened to be in a meeting.
She pointed out the farmers in the room will determine the efficacy.

If it works, they\'ll buy it. If it doesn\'t, they won\'t. She said, I
don\'t have to regulate efficacy. I got to make sure it\'s safe. That\'s
the priority. And that\'s what I\'m trying to get at here. We can
regulate. We can make this stuff safe. But, collectively, we\'re not
going out and working on those issues of acceptance of consumer
preference, of, you know, however we want to characterize it, you know.
We\'re spending a hell of a lot of time and a hell of a lot of resources
on the regulatory side to have something, like what you\'re talking
about, something goes on the shelf and nobody\'s ready to \-- I
shouldn\'t say nobody \-- very few people are ready to accept it in the
marketplace and so we\'ve solved the problem. We\'ve come up with an
answer to a problem that we\'ll never quite get to because the marketing
side of the equation doesn\'t do that.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I\'d like to follow up on something you said and not
put you on the spot, but, you said the President\'s view on cloning is
very clear. I just wondered what that is. I\'m from the West Coast and
perhaps we\'re not quite so in touch with what that might be.

The other question \--

MR. MOORE: By and large he\'s agin it, particularly on the human side.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I assume we\'re talking about animal cloning in the
U.S.

MR. MOORE: Pardon me?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I assume that the agricultural \-- in other words,
you\'re talking about animal cloning for agriculture.

MR. MOORE: Well, I\'m trying to draw the distinction between there\'s a
transgenic animal and there are cloned animals and the one thing I can
say to you is that whenever I have brought up issues of cloning, and
we\'ve tried to move things forward in terms of, you know, just issues
the answers are pretty clear as to where the Administration falls on
cloning, not opposed to cloning, but, there are some pretty \-- you know
\-- like I mentioned human cloning. I don\'t want to complicate the
issue. If you\'re for animal cloning why aren\'t you for human cloning.
So, I always try to gauge that if you will, the cloning issue, and focus
on the transgenic and as awkward as that may be regulating the two is a
different part of the process, the different processes we\'ve got to go
through and not just us, FDA as well.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: But, is that Advance Notice that you\'re talking
about, is that USDA-specific or is there kind of a general concept for
everybody?

MR. MOORE: USDA-specific. We\'re practical. If we wanted it to cover
everybody we\'d get it cleared about 2010.

DR. LAYTON: And then Leon.

MR. CORZINE: Good to see you.

MR. MOORE: Good to see you.

MR. CORZINE: Well, for the record, I\'m not the Illinois guy who was
just here. He was before me. He was my neighbor. In what I see in
insecticide, one of the issues we really have to help with this is in
the trade area and where products flow into markets around the world.
And I seem to be frustrated by the lack of harmonization and
synchronization, whatever you want to call it, with our trade partners
around the world and what USDA can do to help to through the Foreign Ag
Service, whatever, with that I don\'t know, but, I pose that as a bit of
a question and can we do more there if we\'re working through some of
the trade agreements?

MR. MOORE: Yes. And it is fascinating to me too is that some of these
products that we\'ve had issues with, this is more on the grain side,
but, with Europe, for example, Japan, you know, Japan, we have issues
with beef, that pop up and we agree on things like corn and soybeans, if
you like, it sound sort of counter-intuitive, that, you know, logic can
be a challenging thing at times to international trade relations.

What we\'re seeing is that where, particularly companies, and we\'ve got
a role in helping facilitate some of that, making sure the right
processes, agreements, protocols, etc. are in place that, you know, go
out and get that approval, you know, in a foreign country, you know,
feed and food use just like go through the process here and if and when
it pops up, you know, having the protocols in place or the sampling
protocols or whatever, things seem to work, you know, fairly smoothly,
you know, and not because there aren\'t problems, but, because when
there are problems, you know, a few phone calls to a couple of people
and everything kind of gets sorted out and you kind of get on down the
road.

Where, you know, where flare-ups occur, and I have to experience it once
in a while, but, you know, when some of the issues popped up, you can\'t
use the rice, but, when those issues popped up APHIS, others were
explaining here\'s what Europe is doing and my question back is, you
know, the propellers kind of get to spinning because everybody\'s, you
know, being included in the hammer by half a chance, just for the sport
of it, but, my question became, well, okay, if the situation were
reversed what would we be doing and this guy just paused, and, well,
we\'d be doing what Europe\'s doing.

It\'s not approved here. We\'ve got a zero tolerance or we\'ve got, you
know, it\'s exceeding whatever tolerance we have, Europe would be doing
the same thing. So then, you know, from my standpoint, not bio, but, as
an example here, you know, this was something that Secretary Veneman
started, Secretary Johanns, Secretary Conner continues to work on, okay,
how do we set the example if the situation were reversed and this is how
we would be reacting to a treaty with another country and what do we
need to do internally to get our collective stuff together so that when
we say, you know, you need to be doing it this way they go, okay, so how
are you doing it. Exactly the same way.

That\'s, you know, a little bit way up here right now, but, that\'s the
goal that we need to be pushing for. In the Farm Bill proposal, I\'ll
keep this short, but, I saw an opening here. In the Administration\'s
Farm Bill proposals not specifically bio, but, for fruits and
vegetables, you know, for a lot of the sort of small market or small
commodity products kind of line these issues where other countries are
using, you know, technical, bio-sanitary barriers to keep products out
past the acronym we\'ve assigned to it, but to provide, you know,
technical assistance and resources to help pull the science together to
make the case and it\'s kind of over a broad range of products.

It\'s one of the things we proposed. It\'s one of the things that we
funded with mandatory money to have their kind of across the board, you
know, not for bio all the way to organic because, you know, we felt
strongly that in some countries, believe it or not, we\'ve got countries
that won\'t accept our organic products for reasons that, you know, make
my hair hurt, but, mostly because I don\'t understand. That\'s you
saying what you want to say. I\'ll explain it to you like I always do,
but, it won\'t make sense and then I\'ll be more irritated because I do
understand why it doesn\'t make sense. So, in those kind of situations
we would like to have a bit of a war chest if you will and a technical
resource for, you know, folks around the table to utilize. I\'m having a
hard time getting into Japan or Philippines or wherever and I need some
help in getting this risk assessment done or, you know, in some cases
explaining I\'ve done this risk assessment, how do I translate it, you
know, those types of things.

So, the answer lies in the Farm Bill, the Administration\'s proposal.

DR. LAYTON: And the message is support the Administration.

MR. MOORE: Support the Administration\'s Farm Bill and we\'ll do that.

DR. LAYTON: Thank you.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. DYKES: They\'re not improving in Europe so things are put in a more
formal planning so don\'t hold out hope that you\'re going to be
included in that.

MR. MOORE: Okay. I\'ve been working on issues \-- actually paying
attention to Europe. I\'m mostly focused on pick-ups and rodeos but when
I got into doing this and grew up in Pat Roberts\' office, you know,
there\'s a lot of things about Europe that I don\'t say now because they
give me more trouble, but, the fact is I never hold my breath when it
comes to Europe.

I\'m more surprised when they put something nice. But, again, that\'s
why I don\'t get out of the office much and I don\'t wear a tie.

DR. LAYTON: Well, we certainly appreciate your being here with us today.
So, it\'s been a very big pleasure and I really, really appreciate this
amount of time from your schedule. I know that you have a very busy
schedule and we really appreciate you and Jeremy being with us today.

(Discussion off the record)

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken)

DR. LAYTON: I am turning the meeting over to Michael for his comments as
we get started. Thank you, Michael.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. Now the committee is scheduled to begin what
should be your final discussion in plenary on the AC21 paper on
coexistence. This is a topic on which much work has been done by this
committee, both specifically in this project and to a lesser extent in
any discussions in previous papers that you\'ve prepared.

You have before you two versions and maybe more of the coexistence
paper. One, a compilation of comments and the other a document that
tries to go a step or two further. For the benefits of new members and
the public, let me just describe how to interpret the various notations
in terms of brackets and such in the documents.

The text can contain two forms of input from committee members, the ones
that have \-- that are compiled: comments and edits. Comments are
generally off to the side, though sometimes they\'re so long and so
numerous that MS Word continues them onto continuation pages at the end
of the document. Specific proposed changes are represented by square
brackets in the text.

These are the rules for interpreting bracketed text. First, alternative
texts are represented with consecutive pieces of text, each within its
own set of square brackets. If there are consecutive alternatives, the
first one will always be the initial version and subsequent ones, the
suggested replacement. Alternative text are attributed to members with
their initials.

If there\'s only a single piece of square bracketed text it is a
proposed addition to the text and it is attributed. Proposed deletions
are also attributed with the word delete or deletions following. It was
sometimes necessary to do a fair amount of nesting of brackets,
embedding some proposed smaller changes within larger blocks of text.
I\'m hopeful that in the document, at least almost always clear what is
suggested in each case and I hope that I haven\'t put any extra brackets
or brackets in the wrong place.

Finally, in the document that attempts to bridge some of the gaps there
are some that are listed that are highlighted in yellow for more
discussion regarding inclusion into the text.

How did we get to the documents that are before you? As was indicated at
the last plenary, because the committee had made rather more headway on
the first portion of the paper, that is, on the Introduction, Overview,
and Factors Enabling Coexistence sections rather than on the Potential
Factors Inhibiting Coexistence, I and the facilitators considered how
best to move forward on that section and we decided to convene a small
balanced work group open to all interested AC21 members to discuss how
to move forward. That meeting was held on September 17th and a summary
of those discussions has been provided to you.

As a result of that discussion, I and our facilitators prepared a new
draft, which was in two pieces, attempting to build off of both the
outcomes from the August plenary and the suggestions of the work group.
The document was sent out for comment to work group members to see if we
had captured their thoughts and then to the full committee on October
5th for comment.

Based on comments received, yet another draft was prepared and sent out
for comments on November 9th attempting to incorporate comments and
bridge some of the gaps. The two documents you have in front of you are
the so-called compilation document which is more or less, but, not
exactly a compilation of compilations from the last several rounds which
also contain some of the less controversial changes and a final document
that attempts to go from there and offer some potential language to
bridge some of the differences.

As has often been the case during this committee\'s work the documents
the AC21 develops are a bit accordion-like in that they change in size
and I guess in tone as well as time goes along, but, most often they
tend to decrease in size as they move towards finalization. In this
case, as the draft has progressed and as members have reflected on the
discussions and the presentations they\'ve heard the document has become
more focused.

Long explanations about the current state of affairs and separate
discussions about issues relating to the actual existence of particular
market sectors as opposed to the coexistence between market sectors have
been abbreviated or removed or folded into other explanations contained
within the text. As a result, really everyone on this committee can
probably find something in what was omitted or condensed that they would
prefer to be expanded or singled out for additional emphasis.

In particular, I think that some committee members who are less
confident about the continued ability of U.S. agriculture to meet
coexistence goals might prefer some expansion in some areas while those
more confident in how coexistence is realized and fostered would like to
see more contraction or deletions in the text. I would say though that
there have been useful concessions made by different parties to achieve
the current relatively concise discussions of issues that USDA should
consider regarding coexistence.

I think there is general agreement on this committee that for the most
part farmers are currently able to provide for their customers and U.S.
consumers, and U.S. agriculture continues to enjoy substantial success
in each of the three production systems on your discussion. With USDA\'s
continued support for all three and attention to the identified factors
currently inhibiting coexistence we can anticipate that coexistence will
continue.

All members should reflect on the fact that these are very hopeful and
very significant conclusions. It\'s also clear from the committee\'s
discussion that there\'s not absolute unison about how easy it is at
present for various producers or players in the food chain to achieve
this, how fairly they\'re distributed, and how easy it may be in the
face of future development. Working through the discussions on these
points, including the sometimes diverse points of view or different
points of view of different stakeholders and presenting these in the
paper is of great value to USDA.

USDA has been made keenly aware of the strong opinion held by different
stakeholders that have been attached to coexistence. This awareness is
what led the Secretary to see to this committee receiving this charge in
the first place. As we have found in the course of these deliberations
there\'s a great deal of gray area surrounding coexistence comprised of
some issues that some stakeholders view as linked to coexistence while
others do not as well as some issues that once talked through have been
more clearly and articulately linked to coexistence or eliminated as
factors entirely.

This draft paper helps narrow and more clearly define the gray area and
consequently will provide various impacts to USDA. It seems to me,
therefore, that the crux of the work today will be how to recognize in
this report that some concern, whether concern for the present, actual
problems in meeting customer specifications relating to GE content for
whatever reason, or, discomfort over what the future will hold for
non-GE or organic markets or for farmers who produce for these markets,
how those concerns get acknowledged in the final draft and making some
final decisions about conflicts that are determined not to be factors
affecting coexistence among conventional, GE, and organic agricultural
production.

Now, noting that some concerns exist on the part of some sectors or some
consumers is not the same as saying that coexistence has failed. No one,
I think, having heard the presentations that were given and listening to
the discussion, would hold that statement as true. But, from my vantage
point of watching the progression of the discussion I think it needs to
be pointed out now that we are not likely to reach consensus if the
report attempts to suggest that there are no tensions as U.S.
agriculture moves forward.

Reaching the balance point will, in my judgment, require that some of
that tension be acknowledged by all where there\'s unlikely to be
consensus. And I think that not reaching consensus or producing a
report, a minority report, would undermine the work and the credibility
of this committee\'s efforts as a whole. I do believe that this
consensus can be achieved today, though a little wordsmithing, as we
have needed before, may remain after this meeting.

A consensus document is one that you can live with in its entirety, not
that you love everything that\'s in it. It will never be the document
you yourself would have written. I know that some have expressed concern
that the current draft does not specifically identify those specific
issues USDA needs to consider. While I feel that having that kind of
specificity might, in fact, provide some additional value to USDA, it
may not be reasonable to hope to achieve it in the limited time
remaining.

Let me repeat. We wish to complete our plenary work on this topic today.
I believe that the precedent of continued success will be very important
as we move into our next charged topic. I am very optimistic that
everyone is entering this discussion with ears attuned to what others
are saying that they need and with the spirit of compromise and
cooperation to move us forward.

As I indicated last time, I won\'t ask the newest AC21 members, those
here for just a second meeting today, to join in consensus on the
coexistence paper when we get to that wrap-up point. And with that, I\'d
like to turn it over to our facilitators and get our discussion going.

MS. DILLEY: We have about two hours between now and lunch and as I step
back and look at this document as to where I think you need the most
time dedicated based on the comments we\'ve received there are a couple
of areas. One is the overview portion of the introduction is really
going through some of the language in there and making sure that we do
capture the balance that Michael is talking about and then the factors
inhibiting coexistence.

You have \-- as you see in the document that has 11/25/07 there are
bullets. Six of the 15 bullets are highlighted in yellow and we\'ve had
an ongoing, running conversation about whether those need to be deleted
or not and there\'s various reasons. Either some people think they\'re
not really relevant to coexistence; some people were unclear about what
the points were that were trying to be point for a variety of \--
disagree or whatever. So, what we did, instead of making a judgment call
on the reason we just highlighted those and wanted to get to those and
make the decisions.

Hopefully, some of those will be fairly straightforward. Others may be a
little bit more complicated and we need to work through them and spend a
little bit more time. Then there\'s a section after the bullets that is
a combination of things. We reserved this last for a technology \-- we
had a discussion, I think it was last meeting about technology. Nick and
Guy worked on the language around that and then we had some other pieces
based on comments. It\'s become kind of a cluster of issues in that text
and I, in looking back through that and editing some of the things
that\'s aggregated from where some points were being made.

So, that section, I\'m sure, will need your scrutiny and will need some
discussion around that. And then last \-- that\'s not to say there
aren\'t other sections that were initially challenged, if you will, on
conventional. We know that. Probably don\'t want to spend time talking
about definitions unless you have strong opinions on that, but, I\'m
sure there are other sections moving forward and including the last
section where we still have some thinking about do we want to go with
greater recommendation language or ideas or not and that\'s been an
ongoing discussion. We decide, no, we\'re not going to do that, but,
then we all get comments along those lines. So, we need to make a
definitive decision about that.

So, there are sections throughout the report that obviously need
attention. But, my sense is that the overview portion of the
introduction and the factors inhibiting coexistence are where we\'ll
spend the vast majority of our time to finally wrap up the document and
get it in shape to move towards finalization and submission to the
Secretary.

So, having said that, I would suggest that we use 11/25/07 document as
the working document only because I can read this better and you can
write your comments on it. If people have strong objection to that and
really want to use the 11/25 comment document, which is the one with all
the pink on the side, let\'s talk about that, but, otherwise, certainly
we\'re going to refer to this and in some cases you might want to revert
back to language in there and that\'s completely fine.

As far as just visually getting less confused if we could use this one I
would suggest we use that. Any objections to using the 11/25/07 clean
document for lack of other terms?

MS. BRYSON: With yellow?

MS. DILLEY: Yes, with the yellow. Okay. So we\'ll use that document. And
what I would suggest is that we just go in order and try and finish this
so we\'ll go through introduction and then hit the text about factors
enabling and then text inhibiting production. Nancy?

MS. BRYSON: I would suggest that we talk about the factors that inhibit
coexistence because we spent all day on the overview which I think from
our plenary last time was in really good shape. And where we seem to
have the most difficulty and I think the most time is in the factors
inhibiting coexistence and I think it\'s very helpful what you guys did
in terms of highlighting the bullets where there\'s disagreement and I
think if we could come to closure on that it\'s much easier than to go
back and do the refining on the overview.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Everybody comfortable with that? I see heads nodding.
Okay. We\'ll just turn to section three which starts in the middle of
page 4. And, Nancy, I think further, if I understand your suggestion, we
just go right to the bullets that are in yellow as our first cut.

MS. BRYSON: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: All right. Why don\'t we start with just the first four
bullets. We did not get as many comments on the first four bullets.
There were three and they turned into four, based on comments. We
started making multiple points in one bullet so we separated them out.
So people have comments on bullets 1, 2, 3, 4 then we\'ll start with
that. Greg.

MR. JAFFE: Yeah. I had a comment that I sent in and it\'s still the same
comment and that relates to bullet number 4 which, this whole section
starts with, "Although our examples of AP may be a challenge to
coexistence" and I don\'t believe bullet number 4 is AP.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What\'s bullet number 4?

MR. JAFFE: Procurement policies adopted by dominant market players can
create de facto purchasing standards for an entire industry and
potentially pre-empt farmers\' decisions about what to grow. You know,
we can agree or disagree as to whether or not that\'s a coexistence \--
a factor inhibiting coexistence. It\'s not at the top of my list but I
know it is on some people\'s and I\'m willing to keep it in this
document, but, I don\'t think it belongs under examples of AP and so it
should be moved somewhere else unless somebody can explain to me why it
is AP.

MS. DILLEY: Those four bullets are referring to AP and then we separate
out the other pieces and put them below. Nancy and then \-- oh, sorry,
Nancy and then Leon.

MS. BRYSON: I support Greg\'s suggestion that we move it to the next
section.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Leon.

MR. CORZINE: I would say as I look at that I think you could make a case
it belongs in AP because you used an example to say they used wheat
here, Greg, because of the AP issue the Roundup Ready® wheat was put on
the shelf because of decisions made of the changes, if you will. So,
again, I think that was the reason for that although that wasn\'t one on
the top of my list either, but, I can see where the AP issue that
there\'s no tolerance there in that marketplace decision. It does affect
coexistence or the ability of wheat farmers to use round up ready wheat.
Does that help?

MR. JAFFE: No because the whole point of this bullet is that players
like the wheat, and McDonald\'s stopped anybody from growing it. If
nobody\'s growing it I don\'t see a coexistence issue. It\'s an issue
maybe of \-- it\'s a coexistence issue because if we\'re saying that
everybody should have a right to grow what they want to grow and at some
point you don\'t have a right to grow that it\'s a coexistence issue,
but, it\'s not an AP issue because since nobody\'s growing it there\'s
not adventitious presence of it in some places and not other places.
It\'s not being grown.

One of the points of this bullet is the dominant players are preventing
people from growing BT potatoes or Roundup Ready® wheat, not that \--
it\'s not talking about them being grown and it\'s hurting some people
because of coexistence because of AP. So, I still don\'t see this as an
AP issue. I see it as a coexistence issue.

MS. DILLEY: Leon, I do not hear you disagree that it\'s only an AP
issue. There\'s some elements that play into this and I think Greg\'s
point is it\'s not \-- it doesn\'t fit in an AP only kind of section.
It\'s still an issue but if you move it down it makes more sense.

MR. CORZINE: It would be all right, but, I still could come back to it
isn\'t just AP, but, AP is part of that because the chances of AP,
because of AP, that\'s why it was thought it wasn\'t designated for a
specific market so that is an AP issue.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. And I don\'t think the bullets alone are necessarily
completely devoid of AP relevant pieces. It\'s just more that in terms
of talking specifically about AP the first three that seem to make sense
is defining that a little bit more clearly and moving that first bullet
down to the next section while it still has relevance or AP has
relevance for that point. It sits better in that section. Alison.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: This is on a different bullet if we\'re done with
bullet 4.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, we\'ll move that bullet down. A different bullet
within that first three?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Yes. Bullet 1, actually. When I read through that
there\'s a suggestion that GE presence, while not illegal *per se* nor
does it necessarily affect the certifier\'s designation, I don\'t \-- I
think those two are kind of suggestions there and I just wonder if we
can\'t remove that and say while this does not affect the certified
organic designation it may have an impact on consumers and leave the
rest of that sentence. Leave that in. Just take out it\'s not illegal
*per se* nor does it necessarily. It does not affect the organic
certification. We\'ve had that presentation given to us.

DR. MELLON: I think it\'s important to note that it does affect your
certification. You have a product, it doesn\'t necessarily mean \-- and
it\'s discovered to have levels of GE product in it, it doesn\'t
necessarily mean that you lose your certification. But, if it comes to
the notice of the certifier, the certifier will insist that you find a
way to get rid of it. And if you\'re not doing enough to make sure that
your levels are down you could lose your certification. So, it starts a
discussion with the certifier. It is not the case that an organic
producer can sell with, you know, levels of contamination and just never
have to worry about it. They do worry about it.

DR. LAYTON: Could you clarify what you \-- could you read the sentence
without the stuff you wanted, Alison? I think I didn\'t hear \-- I think
you were arguing the same question.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Actually, I think we were not.

DR. LAYTON: Okay, I\'m sorry.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: My understanding of the Organic Production Act is a
process, not a product based, and there is no definition for
adventitious presence of being in organic produce. So long as you\'ve
grown it within the standards and done everything you can to minimize
it, if you have AP that\'s not going to affect your organic standing and
so to say it doesn\'t necessarily affect the certified organic suggests
that it might and I don\'t know that that\'s true.

DR. MELLON: It might. I mean, it is a hint to your certifier that
you\'re not doing everything, that your process is not good enough to
have done everything you can do to keep those levels down. And it would
start a conversation. Very often, especially if the levels are very low
and you have done everything you can, it isn\'t going to lead to you
losing your certification, but, in any case, it isn\'t \-- I think that
it is correct to say that it doesn\'t necessarily mean that you\'ll lose
it.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I mean, I was going to have \-- this is not illegal
*per se* that that has to come out. And I don\'t know. My recollection
of the discussion and someone who knows the Organic Act better than me
can tell me whether or not trace levels of GE can cause you to lose your
organic certification.

DR. MELLON: Trace levels per se don\'t render it not organic, but, they
are a symbol, they are a signal to the certifier about the quality of
the process that\'s being employed.

MS. DILLEY: Guy, did you have a point?

DR. CARDINEAU: Well, could we change the wording to while AP discovery
does not necessarily affect the certified organic designation. Let\'s
take out the legal language. It\'s making it a bit extreme anyway.

DR. MELLON: Yeah, I agree with that.

DR. CARDINEAU: And maybe it satisfies Mardi\'s comment.

MS. DILLEY: So you just take out the clause that it\'s not \--

DR. CARDINEAU: So while AP discovery does not necessarily affect the
certified organic designation. Does that work for you, Alison?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: If that\'s true and I\'m not sure. I don\'t know
enough about it to know that\'s not \--

DR. MELLON: I mean, you cannot site your organic farm right next to
someone else\'s knowing that it\'s down wind of the farm and that it\'s
very likely to get \-- to be contaminated as a result of that siting.
You can\'t do that. You have to make some effort.

MS. DILLEY: Michael, you had a comment and then Carol.

DR. DYKES: Yeah. I don\'t think \-- I agree more with Alison. The
Organic Rule doesn\'t have any specifics about those aspects, I don\'t
think, Mardi. The marketplace may require some of those kinds of things
and who you sell it to. I don\'t think the Organic Rule does. As a
matter of fact, I think Bill Hawks in a letter was saying no one\'s ever
lost their organic certification because of biotech. So, I\'m more where
Alison is. Again, organic producers may have that kind of contractual
arrangement between their buyers and sellers but it does not pertain to
the organic rules.

You can have whatever biotech content \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So the question is \--

DR. DYKES: \-- or whatever it is and an effort to produce according to
the process and laid out in the NOP.

MS. DILLEY: So it\'s really specific to the certified organic
designation whether it has any impact or not. There\'s no requirement in
there. Therefore, it can\'t affect the official designation. Daryl and
then Leon.

MR. BUSS: I guess I would ask just a slightly different wording and that
be use that beginning, while AP discovery does not directly affect the
certified organic designation.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi, that works for you?

MR. CORZINE: I would just add that I think that\'s good because it goes
back to what Mardi said earlier and it\'s quite accurate, Mardi, what
happens out in the countryside where you are, north, south, east or west
of, for example, my organic neighbor and it really doesn\'t affect what
he does.

DR. MELLON: But, that\'s what I\'m saying. It\'s because you\'re doing
all those other things, but, if you were not taking those steps together
this certification is it.

MS. DILLEY: I think we\'ve got the language. I\'m just trying to make
sure while AP discovery does not directly affect the certified organic
designation it may have an impact on customer choices and contracts.
Good. Excellent. Okay. Anything else in those other four bullets? Greg,
did you have yours \--

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: \-- up for another bullet? Okay. Greg and then Leon.

MR. JAFFE: Just briefly and I know we\'re going to talk about
definitions later. I want to talk about the definition of
"conventional." I want to point out, here\'s one of the examples in this
first bullet where it says, "...while identity-preserved non-GE
conventional..." It defines conventional as identity-preserved non-GE.
That\'s repetitive. I don\'t think we should define it that way, but, if
we are going to define it that way then we should delete
identity-preserved non-GE, but, I\'m not in favor of combining it and
I\'m going to point out each time that our definition is contrary to
what we\'ve written in the text. This is one of those examples.

MS. DILLEY: And it may be, and we can come back to the definition.
Again, you\'re not alone and knowing that people had comments throughout
the document because there was some problem with the definition. We need
to fix that and we need to make sure we\'re consistent throughout the
document based on that definition what we\'re saying.

DR. LAYTON: So can we just highlight that one to note that we have to
tweak the definition statement.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And maybe to save time at this meeting we can have a
discussion about exactly how we define it. I think everyone is going to
the same place on what we mean in the document and come up with a way to
do that and make sure and go through a process to make sure that it\'s
consistent through the document and maybe we don\'t have to spend \-- we
can work with everyone on the committee. I think \--

MS. DILLEY: You don\'t want to point it out right now.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: We don\'t necessarily want to go through the discussion
right now. If we have time at the end that would be great.

MS. DILLEY: We can come back to it.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: But, I don\'t think \--

MS. DILLEY: But we need to be consistent throughout the document.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. The point is well taken.

MR. JAFFE: I do think it\'s more than just we need to be consistent
through the document. I do think that it \--

MS. DILLEY: It requires some discussion.

MR. JAFFE: \-- requires some discussion. I don\'t think we\'re all on
the same page of just how to word it.

MS. DILLEY: Let\'s talk about it when we go back to the intro if we
could.

DR. LAYTON: But for right now we can mark it and highlight it where it
occurs so we can come back and deal with the issues for the editor.

MS. DILLEY: Unless there was another point you wanted to make, Greg on
that one.

DR. LAYTON: Thank you, Greg.

MR. JAFFE: No.

MS. DILLEY: Leon and then Carol.

MR. CORZINE: I had a comment like Greg. Again, define what conventional
really is, is an issue. The last sentence on that first bullet, where it
goes down at the bottom, the impact on customer\'s choices and contracts
as well as choices for those consumers seeking GE-free, it seems
repetitive to me and I\'m okay with either one. But, do we need both
customer choices and the line as well as choices for those consumers
seeking GE-free products. Or can you just put it has impact on choices
for those consumers seeking GE-free products?

MS. DILLEY: First, I think we\'ve defined historically customers and
consumers slightly differently and, therefore, both are looking \-- that
people have wanted both in there because you have defined customers and
consumers differently, customers being commercial customers and
consumers being \-- so, I don\'t know if that was your particular point,
Leon, in terms of customers and consumers, but, that was, I know, the
logic in having that longer sentence to make sure that both were
included. Carol.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: On the third bullet, the second sentence seems
largely repetitive and I was wondering if we could just say exports of
an entire \-- second sentence \-- exports of an entire crop, GE,
organic, non-GE can replace it with.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Leave off the first clause.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yes. So, you can kill off the "For example in the
case of the GE product entering the market" because that really repeats.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: And then turn the last part of it around. You don\'t
have to turn it around. Just say, exports of an entire crop can be
placed at risk.

MS. DILLEY: Did people understand that and are comfortable with that?

DR. LAYTON: The exports of an entire crop.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Just exports. You don\'t need the \--

MS. DILLEY: Exports of an entire crop goes back in.

DR. LAYTON: Undo it. Just go the for example down to the \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: The rest of it, just get rid of it.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: The exports of an entire crop can be placed at risk.

MS. DILLEY: Exports of an entire crop goes back in. Daryl?

MR. BUSS: Well, only, I guess, this is the right placeholder given that
conversation it would be useful for us in this document to define how
we\'re using customer and consumer. I don\'t think that\'s included and
is obvious to the reader.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, and I think we did that in the previous documents so
we can go back and maybe look at that language.

DR. LAYTON: So putting that 5 on the first page probably.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. A good point. We know amongst ourselves, but, \--

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I think that\'s juxtaposition of customer and
consumer probably appears earlier in this document so \--

MS. DILLEY: It may.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: \-- it needs to go in.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. But, Daryl\'s point about we need to define those
terms. Okay. Anything else on the first three bullets? Leon?

MR. CORZINE: The second bullet, failure to adequately contain, it is an
issue, certainly a marketing issue in the U.S. as well as around the
world, but, does that make it a coexistence issue is the discussion I\'d
like to hear because what I have a little problem with, and actually in
the next one a little bit as well, is it\'s going to affect all three
areas that we\'re trying to address here so are we trying, in this
document, just to address coexistence among these three with production
of food products in the U.S. for consumers, is it really a coexistence
issue between. That\'s the question.

I mean, these are certainly issues and important ones. I\'m not sure
about coexistence part is my question.

MS. DILLEY: If you were to use portions of LL rice as an example and
that\'s come up quite a bit in the coexistence discussion, but, I \--
that\'s my perspective and other people may have something to say about
specifically that that\'s a coexistence issue. Guy, go ahead.

DR. CARDINEAU: Yeah, that\'s exactly what I was going to say. I think
when the LL rice issue hit the press that became a huge issue with
regard to rice use in general. And I think it does impact the market. I
think what we\'re saying is that materials that aren\'t supposed to be
released get into the general supply then you don\'t know where it is.
It doesn\'t matter what your product is, whether it\'s conventional,
genetically engineered and approved, or, organic, that the adventitious
presence of a non-approved release can screw things up big time.

That\'s what happened with StarLink too.

MR. CORZINE: Well, I agree with everything you said, Guy. But, it\'s an
issue for whatever commodity or product that that happens to. But, is it
a \-- and it doesn\'t matter. It will affect what we\'re calling
conventional, and it will affect what we\'re calling GE, it\'ll affect
what we\'re calling organic. So, as it affects all is it important to
this issue.

MS. DILLEY: Nancy?

MR. CORZINE: That\'s what I need help with.

MS. BRYSON: I think it is for that very reason because if these
situations aren\'t controlled the opportunity for coexistence is reduced
for the three different kinds of agriculture. But, I have a hard time
seeing how it\'s not a coexistence issue.

MS. DILLEY: Randy and then Russ.

MR. GIROUX: I guess my comment is this bullet is a direct outcome of the
development of GE crops so the ability in some cases of providers to
manage their technology and so it directly impacts conventional and
organic because there\'s zero tolerances, they\'re illegal, and,
therefore, if affects, so, if we didn\'t have the development of a
technology industry on making GE crops this bullet wouldn\'t exist. So,
clearly, that is different than and it affects the coexistence of
conventional and organic. In fact, it also affects crops themselves. I
mean, in my mind it doesn\'t mean it\'s any less of a coexistence issue
because the impact here is zero tolerance and an export market issue
which affects all of the U.S. agriculture. Just because it\'s impacted
their own industry doesn\'t make it a non-coexistence issue for those
other industries as well as the export industry.

DR. LAYTON: So you\'re okay with it?

MR. GIROUX: I think it needs to be there.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Russ and then Michael.

MR. KREMER: Yeah. I was confused too at first, Randy. I heard of that.
It\'s another example on the rice issue in Southeast Missouri. You know,
the release without a safety zone, you know, at least gives the hundred
suppliers who are going to refuse to buy the rice on account of things
that are definitely a coexistence issue. So I would agree with that
statement.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Michael.

DR. DYKES: I guess I\'m more where Leon is. I don\'t agree it\'s an
issue. With me, it\'s no different than aflatoxin form. It\'s something
that\'s not supposed to be there. I don\'t know that it goes to the
coexistence issue. It\'s clearly not supposed to be there. It clearly
disrupts the markets. It clearly causes all the talk about it. But, to
me, I don\'t see it as coexistence. I\'d say it might the other things
in agriculture that it\'s prohibited, it\'s not supposed to be there,
it\'s illegal to be there, it causes market disruptions, but, those
aren\'t coexistence issues.

MS. DILLEY: Greg and then Leon.

MR. JAFFE: Yeah, I disagree with that statement, but, I was going to say
that the title of this section is called potential factors inhibiting
coexistence and I think if we have to agree that all of us agree that
every single one of these we agree is a coexistence factor we\'re not
going to get through this today. That fourth one I mentioned before, I
don\'t really \-- it\'s not one of my high things. I\'m not sure I
really see this as coexistence, but, I know that Duane is very \-- I
support Duane, so I\'m fine with keeping it in.

I think we have to understand these are potential factors. We\'re not
saying all of these affect coexistence or will affect coexistence in the
future, but, they\'re things that some people think may affect
coexistence and otherwise I don\'t think we will get through all of this
today.

MS. DILLEY: Leon.

MR. CORZINE: I think Greg\'s right about that. I agree with all the
examples that were given, but, I still have a lot of questions about is
it coexistence, but, couldn\'t we put just to point that out to the
general person reading this or the Secretary to whom we\'re parting
this, that it says in commercial crop and we put in there can cause
minor disruption and erosion of confidence in all three agricultural
systems so that it\'s identified that it isn\'t going to just affect one
or the other, it is going to affect, and these examples affect all three
areas because I think a lot of people might even jump on it as being \--

MS. DILLEY: Does anybody have any argument or disagreement with that? In
all three production systems. Okay.

MR. CORZINE: Yeah, in all three areas of agricultural systems.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. CORZINE: Abby, another one under this area, the bullet we don\'t
have that we\'ve discussed a little bit but do we need \-- the question
is, do we need a bullet that addresses, since we are talking about AP,
the failure to develop approval systems and whether you want to use
modernized or whatever around the world or by our world trading partner.

MS. DILLEY: Does that affect the U.S., I guess?

MR. CORZINE: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. MELLON: Isn\'t that part of our traceability report?

MR. CORZINE: Well, that\'s the question. I didn\'t actually take time,
Margaret. Did we address that enough, and Margaret, you were going to
add, and, Carol, you did. Several of us did.

DR. MELLON: We spent a lot of time on approvals and the problems.

MS. DILLEY: Leon, I\'m not sure if that takes care of your comment, but,
the footnote 4 on the definition of coexistence we\'ve referenced that
report.

MR. JAFFE: We also say in there methodology to affect the product\'s
approval to say we\'re not going to re-discuss or repeat those
discussions.

MS. DILLEY: Does that satisfy because I think no one would disagree with
your comment and I think what we decided was we had spent a fair amount
of time talking about that previous report so we wanted to refer the
reader to previous reports. All right. So moving on to the bullets below
saying other factors identified is now going on the top of that page on
5, down to that section. So, why don\'t we just stay on that page and
start with those bullets.

Does anybody have any additional comments on the procurement policies
bullet that\'s now currently moved down here? Any additional comments on
that one?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: "Dominate" should be "dominant."

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Nancy.

MS. BRYSON: What about taking out the last line, the words "can become a
factor for non-GE changes to that industry" because it\'s repeating the
introductory sentence.

MS. DILLEY: End it at use?

MS. BRYSON: Put a period after export use.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay. Anything else on that bullet? Okay. Can you move
on to the next bullet, transgenic varieties currently. Comments on that
one? Carol?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I just \-- the exact words escape me, but, I\'d like
that one better if it were turned around and that sort of applies to
several of the complexity and cost of current management system may grow
as new transgenic crops are introduced and grown along side conventional
and organic.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So you\'re just flipping that sentence?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yeah. And dropping the phrase \-- I\'d drop the
sentence about transgenic varieties and limit it but just put the second
sentence.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And drop the first one?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I think you can drop the first one. I don\'t think
that it needs saying again, but, I\'m not \-- I was really just trying
to enhance the readability.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Anybody have a problem with dropping the first
sentence or do we just want to keep it or flip it? Guy?

DR. CARDINEAU: Well, I do because that\'s been a big issue. I mean, the
fact of the matter is there are only a very few transgenic crops. We go
back to this notion that organic is the failsafe for non-GE and the
reality of life is that there just aren\'t that many crops out there I
think it\'s important that people understand that.

MS. DILLEY: Keep that sentence and flip the second? Okay.

DR. CARDINEAU: Yes. I\'m perfectly fine with that.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: But, making the second sentence flip, now the first
sentence or not?

MS. DILLEY: Randy and then Alison?

MR. GIROUX: Just on this point it says, "while current management
systems." I\'m assuming that means management systems over the crops
that are becoming transgenic, all management systems, because I see that
has an effect on our management system for commodity crops.

MS. DILLEY: So we should use different terminology?

MR. GIROUX: Current management systems for those crops. If you switched
it around. I don\'t understand the switch.

MS. DILLEY: Does make sense? Okay.

MR. CARDINEAU: Why don\'t we take out current? Because you\'re talking
about future management systems.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Does that make sense?

DR. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. GIROUX: What kind of management systems are you talking about?

DR. LAYTON: Ag management?

MR. GIROUX: Is it agricultural, is it the farm\'s? I don\'t know what
management systems are modified.

MS. BRYSON: I always use that term. I thought it meant distribution.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Production too.

MS. DILLEY: Are we specifically saying production and distribution
systems as management systems?

DR. LAYTON: Are you okay with that?

MR. JAFFE: The whole point of this bullet is right now we only have
corn, canola, wheat. I mean, corn, canola, cotton and soybeans and we
now have tomatoes and sugar beets. I mean, if we now have tomatoes and
watermelons and all kinds of other things that\'s going to add costs and
complexities to now those systems that didn\'t have it before.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. LAYTON: Everybody comfortable?

DR. DYKES: I might take the production out of that and just cost and
distribution systems.

DR. LAYTON: And you don\'t think you can have broccoli and canola grown
side-by-side?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, it might not be for the GE varieties, but, the
point is that \--

DR. LAYTON: The organic.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: \-- it could possibly raise the cost \--

MS. DILLEY: Alison, do you have a comment on this point?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Yeah. I guess I\'d just \-- when you read the way the
actual sentence goes it says other factors that inhibit coexistence
include transgenic varieties are currently limited to a relatively few
number of crops and it kind of sounds like that\'s inhibiting
coexistence. I don\'t \-- I just think that needs to be changed so that
it\'s \-- we\'re talking about when it increases is when it\'s going to
be a problem. It\'s not that it\'s causing a problem at the moment, if
that makes sense.

DR. CARDINEAU: Suppose we made it "since transgenic..."

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: That\'s fine.

DR. CARDINEAU: Then you could put a comma after crops. Although
transgenic varieties currently are limited to really two kinds of crops,
comma, the complexity and cost of the production screening may grow.

MR. GIROUX: It sounds to me like you\'re tying that production and
distribution system to the transgenic and that\'s not accurate.

DR. MELLON: The introduction of new transgenic crops.

DR. LAYTON: I think the sentence, the other factors identified by the
committee that inhibits coexistence include, that introductory piece
needs to be changed, not the bullet because we\'ll redo all the bullets.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I don\'t think we\'re going to. I think it\'s just this
one.

DR. LAYTON: It\'s just this one, you think?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s just this one.

DR. DYKES: Other factors that are going to inhibit coexistence. I\'m not
saying \--

DR. MELLON: The fact that it has to be the increase in the number of and
kinds of transgenic crops.

DR. DYKES: I guess what I\'m trying to say on this is now transgenic
crops are few but as we \-- if there\'s an increase in transgenic
varieties then we\'re going to have \-- this is going to be a factor
that\'s going to inhibit coexistence.

MR. GIROUX: The point of the bullet is part of the last sentence. As
transgenic crops are introduced and grown along side conventional and
organic complexity and cost production of those production issues
business may grow \-- it\'s backwards. The point is at the end of the
sentence instead of the forward.

DR. DYKES: I think I agree with what Randy just said.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I would say that just because of the weird thing
here that Alison\'s raised and we agree it doesn\'t fit and Guy\'s \--
can we just set this one aside for a few minutes and we can get in a
group and sit down and work this out the next time we break, but, it\'s
not a substantive issue, it\'s an editorial one.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, unless Nancy has a brilliant suggestion in terms of
getting us moved on.

MS. BRYSON: I do, but, let\'s do it in a small group.

MS. DILLEY: I\'ll just set it aside then for the moment. I think we\'re
there. It\'s just the wordsmithing to get it finalized. New
technologies. Does anyone have a comment about that bullet?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: That\'s a brand new bullet.

DR. DYKES: What is that?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: That was a recommendation \-- well, that came in since
the last meeting as a suggestion from Sarah, which we\'ve gotten
comments on.

MS. DILLEY: But it wasn\'t a brand new bullet in this draft.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: It wasn\'t a brand new bullet in this draft. It was a
brand new bullet for the plenary session.

MS. DILLEY: So, Alison, do you have a comment on this one?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: No, not on this one.

MS. DILLEY: Michael?

DR. DYKES: This, to me, I don\'t know, this, to me, while I agree with
the statement, it will increase the cost and complexities, this to me
seems to me to be more getting into the paper we\'ve already written on,
whatever it was \--

MS. DILLEY: Traceability and labeling?

DR. DYKES: Yeah, traceability and whatever. I don\'t see this as
necessarily being \-- biotech \-- while I agree with it, I think it\'s a
true statement, I don\'t see it as being a coexistence issue.

DR. LAYTON: I think it is in the old paper.

DR. DYKES: The fact that it\'s in there, I think it\'s already been
covered and it\'s just a fact that becomes more and more of a
compromise. People get closer to this it gets more and more stacking and
traced to the marketplace, but, Randy, this is more your area than
anybody\'s.

MS. DILLEY: Randy.

MR. GIROUX: And, so, I agree with the bullet, but, I think the point of
the bullet is if new technologies are introduced into the marketplace
and as our last bullet indicated we don\'t have commercially relevant
test methods to segregate those things then that becomes a coexistence
issue. So, I may have worded that bullet differently, so, you know,
we\'ve indicated in our last report that APHIS has the test methods to
make sure that we can manage those products in the food and feed supply
chains than the coexistence issues because, as has already been
mentioned, how can we manage three different \-- how can the markets
coexist.

So, really, it\'s not the saturate so much. It\'s just an example.

MS. DILLEY: The ability to be able to segregate and having the
appropriate test methodology to be able to do that. Is that what you\'re
\-- it sounds like you\'re hinging it around the test methodology and
being able to segregate and know what you have and put it where you want
it.

MR. GIROUX: Yeah, and we don\'t have that and how do you coexist.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: You\'re saying if new product had the potential to \--
new product without matching methods that meet market demand.

DR. LAYTON: Well, I think test methods have to be developed and current
with new products \-- with new technology.

MR. GIROUX; Could be if we knew \-- why don\'t we reword that. I mean,
first part of the discussion we think is good. I think we don\'t want to
spent any time and effort on this. Let\'s see if we want to keep it.

DR. DYKES: I think we\'ve covered it, Randy. I think it\'s the whole
deal of stacking and testing and how you know one of the genes versus
all eight of the genes when you\'re stacking.

DR. LAYTON: There\'s that much in the old document on it. I remember
that part. It was a big paragraph.

DR. DYKES: To me it fits more in that category. But, I\'m not swayed to
it either way.

MS. DILLEY: Well, it seems like we \-- you know \--it almost is the
first sweep as an AP. Isn\'t that the plant area that has already been
covered and this needs to be your ability to be able to contain and put
it where you want it and rather than the AP \--

DR. DYKES: You know you got to.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m missing your point.

DR. DYKES: And knowing what it is.

MR. GIROUX: I mean, I don\'t necessarily want to raise this as an if you
didn\'t think it was a relevant issue for the whole industry, the food
industry.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s the difficulty I\'m having in here.

MR. GIROUX: But I think it\'s introduction of technologies that don\'t
have commercially relevant testing tools that allow us to manage those
traits in the marketplace.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: It would impact choices. Always give consumers choices if
you don\'t know what you got.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, I think we need to tighten up that language and we
need to go back there and fix it. That\'s the point you were making,
first of all, and then I think the question is why we think that\'s the
one in the document now.

MR. GIROUX: I\'ll agree to wordsmith that along with the group that does
the other one.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: Before dinner. Before lunch.

MS. DILLEY: All right.

DR. DYKES: I\'ll work on this.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, Michael, good. Our next one is one that was
highlighted and I think there are a lot of suggestions for alternative
language as well as lack of clarity around this, is this really a
coexistence issue and I think it would be the isolation, finding that to
isolate was the question whether this is a coexistence issue or not. So,
you highlighted it, added the alternative language that was suggested
and we obviously had some discussion about it. So, Steve.

MR. PUEPPKE: I wasn\'t part of the discussion the last time this was all
put together, but, I read it as assuming that organic and the other
production systems coexist when they\'re physically separated and that
they don\'t coexist when they\'re close together. But, I thought I heard
a lot of discussion that, including a lot of growers who were using
multiple production systems on single farms and it was working all
right. So, that\'s the first thing that struck me. It may be the
assumption that may not be right.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Greg.

MR. JAFFE: I mean, that\'s my thing also. I mean, you read it and it
makes it sound like isolation is part and parcel of organic and meeting
organic requirements and that\'s just not the case because farmers on
the same farm need it and don\'t need to be isolated. So, to me it\'s
the line after isolated is the phrase that I\'m troubled by, so, I
thought of some other language that would say potential difficulties in
producing organic products as the demand for them increases and it
becomes difficult for organic farmers to produce these crops, their
crops, and meet organic production requirements.

So, it\'s just talking about the fact that as the demand for organic
grows people have to \-- these farmers are going to have meet the
organic requirement to meet that demand. It\'s not linked to isolated
land. It may or may not be isolated land that does it, but, they have to
meet the organic requirements, whatever those are, and those are not
land isolations. They\'re a requirement of production methods and so
forth.

So, that\'s my proposed language to eliminate that phrase that I find.

MS. DILLEY: Could you state the language again or give it to Cindy?

MR. JAFFE: It\'s difficult for organic farmers to produce their crops
and meet organic production requirements and eliminate the remaining
part of the sentence.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Just organic or is it non-GE?

MR. JAFFE: We\'re talking about producing in the current market on an
organic farm.

DR. LAYTON: That\'s a requirement?

MR. JAFFE: Yes. The other sentence was just another alternative to the
first sentence although I can\'t really see what the difference is.

MS. DILLEY: Guy, Jerry, and then Leon.

DR. CARDINEAU: I agree. In fact, we skipped over the first section of
this under the fourth bullet in the overview says exactly this thing.
Conventional, GE, and organics all grown on the same farm, so, we\'d
sort of be contradicting ourselves if we don\'t change this. I\'m okay
with that, yes.

MS. DILLEY: Jerry.

MR. SLOCUM: If we make this change why don\'t we just take it out of the
document because there\'s no coexistence issue there. The coexistence
issue is the \-- there\'s some isolated issues. There\'s no coexistence
issue in that statement.

DR. MELLON: I think it is at least potentially a problem depending on
what crop production you have a coexistence problem. I agree that, you
know, there are lots of ways of meeting the standards and in some cases
isolation might not be necessary, but, it certainly is one of the
approaches that you would use and, you know, it\'s much easier to find
that \-- I mean, it just seems to me that it\'s a potential problem and
it is the coexistence problem.

MR. SLOCUM: What\'s the coexistence problem in that statement? That\'s
my question.

DR. MELLON: Well, if you take the land out I agree there really doesn\'t
appear to be any.

MS. DILLEY: So, if you take the land issue out then what issue are we
defining for coexistence? Is it difficulty in meeting organic standards
to be able to produce \--

DR. MELLON: I don\'t think that a \-- a sentence like that, I don\'t
think that\'s a coexistence issue. I would be in favor of putting \--
because you\'re only talking about potential difficulties I think it is
clear to say that, one, if you really increase the number of organic
products you have that it will become difficult for organic farmers to
find, you know, to sufficiently isolate their product and that may
become a coexistence issue.

MS. DILLEY: Leon and then Carol.

MR. CORZINE: Well, I think Carol and I both are in our comments should
be \-- and I don\'t where you\'re going with it, Carol, because it
really is a marketing issue. I mean, farmers around the country and the
world are shown that if the market demand is there they\'ll produce.
Now, is there a time when sometimes there\'s not, maybe, maybe not, but,
you can discuss that, you can bat that back and forth, but, you know, we
have not seen examples of farmers, if the market demand is there, I
mean, we had presenters that grow both. My organic neighbor grows \-- I
think if the market demand is there I would switch my system to organic
if the economics were there. So, I don\'t see why the land's at issue\--
should \-- to me, it\'s not an issue.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m trying \-- because it seems like we cut that and that
makes sense, remove the isolation of land, but, then there\'s
competition for land and I\'m not sure that\'s coexistence either.

MR. CORZINE: And there\'s going to be

competition \--

MS. DILLEY: By meeting production standards. I\'m just trying to
understand it, Mardi, in terms of what \--

DR. MELLON: It depends how you look at it, yeah, from the point of view
of someone who is an organic farmer who wants to produce his product and
can\'t because of the amount of land that that farm, you know,
encompasses and that dealing with land, and I\'m very \-- I agree with
the notion that somehow there are lots of way of dealing with these
things. You can buy your farmer\'s land, you can buy your neighbors\'
land, or something like that and can deal with \-- you can put pay your
neighbor to fallow land.

I mean, I don\'t know how you would do this, but, it seems to me that
that will be a point of contention. People will want to grow a product
that they won\'t be able to grow because they cannot get far enough away
from the genetically engineered crops, and, so somehow I don\'t think
ought to say it\'s insurmountable, but, I think it will be a point of
contention and that people will begin to develop solutions to it, you
know.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I don\'t have the wording for this one, but, it
seems to me that the real issue is that it will be more difficult to the
organic farmers to avoid \-- I know we don\'t want to use the word
contaminated \-- getting their crops contaminated with GE products. Is
that the issue, Mardi?

DR. MELLON: Right.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Can\'t we find a way then to take this away from the
isolation and just say it may be difficult \-- you know, I could work on
some language \-- for organic farmers to avoid this mixing with
genetically engineered products.

MS. DILLEY: Pat, you\'re waiting?

DR. LAYTON: Yes, I do want to jump in. Jerry may have some comment.

MS. DILLEY: We\'re all on different conversations so let\'s have that
and then Leon, then Stephanie.

DR. LAYTON: Depending on how we define conventional, which I think we
said was identity-preserved non-GE, then it is not an organic issue. So,
how you phrase it, I don\'t think you need to \-- you know \-- if this
is an issue it\'s not an organic issue and I don\'t want to put this
down as an organic issue so let me just go on the record of, if this is
an issue, it ain\'t just the organism that\'s for organic alone, so
whatever the solution is I think the solution needs to be bigger than
organic or I\'m not going to be comfortable with it because it\'s not
true.

So, I\'d like to offer that as to how we ever solve this problem and I
think part of the issue is, and I\'m just asking Michael, we are not
dealing with right now with alfalfa. I mean, we\'re all dealing with
wind-pollinated other than alfalfa and I don\'t know that we\'ve talked
about that in this issue and I think that\'s where the isolation may be
an issue versus non-isolation or whatever, but, there\'s some biology
issues here that are tangled into this that we\'re not saying correctly.

So, I don\'t know how to fix this, but, I know it\'s tangled up in that
and it\'s not just organic and I think it\'s better off if we detangle
this one out of organic versus non-organic.

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t have a disagreement with that. It seems like then
it starts getting into the topic in that section which is some organic
varieties.

DR. LAYTON: Absolutely. Absolutely. Okay.

DR. DYKES: Exactly. You\'ve got it essentially isolated out of this.
This bullet serves no purpose because what Carol spoke to is the first
bullet.

MS. DILLEY: The first bullet, yeah.

DR. DYKES: The first bullet.

MS. DILLEY: So maybe that\'s the one that will help address the
particular point, Mardi, but, that\'s the question for me that needs to
be in that group that comes up with that language because it seems like
in poking that out that it becomes that issue that\'s already
highlighted in that first bullet. Make sense?

DR. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we\'ll make sure that we\'ve got the brilliant
language that\'s coming that Nancy has a suggestion for at the break and
then I think we\'ve got it.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And you\'ll revise that brilliant language, Nancy, to
incorporate this bullet too, right?

MS. DILLEY: The first yellow bullet is not deleted and we think that
having talked through it that really the issue is that first bullet in
that section so be sure because we\'re going to come back and get
language for that bullet.

DR. LAYTON: All the yellow in that bullet.

MS. BRYSON: So we\'ll handle this topic in the transgenic variety.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: In bullet 1.

MS. DILLEY: In bullet 1.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: We\'re talking about the bullet that\'s already
written, right?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: So it\'s not \-- Nancy\'s bullet is number 4.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: No, no, no. No.

DR. LAYTON: She is flipping the sentence and rearranging transgenic
variety currently limited \-- that one was getting reorganized.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: But, that\'s not what we think.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, it is, because the way we parsed it out was really to
the extent of keeping systems \-- keeping them segregated. That\'s how
it evolved.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I\'d like to hear what Nancy\'s got because I think
that it works.

MS. BRYSON: All right. It would say, "The potential expansion of
transgenic varieties beyond the few currently in commerce may add
complexity and cost to our production end \-- I\'m not sure if we have
enough of that \-- distribution systems."

DR. MELLON: You would have to say of organic and and conventional and
whatever in food production. And then I think it\'s right and delete the
other one.

MS. DILLEY: Let\'s make sure we\'ve got the language up there and then I
think Greg has a comment on that one. Okay. Nancy?

MS. BRYSON: The potential expansion of transgenic variety beyond the few
currently in commerce may add complexity and cost to production and
distribution systems. And I wasn\'t sure whether based on your earlier
discussion repeating production in there or not. I knew we had dropped
management and then there\'s some additional language.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Well, if you make that current conventional and
organic production and distribution systems I think that covers the
point that we just \-- the bullet we just wanted.

MS. DILLEY: Greg, you have a comment on the language?

MR. JAFFE: Yes. As long as we\'re talking about this because I\'m the
lawyer in the group, but, I think the word is crops, not varieties. I
think varieties of corn you have BT variety of corn, a Roundup Ready®
variety of corn, so we\'re not talking about expansion of varieties.
We\'re talking about the expansion of transgenic in different crops so
watermelon and stuff like that.

DR. DYKES: Traits.

MR. JAFFE: It\'s not traits because if it was traits \-- it\'s new
crops. The whole point is wheat, rice, things like that that don\'t have
transgenic varieties now.

MS. DILLEY: Change it to transgenic crops then. Okay. Good. The lawyer
knows what we need to say so that\'s good. All right. All right.
Excellent.

DR. LAYTON: For right now we\'ll make sure Mardi\'s okay with that one
when she comes back in. I think it\'s traits into crops. I agree.

MR. JAFFE: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: I think Mardi was comfortable with it and when she comes
back we\'ll make sure when she gets back. All right. Can we move on to
the availability of the seed supply?

DR. DYKES: I think if we look at what\'s happened to transgenic crops
and the cost of presenting production today it\'s actually lowered the
cost of input from the potential production. Costs have come down. So, I
don\'t know that we\'re necessarily adding costs. It may change the
complexity of the costs. So I would change it to that.

MS. DILLEY: Daryl, did you have \--

MR. BUSS: I was going to say that the process of inserting trait would
change the sentence as long as we\'re aware of that because previously
you asked beyond the few currently in commerce referred to crops, now it
refers to traits. So, is that what we need?

DR. LAYTON: Beyond the few crops currently in commerce?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: You\'ve got those few and you\'ve got crops a second
time.

MR. JAFFE: I don\'t think we\'ll have any problems there.

DR. LAYTON: Better?

DR. DYKES: I would say you change cost production.

DR. LAYTON: Cost of production?

MS. DILLEY: Guy?

DR. CARDINEAU: I still think that Daryl\'s right. We\'re still modifying
traits. Suppose we put traits/crops to indicate that it could be traits
or crops or one or it\'s modifying both. That way we\'re adding new
traits or new crops or traits or new crops or whatever.

MR. JAFFE: But, the whole point of this bullet is it\'s relating to the
new crops that don\'t exist, that don\'t have transgenic varieties today
that will have transgenic traits in the future, not that we\'re going to
have the 17th variety of new trait in corn so it doesn\'t relate to just
doing traits. It\'s doing traits in crops that don\'t have traits now.
That\'s the parameters of this bullet.

MS. DILLEY: Daryl?

MR. BUSS: If you could it by saying the potential expansion of
transgenic traits into additional crops, comma, beyond those currently
in commerce.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Are we finished with this?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: The complexity to and change cost of.

MS. DILLEY: Complexity to and cost of. Okay. Complexity to and change
cost of conventional. Alison? Can we move on to the next bullet? Greg?

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Seed supply bullet.

MR. JAFFE: Yes. I have two comments on this.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: One was to change the words unintended materials to GE events
and then, two, to point out the conventional. It\'s problematic with the
definition that we currently have. But, the unintended materials, I
mean, it\'s not \-- we\'re really talking about GE, the unintended
adventitious presence of GE events here, not unintended material. We\'re
not talking about wheat seed or sand or other types of things, who
knows. We\'re really talking about GE events in seeds not because of GE
events. We should be specific.

MS. DILLEY: Where we got a little \-- well, where I got a little
confused on the point is that it expanded beyond GE materials and
organic or non-GE, IDP or whatever, but, it was if you have one organic
trait and one GE trait shows up in another GE trait so it started
expanding and then I don\'t know if we need to contract it to make it
more specific to GE and only unintended materials stopping into the
other two. That\'s where I get confused.

MR. JAFFE: That\'s the only one for coexistence. I mean, so I would
delete it. Just delete "and GE."

MS. DILLEY: So it now says "unintended materials," should be replaced
with "GE" \--

MR. JAFFE: Events whether in conventional, certified non-GE, or organic
seed. It\'s not whether it\'s in GE because GE obviously is GE seed. I
mean, unless you want to keep GE because it\'s one event in a different
light.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Leave it. Alison?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Is GE coming out though? Yes or no? I wonder is it GE
seed we\'re worried about? I\'m not sure what a GE event is. So, just GE
seed? Is it seed we\'re worried about? Just GE seed?

MS. DILLEY: I\'m a little bit lost here. So it\'s the availability of
the seed supply that meets diverse customer expectations may be limited
in the future because of the adventitious presence of GE traits, GE
seed?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I think it\'s the traits we\'re concerned about.

MS. DILLEY: GE traits and seed. Does that clarify? Whether in, and then
this is the big question. Do we have GE in there or is it out?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Stays in.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Whether in GE or \--

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Delete the word whether. It can be in conventional
or organic.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. MELLON: The availability of seed is more complicated than that.

MS. DILLEY: I think it\'s an AP and beyond issue and I think that\'s why
I have it up here.

MS. BRYSON: This isn\'t going to be meaningful to anybody except our
committee if we\'re saying GE traits in GE seed. You know, we need some
other word that makes sense.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Put the word unintended.

MS. BRYSON: Unintended, fine. Unintended GE traits.

MS. DILLEY: The adventitious presence of unintended.

MR. JAFFE: Except that it is. It is.

MS. DILLEY: Is that what you\'re saying?

MS. BRYSON: If this is just an AP issue should it go up to the AP
issues?

DR. LAYTON: But, it\'s not. It\'s the last sentence is different.

MS. BRYSON: But, if the last sentence is a different \--

DR. LAYTON: If the last sentence is a different issue you can decouple
the sentences.

MS. BRYSON: The first sentence is just to make the issue which is it\'s
because of the AP so doesn\'t that make it an AP related list?

MS. DILLEY: I think this was combining access to the seed and then there
was one piece of that was the AP. So, there was more than just AP here.
We don\'t have more of just AP here then we can move it back to the
first section. I just thought it was more than just AP. Okay. Or you
could decouple it and put the first part in the first \-- you know \--
whatever, but, I don\'t know if we want to spend a whole lot of time
massaging that, so, right now it\'s more than AP.

Nancy, did you have another comment? Russ and then Michael.

MR. KREMER: Yes. Still working on this bullet point?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. KREMER: On the last sentence and precede that consideration of that
in there, but, I think it would be more complete if it said
"Consolidation, mergers of the seed and other agricultural industries
potentially can limit farmers\' choices" and I believe we should have
that in there because, you know, on the buying end, for instance, let\'s
say, for instance, an agri-company merges with a pork company and that
they mandate that the seed, you know, either genetically modified crop
or even an organic crop, that that limits the farmers\' choices and the
potential of damaging coexistence and flexibility.

MS. DILLEY: So you want a clause that implies mergers \--

MR. KREMER: Consolidation or mergers of the seed and related
agri-industries.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, not just seed companies. You\'re expanding who is
mergering \-- merging and consolidating. Okay.

MR. KREMER: Exactly. It could be a seed company merging with a biotech
company.

MS. DILLEY: We had a couple of cards go up. Michael, you\'re next and
then Randy.

DR. DYKES: I don\'t agree with the last sentence on merging and
consolidation with choices. I think we have more varieties today than
we\'ve ever had before, so, I don\'t agree with that.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right. I think we\'ve got to cut down the clause
saying \-- so I don\'t know how we reconcile disagreements in terms of
that sentence.

DR. DYKES: I don\'t think it\'s a coexistence issue.

MS. DILLEY: Other than that, you\'re perfectly content with that. Randy,
you\'re next.

MR. GIROUX: I don\'t know that there\'s such a thing as certified non-GE
seed.

DR. MELLON: There\'s a demand for it but I don\'t know anybody \--

MR. JAFFE: There\'s not a big demand for it.

DR. MELLON: Who certifies that it\'s non-GE?

MR. GIROUX: There\'s no certified non-GE that I know of.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So it just needs the certified and take out non-GE?

MR. GIROUX: No, just makes it go away. That\'s conventional.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, certified goes away. Oh, because \--

MR. GIROUX: Conventional seed is non-GE. This is going to certify
non-GE. So, strike certified non-GE. It\'s not in existence.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So now it reads conventional and organic seed. Okay.
Stephanie. Carol, I guess you were next and then Stephanie and then
Mardi.

MR. BUSS: The first sentence is true irrespective of consolidation and
mergers, so, it seems to me that\'s two different issues.

MS. DILLEY: So put the AP in the first sentence?

MR. BUSS: Or make separate judgments on both, but, they don\'t belong
together because the first, as I said, is true irrespective of
consolidation.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. I don\'t think we all have a problem with that. We\'ve
got the first part of the sentence unless there are any other comments
on that first part of the sentence. We can take that and move it into
the AP section and then that first sentence is an AP issue and then
merger, consolidation we can consider separately. Does that make sense
to people? Okay. Okay. So, now Stephanie and then Mardi.

MS. WHELAN: I\'d like to \-- I disagree with that sentence, the second
sentence that we have making a separate bullet.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

MS. WHELAN: And mainly because, you know, being confused and maybe lack
of understanding or whatever in the seed industry and since it\'s
commodity seed suppliers versus diversified and specialty crop seed
suppliers which is hundreds of them out there and, so, you know, I just
don\'t see that merger \-- the mergers have occurred between the large
commodity seed providers. That\'s pretty much the mergers are almost
done in the face of a monopoly otherwise, and, yet, there\'s plenty of
small seed companies out there for lettuce and tomatoes and whatever.
There\'s hundreds of them out there.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. WHELAN: You can always say what if, what if, and what if it to
death.

MS. DILLEY: I think we\'re doing pretty good and now we\'ve got 15
bullets. But, I understand what you\'re saying. I think the question is,
the people are seeing this differently and it\'s not just a number of
seeds available which may have grown in numbers, but, whether some are
looking for particular growth or looking for particular seed have access
to that seed. I don\'t know if different. That\'s not necessarily a
quantity issue as much as accessibility, not that I don\'t know. I
don\'t know if that\'s an issue or not.

Mardi.

DR. MELLON: Well, I think it is an issue for an awful lot of farmers. I
do agree that it\'s different. It depends on which kinds of seeds
you\'re talking about. But, there is a sense that access to the kind of
seed people would like is somewhat limited that we\'re not just talking
about the vegetable market, but, we are talking about alfalfa and wheat
and commodity markets that are going to continue to be more, I would
say, partake more in the part of the system where consolidation is very
important.

And it does, you know, in combination with the adventitious presence
issue it is the \-- it limits the choices that farmers have and it\'s
very \-- I mean, whether

\-- it\'s very important to us, the people. So, you know, I would urge
that at some point, you know, we realize how important the kind of
McDonald\'s type issue is that Duane and we left the bullet in there
because of it even though it\'s perhaps more not as closely related to a
coexistence issues. I would urge that the, you know, be treated in
somewhat the same way. It\'s very important to a lot of people who see
it from their point of view as very much a part of the coexistence
issue, their ability to do the kind of business they would like to do in
a world that now includes neighbors and other farmers who want to grow
rice now.

MS. DILLEY: Pat, did you want to \--

DR. LAYTON: Yeah. I have a question. I guess it is if it\'s the
consolidation, mergers of seed companies or the other part of it, or, is
it just we\'re worried there\'s not going to be a variety of seed out
there available? I mean, are we linking the worry over the variety of
seeds out there available and the future? Because this is about the
piece because right now I think we said everybody can get what they want
today. So, in the future, is it the variety of seeds aren\'t going to be
there and are we blaming it only on consolidation or are we just worried
about the variety of seeds out there?

Because I think it might feel better to some of us if we say in the
future we\'re worried about the variety of seeds out there, whether
they\'re tying it to, you know, what may have happened in the last five
years in the agricultural industry and its consolidations and mergers
and things like that. So, I\'m wondering if we can decouple and have
happiness.

MR. SLOCUM: You should be worried about variety.

DR. LAYTON: Yes. So, you should be worried about the varieties. So, if
we said other factors (Indiscernible due to static) include a concern
over the variety of seeds available in the marketplace to farmers.
Diversity, varieties, whatever. And take out the consolidation and
mergers of seed companies because it doesn\'t matter what\'s causing the
problem, it\'s the issue that\'s worrisome.

DR. MELLON: Why can\'t we just state that that\'s part of the issue
though? I mean, it does when you\'ve got, you know, one or when you have
relatively few entities making decisions about something like seeds that
one is the reason to tend to have fewer and fewer seed varieties. I
mean, to me, it\'s kind of just identified as part of the problem
shouldn\'t cause heartburn. I mean, it\'s certainly the way it looks if
you\'re out there in the marketplace.

MS. DILLEY: Michael.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah. I wanted to kind of reflect back from one of our
absent members, Nick, you know, who has said, that, you know,
consolidation is always one of those issues that you look at. It may be
\-- maybe we don\'t want to gunk it up to say that consolidation has
potential to limit choices, but, consolidation is always one of those
things that you look at in a market. Maybe there\'s some way to just
take it a step back from saying that it limits farmers\' choices but
consolidation is always a \--

DR. MELLON: I thought these were only potential. I mean, these are
potentially limit coexistence and it does have that potential. I think
even Nick would admit that.

MS. DILLEY: Leon.

MR. CORZINE: I just think that it\'s dangerous because the thing\'s
already been discussed to try and tie consolidation and mergers into it.
I think what we\'re trying to really talk about is seed supply and you
can quote examples where really some mergers or consolidations has
helped the seed supply and helped varieties and choices.

We got more choices on our farm than we\'ve ever had before for corn and
soybeans and I think you can quote a lot of people like that. So, I just
think it\'s dangerous, like Pat said, to try and tie that. I think what
we\'re really talking about is diversity of seed supply from the various
production systems is important for farmers\' choices.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, I think that\'s the driving point in this issue.
Mardi, I guess when I heard your why it would be helpful to have the
piece about mergers and consolidation that started to sound like it was
starting to be the more dominant market player kind of point. Those are
experiment policies, not \-- hey, I may be wrong what I heard you say.

DR. MELLON: No, it\'s true that policies are \--

MS. DILLEY: But, it doesn\'t fit. But, what I heard you saying in terms
of why mergers and consolidations potentially are difficulties and, yes,
big players make decisions that then could limit the accessibility or
diversity of seed, but, it does seem like accessibility or diversity of
the seed supply is what the main point you\'re trying to point out here
and that to link it to particular causes is where we\'re struggling a
little bit more.

That it may not only be consolidation and mergers.

DR. MELLON: That\'s right, it may not only be. There may be other
things.

MS. DILLEY: So, why single it out or do we add some other factors that
contribute it to diversity of the seed supply? It kind of sticks out
funny, but, it\'s the only thing mentioned if people have doubts about
that, but, it may be one of multiple factors in which case \--

DR. MELLON: I think it \-- I mean, my view is that it is that people,
individuals out there in the farming community that kind of are trying
to farm in a particular way don\'t \-- do feel that both, that the
combination of the adventitious presence in seeds (Indiscernible due to
static) for the kinds of systems they want to develop. That is part of
the coexistence issue and consolidation and mergers does play a role in
the real world as people try to break into it. Now, maybe we could
identify other factors as well, but, since we only say that it\'s
potential and it certainly makes sense that it would be at least a
potentially limited factor, I mean I would be comfortable leaving it in.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, well, could we add additional \-- because it seems like
that\'s not the only factor that\'s limiting diversity and
accessibility, so, are there other factors you want listed in that?

MR. KREMER: You can generalize a little more by our little mini
committee, you know, flushed this out quite thoroughly, I thought, and
we kind of got lost somewhere along the line, but, when you talk about
business structure, you know, and infrastructure, for instance, you
know, that could be somehow put in there, but, you know, you know, and a
lot of us, our farmers, consolidation and mergers and the overall
control of certain things that the industry\'s greatest potential for
coexistence, they are buying and not these little companies, big
companies, you know, merging all three types, and sometimes it means
that, you know, the organic and conventional kind of fall off the shelf
after a while and that proves that that\'s happening.

But, if you want to be more general and talk maybe a little more on like
business structures, infrastructure or something like that I can live
with that.

MS. DILLEY: We had a couple of other cards up. Adrian and then Jerry and
then Stephanie.

DR. POLANSKY: You know, I guess I can live with the language that\'s
been talked about potential although I do think that it\'s dangerous to
tie different value systems to an issue and I think it\'s, in my view I
agree. There are more choices out there for farmers now than there\'s
ever been before. At least that\'s my experience.

Another example is, I mean, initially organic was done by small, local
producers and that was part of the value judgment and people, in my
opinion, were buying organic so that they weren\'t buying from the super
large farmer and Wal-Mart and so forth. They were buying it at the local
farmers market and buying it from a relatively small distributor,
wholesaler, retailer and so forth and there\'s a real shift.

Now that the Wal-Marts are selling organic and the largest producers are
producing the largest amount of organic now, we\'re talking about
locally grown, I just think it gets a little bit dangerous to have a
value system that has issues with large companies or larger farmers or
that sort of thing with what it is an issue that we\'re really concerned
about because I just think there\'s some real pitfalls there, but, I
just feel it\'s important to share that because it confuses the issue, I
think, potentially.

But, I mean, you can say pretty much anything can potentially and the
reason I\'m willing to go along with the potential and so forth is that
as long as we have some other items that\'s been pinpointed out that not
everybody fully agrees with, you know, I\'m willing to have enough
flexibility, but, I do think this is a general statement. We need to be
careful about confusing significantly different issues of value
judgment.

MS. DILLEY: We\'re being agonizingly careful about that now so we\'re
trying to flush through all that. I think, Michael, because I think when
Russ was talking maybe you had some language that goes to the point.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: But, let\'s try it and we\'ll go back to the cards and
Carol.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. Is the general language sort of what I heard from
Russ would be something to the effect of changes in business structures
in the seed industry can potentially limit farmers\' choices. Does that
\--

MS. DILLEY: Is it changes in business structure? It\'s broader. I don\'t
know if that was \-- thinking about it. Daryl, Jerry, and Stephanie had
their cards up. Daryl.

MR. BUSS: The bullet defined as identifying factors that inhibit
coexistence and, so, to me is one of availability and diversity in the
seed supply is a valid limitation of coexistence potentially anyway. I
hate to get into the discussion of business structure because not only
simplistic but we confuse correlation with causation and I think what
we\'re really talking about potentially are economic factors that may
make particularly whole volume kinds of seeds available independent of
business structure.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. BUSS: So, I would favor keeping our focus on issues that limit
coexistence which, to me, is one of availability and diversity of seed
supply.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Jerry and then Stephanie.

MR. SLOCUM: I would support that because even within existing business
structure you\'ve got the corporate mentality that they\'re going to
produce the products that are in highest demand. If you look at an
offering that Pioneer has today you have a hard time finding new corn
varieties in the Pioneer catalog that are conventional that don\'t have
some GE event that that\'s to, okay. And that has nothing to do with
consolidations or mergers.

It\'s simply everything to do with what the market\'s demanding. They
still got to grow some non-BT corn, but, they got to feed you, but,
they\'re not as many of those varieties being developed because that\'s
only 15 percent of the marketplace, 20 percent of the marketplace.

And what we\'ve seen is because it\'s not a business structure,
Monsanto. It\'s a market demand from the producers is what it is because
it\'s the diversity that\'s the issue here. My mind is not
consolidation, it\'s not mergers, it\'s none of those things. It\'s
diversity and the diversity is shrinking because of the demands from the
marketplace. That\'s what\'s shrinking.

MS. DILLEY: Stephanie and then Nancy and then Mardi.

MS. WHELAN: I agree with the last two gentlemen\'s side to basically get
some other language with business and marketing development can
potentially limit the marketplace.

MS. DILLEY: Nancy and then Mardi.

MS. BRYSON: I was going to try to think of some additional language into
the seed diversity point to try to address this, which would be very
general in nature. It would say something like any reduced diversity in
the seed supply for whatever reason would be problematic for all three
production systems. It doesn\'t get into the business, but, it gives \--

MS. DILLEY: So, for any reason.

MS. BRYSON: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: Is a problem for all three agricultural production systems.

MS. BRYSON: Yeah, isn\'t that what we\'re saying?

MS. DILLEY: Mardi. I\'m sorry, you were next.

DR. MELLON: I think Jerry described it absolutely perfectly, but, just
didn\'t convey the interactive nature of that demand. The demand comes
partly from people who want the particular kind of seed that Pioneer
used to provide or Pioneer might provide and now they can\'t get the
good stuff unless they get the GE. In their minds they decide that
they\'re going to do that and when all of a sudden that becomes a
demand. But, there\'s a real interactive nature as to what the demand is
depending on the availability.

People make different choices if they have different choices. So, that
is exactly what I think I\'d like to kind of accept from the point of
view of the \-- of some small, but, not insignificant sector that really
would like to continue to go on, you know, despite the fact that there
is a lot of demand for another type of agriculture. There are those
folks out there and the idea is to kind of, you know, make a place for
both, but, understanding exactly that dynamic and that\'s kind of what I
was trying to capture with the notion that seed diversity isn\'t just a
pie in the sky or whether scientists are willing to do the breeding
because Lord knows they\'re out there, but, there is this other
dimension to it that is a lot for people and especially if you\'re the
smaller entity, you know, within a larger marketplace.

DR. LAYTON: Well, what you said was not consolidation.

DR. DYKES: Seed diversity.

DR. MELLON: Well, maybe consolidation may be business structures the
wrong way. I mean, I don\'t know, you know, the fact is that we could go
into it. Pioneer has done biological tests and consolidation\'s better
than anybody\'s. So, maybe that\'s not the right term, but, that power,
that market power that a relatively few entities have and very important
crops is a reality for folks and it has implications for coexistence.

DR. DILLEY: What I would suggest maybe, Mardi, is that it sounds like
the language that Nancy offered something is good language. The question
is whether we add some additional the point of dominant market players.
I think though \--

DR. MELLON: I\'m happy with it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was it?

MS. DILLEY: I thought it was Nancy\'s language.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was it?

MS. DILLEY: Reduction of seed diversity for any reason is a problem for
all three ag production systems.

DR. MELLON: But, I do want the statement above that we say business and
marketing developments can limit farmers\' choices of seed. Maybe
that\'s the \-- I do think that that notion that these seed choices are
not made in a vacuum is important. It is significant that seed companies
are now owned by companies that also produce chemicals. That has a lot
to do with the kinds of products that they produce. I mean, it\'s a fact
of life. You know, I just don\'t see the \-- acknowledging that is
dangerous.

MR. SLOCUM: I will tell you as a corn grower in my own corn state,
we\'ve got more corn variety available to us today than we had a decade
ago, than we had a year ago. There\'s no doubt about it. Okay. So, maybe
I don\'t think these businesses and the market developed that limited my
choices, okay. They have affected my choices but I don\'t know that
they\'ve limited it. I can always buy a round up ready corn variety and
choose not to use glyphosate on it, okay.

Now, I would say I\'d rather not pay for that Roundup Ready® trait I
might use glyphosate for because I want to rotate chemistries on the
farm that year, but, that is a choice I can make. Now, whether it\'s
done may be tied to varieties that are not going to use glyphosate
technology but I still have a choice, okay.

DR. MELLON: But you don\'t have a choice without it and if your market
depends on it not having Roundup® in it that\'s affected your choice.

MS. DILLEY: So what I hear and then I hear Jerry saying, agreeing with
you, so, it\'s not the number of places you have it, the types of
choices you have.

MR. SLOCUM: I\'m not sure it limits it as much as it affects and it
changes, you know, it changes my cost structure a little bit, but, those
are things that farmers deal with every day out there in the real world.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s about a word, but, as you say it\'s not limiting the
number of choices, it\'s the type of choices.

MR. SLOCUM: Right.

DR. LAYTON: Is that the lead sentence?

MR. SLOCUM: No. This whole thing is about diversity of the seed supply.

MS. DILLEY: The second statement. The first statement is about diversity
of seed is the issue and then some of the things that affect farmers\'
choices are business structure, etc. That\'s what I hear you saying.
Mardi, I think that\'s what you\'re saying as well. So I think we\'re
okay. You had cards up. Daryl. Make it good.

MR. BUSS: Well, going in the same direction, but, perhaps to make it
flow better taking from Nancy leaving the opening sentence and the
second sentence to read "Those reasons may include the marketing
element..."

MS. DILLEY: "Those reasons may include" instead of two hard sentences is
what you\'re saying? Okay. Okay.

MR. BUSS: And a period after development.

MS. DILLEY: Very good. Are we good on that? Next one. Okay. The next
bullet. I just happened to talk with \-- so one of the points on here I
think people have raised, is this really a coexistence issue, and the
other piece of it I know in talking to Nick is his particular \-- there
aren\'t a lot of \-- some of this is public responsibility and some of
this is really in the private sector and it seems odd to kind of mix
those things so there\'s a lot of discussion about it really seems like
it should be deleted. So we highlighted it. It\'s one of those topics
that it\'s an issue but is it a coexistence issue is the question, I
think, and are we articulating it correctly.

Nancy, your card was doing push ups, so, you and then Carol.

MS. BRYSON: Well, I think that was a minor point in that I think we
should ditch the first sentence. It\'s a sentence fragment and we\'re
dealing with sentences now. But, I think it\'s a coexistence issue
because as you get down towards the end it says, "Without modernization
of our infrastructure the ability to deliver diversified products to
consumers is hindered and becomes more expensive" and it seems to me
that plainly is a coexistence issue because we\'re talking about the
ability in the country to deliver the diverse products in these three
different types of agriculture.

MS. DILLEY: So could we boil it down to that one sentence and take the
rest out?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Could I? I\'ve been working on this and I thought I
might get something that addresses this issue and might consolidate it
with the next bullet. It seems to me they\'re basically infrastructure
because meeting an increased demand for variety of identity preserved
agricultural products will require modernization of transportation,
infrastructure, and the development of additional segregated storage
facilities.

MS. DILLEY: So let me make sure of the language you\'re offering.
Michael, did you have a question?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. My one comment about that is I think the idea is
great. It doesn\'t quite fit the heading of factors that could inhibit
coexistence so I wonder if there\'s just a way to tweak it slightly so
that it \--

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: You can say \-- I guess my assumption was that they
weren\'t there now so you can turn it around \-- yeah, I think I can
probably turn it around there.

MS. DILLEY: Why don\'t you try to turn it around? Guy can start.

DR. CARDINEAU: I thought both of these related to segregation which I
think is a part of transportation problems also with segregation because
seed mixing from my perspective is one of the biggest issues that we
have. I think it\'s much more important than wind-blown pollen or
whatever. I think the potential for adventitious presence, if you want
to use that term, occurs more \-- more likely to occur because we mix
seed up either because it\'s the elevator or it\'s on a truck or it\'s
on a barge. I know that was a problem for Dow Science when I worked for
them.

So, I really think I agree with Carol. I think these two bullets should
be merged together in some way. I don\'t have any good wording.

MS. DILLEY: Or you could put them in that AP section?

DR. CARDINEAU: No, no, no. They can go here, but, I think that\'s the
key for me, for both of these was the segregation part.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I think I may now have it. I think we all can say
that the current transportation and storage systems are not adequate to
meet an increased demand for identity preserved agricultural products.
Period. And you could change it to say are not adequately (sic) to
segregate to meet the need and increased demand for aggregated in
identity \-- put segregation in there somewhere.

DR. LAYTON: Is it transportation or transportation infrastructure? One
is by truck.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yeah, I think infrastructure is probably good, I
think.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Or segregation of identity preserved agricultural
products.

DR. LAYTON: Take out the preservation?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: For segregated.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: For segregating identity preserved agricultural
products. That doesn\'t tie the first part of the sentence quite as
well. It was the segregation because to me there\'s an increased demand
for \--

DR. LAYTON: Segregation.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: \-- segregation of identity preserved. Okay.
Segregating identity preserved. Go back to where Michael was.

DR. LAYTON: No, he said segregated with an e-d.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I\'m sorry, I couldn\'t hear him and that\'s better.

DR. POLANSKY: I\'m going to agree with that although as someone involved
with production agriculture I think this issue goes far beyond
coexistence. We\'ve got some real transportation infrastructure issues
and so forth. They\'re more important to what we were talking about here
just in general. However, I don\'t know the impression that
everything\'s fine because we don\'t have coexistence issues. I don\'t
know that that\'s \--

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I think we all agree. It\'s a much bigger problem.
But, our paper here is about coexistence.

DR. MELLON: And I think the implication is that, the Department of
Agriculture, is that as we move forward in responding to these much
larger needs that this is one of the things to keep in mind. I mean, as
you modernize the system one of the things you can do is to make it
better able to handle these identity-preserved products.

DR. POLANSKY: And I agree with that. I\'m just trying to point out that
it be a stronger message here and that if they would point it out that,
in general, these are meanings but they\'re more important to those
items. I mean, I think that makes stronger \--

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: The only problem with that, Adrian, is that opens
the door to changing all the bullets.

DR. POLANSKY: All right.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Or other bullets to talk about how they fit in the
context of a bigger issue.

DR. POLANSKY: That\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: Randy and then Leon.

MR. GIROUX: I\'m struggling because when I read that now we\'ve totally
changed the point.

DR. MELLON: Which is?

MR. GIROUX: Which was we have over-burdened our transportation system.
We don\'t have enough storage for future needs, but, it\'s sort of the
current transportation infrastructure is not adequate to meet demands
for IDP. I\'ve got lots of national customers and domestic customers and
suppliers of non-GMO grain. It is adequate. It is adequate and we\'ve
not had our customers telling us that it is inadequate what we\'re doing
for them today.

Now, if the fact about having the same size market for organic, non-GM
identity preserved, GM commodity, generic grain, if we talk about that,
we don\'t have the capacity to assist the transportation system because
of the increases in storage and transportation costs and we don\'t have
the \-- potentially have the storage but it\'s not about the adequacy of
the way we\'re moving IDP agricultural products, it\'s about the
infrastructure and it\'s about the transportation system. It\'s not
about \-- to this point says to me that we are currently not meeting the
demands or exporting domestic demands for non-GMO or identity preserved
grains. And that\'s just not correct.

MS. DILLEY: Well, the transportation infrastructure and storage systems
in the future may not be adequate. Wait. Or may not be adequate to meet
future \--

MR. GIROUX: But, it\'s not just about non-GMO.

MR. CORZINE: The current is the problem here. I think if we can \--
we\'ve tweaked that around for quite a while. But, if we go back, and I
think it goes back to what Carol\'s point is too, to what we had,
without modernization of our transportation and storage infrastructure
the ability to deliver diverse products to consumers is hindered and
becomes more expensive. And that\'s all we need because that addresses
consumers. It\'s not just production.

DR. LAYTON: Our modernization \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Well, that\'s the thing.

MR. CORZINE: If you take the sentence that is there and after
transportation put and storage.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Transportation and storage systems.

MR. CORZINE: There you go, transportation and storage. (Indiscernible
due to static).

DR. LAYTON: And that\'s the main \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. LAYTON: Other factors identified by the committee that can inhibit
coexistence include without \-- this doesn\'t read right. Other factors
identified by the committee that could inhibit coexistence include.
Starting a sentence with without is a little bit of a problem.

MR. CORZINE: Start with modernization.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: That was the point Michael raised and started to go
back up just a little bit with the reference to the already stressed.

MR. CORZINE: Take out the last without. That\'s all we need.

DR. LAYTON: Hinders the ability to deliver.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I\'m okay with it but the beginning needs to be
changed. It\'s kind of gunky. I want to take out an overloaded system,
all of that sentence before that. I think we can make that sentence a
little better but I don\'t think we ought to spend time on it now
because I think Leon\'s come up with something that totally does what I
was trying to.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. I think we got the intent. We also consolidated a
couple of bullets.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Make that into that. Failure to do this will, da, da,
da, the ability.

MS. DILLEY: So it\'s consolidated into this one. Is that correct, to
tighten it up a little bit, but, I think we\'re okay. We\'re there.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any comments on the changing expectations?

MR. CORZINE: Just one. The last word, isn\'t that desires?

MS. DILLEY: Okay. This is the first full bullet on page 6. Starts
changing applications.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. SCHECHTMAN: In the attempt to address some of the other bullet of
the uneasy role of organic products in attempting to split up two
different thoughts and turning it into two bullets and that was sent out
to you in one document. Again, that was a bridging attempt.

MR. FLOWERS: I was just wondering if we want to put GE product labeling.
We have BT corn or if you have a crop that\'s inoculated with BT,
you\'ve got that BT, so, is BT the issue. We\'ve got it a couple of
different ways. I think the product needs to be specified.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m a little bit lost as to where you are.

DR. LAYTON: He\'s in the changing thing. He\'s asking about the GE
labeling and what he\'s saying \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: GE product labeling is what he\'s saying.

DR. LAYTON: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So you\'re inserting the word product. Okay. Nancy.

MS. BRYSON: We\'re starting off with a sentence fragment here and I\'m
wondering if we could start the bullet at today there is an increasing
focus on the presence of adventitious presence of specific attributes of
foods that may or may not have clearly the safety and then have the
second sentence.

DR. LAYTON: But, if you read the beginning of this it starts the
sentence with other factors identified by the committee that could
inhibit coexistence include.

MS. BRYSON: We\'ve been changing this to say include the following and
something.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Yeah, we just want to be clear that today there is.

MS. BRYSON: Yeah.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Fourth line down.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Third line. There is an increasing \--

MS. DILLEY: Are you okay with the rest of the stuff before that?

MS. BRYSON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. BRYSON: You might say there is increasing focus today. Put the today
after focus.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any other comments on that bullet?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yeah, one. It should have clearly the safety or
nutrition.

MS. DILLEY: Greg.

MR. JAFFE: I\'m not sure how different this is from the next bullet to
be honest with you. They don\'t seem to be very different to me. But, if
one folds in I guess I\'m not going to stand in the way of that, but,
the first sentence of this new bullet now is very generic and then the
second sentence starts generic but then talks about GE food labeling so
if that\'s the case we can be more specific. Those who want to avoid not
particular attributes, GE products, would likely to advocate alternative
proposals because I don\'t know what other attributes people are doing
other kinds of regulatory, other kinds of things for, so, the first
sentence is there is an increasing focus on lots of different attributes
in foods.

So, the second one says you want to get of particular ones. We\'re not
talking about the generic ones. We\'re really talking about GE because
we\'re talking about mandatory GE labeling, but, advocating for
alternative approaches. I\'m not sure what examples of other kinds of
attributes people are going for that have other kinds of alternative
approaches. So, if we\'re going to \-- if the second sentence is going
to be specific then I think we should specifically say to avoid GE
content or something.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I agree that we can combine the two given the way
the shortened \-- I\'m sorry, I didn\'t have my card up. If Greg\'s
suggesting \-- Nancy started it and Greg\'s continuing it and it needs
some reference there to the fact that organic is not an adequate
substitute for people who want to avoid GE products.

MR. JAFFE: That\'s the second bullet.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yeah, but, it doesn\'t need a whole bullet. All it
needs is that sentence if we can figure a way to work it in there.

MS. DILLEY: There are many ideas that GE \-- there\'s an advocating for
alternative approaches including

\-- it\'s the labeling piece. It\'s the organic being the de facto
non-GE, and then there\'s the fact that GE-free is not \-- you\'re not
getting GE-free. So, they are almost together. We tried to separate them
out because it seemed like that was a better way to do it. If we can
link them back together in an orderly way that doesn\'t jumble all this
stuff up then that\'s great.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Right. That third point\'s really not covered in the
bullet that we\'re working on.

MS. DILLEY: Right and when we linked those together those were the three
things that kind of gummed up and it\'s hard to sort through. So if
people have language to merge them together and sort through it I think
that\'s perfectly fine. Those are the three pieces that need to be
addressed.

MR. FLOWERS: Well, that\'s the point I was trying to \-- you can have an
organic that\'s a genetically engineered fruit but it still can have a
genetically engineered product, BT. They inoculate the crop with BT to
achieve the same end.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But BT is not genetically engineered.

MR. FLOWERS: No, it\'s not engineered but the product, the gene that
they got to make GE corn came from the bacteria, so, same product.

MS. DILLEY: So those are the three things that kind of get gummed up
together. Mardi.

DR. MELLON: I think that we should \-- I like the idea of three bullets.
I do think that there are, as you said, three issues. But, I think it\'s
important to say that, you know, there is a focus on these attributes;
that people who want to avoid GE, you know, basically are something of a
coexistence issue that they don\'t have kind of the obvious source in
the marketplace and, so, that\'s the not labeling piece and I\'m
generally happy with the first bullet.

But, then the second one is that not \-- I mean, it is just happenstance
that against the background where you don\'t have GE labeling that you
happen to have an organic label which really this is not what organic is
all about and I\'m not sure it really wants to be the *de facto* GE,
non-GE alternative.

But, now that it is, I mean, I think we\'re at a stage where it has
become that because, to me, we\'re not going to follow this route all
the way through, but, it does lead to some, to me, some different kind
of conclusions about how you want to handle coexistence, i.e., I think
it\'s more important to kind of help organic wheat.

I mean, if you\'re going to be part of the group that doesn\'t bring \--
there shouldn\'t be any other label out there.

MS. DILLEY: Guy and Stephanie.

DR. CARDINEAU: I think that there are other potential labeling
safety-related issues besides just GE. I mean, I think that gluten-free
is one area of the labeling safety.

DR. MELLON: But that\'s big time safety.

DR. CARDINEAU: The country of origin could be another issue. I was very
concerned when I discovered at one of our meetings that a whole large
amount of our organic produce in the U.S. comes from China. That
concerned me. So, I think labeling country of origin could also be
critically important for coexistence because you might want to know
where this stuff is coming from.

DR. MELLON: Yes, you do.

DR. CARDINEAU: So, I\'m not sure that just picking on GE is really what
we should do here or singling just GE out. I appreciate that that is an
issue, but, I think there are other issues as well, the safety realm
that we should be considering that do impact coexistence with regard to
labeling.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Stephanie and then Nancy.

MS. WHELAN: I\'m having difficulty with this language and the fact that
it comes up *de facto* non-GE.

MS. DILLEY: So you\'re on that second bullet?

MS. WHELAN: Yes, both of them. Because basically the organic in terms of
the consumers who are not really fully informed who believe that it\'s
chemical-free and insecticide-free which is not true. So, what\'s the
problem of being *de facto* non-GE free because from the consumer point
of view and have some personal relations with that in talking to people
and what they think they\'re consuming and what the papers and the media
are focused on organic there\'s really the impression that it\'s
chemical-free and pesticide-free.

So, you know, just pointing out the fact that GE-free, you know, is
already a *de facto* thing that\'s not true so this whole language I
have problems with.

MS. DILLEY: Nancy, do you have some language?

MS. BRYSON: No. I just wanted you to repeat, Abby, what the three ideas
are that we\'re trying to put together here.

MS. DILLEY: There was a labeling issue as one means of meeting what
consumers are looking for in a particular product. There was the fact
that the issues that are linking organic with non-GE and then there\'s
labeling as a means of GE-free. It\'s not GE-free. It\'s up to a certain
threshold. So, even in places where there is labeling it\'s not GE-free.

MS. BRYSON: What\'s the difference between 2 and 3? I\'m not getting
this.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s okay, I\'m not either.

MS. BRYSON: Well, the second one is linking of organic and non-GE.
Isn\'t that *de facto* alternative?

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. It may be coming off the historical piece where we
talked about the fact that GE and organic have kind of developed this
relationship where organic has benefitted from GE, thought of as a way
to go non-GE, and that\'s the stimulus in the marketplace, but, it\'s an
uneasy thing because (a) it\'s erroneous. To some degree you\'re not
required to meet that for certification or to be organic, but that is
the consumer expectation out there. So, how do you get beyond that to
meet consumer demand for something when currently their expectations are
based on something that is not necessarily correct?

And there\'s the issue of labeling as to what consumer expectations be
and then there\'s the kind of odd relationship between organic and
GE-free.

Daryl?

MR. BUSS: Could I just suggest that coexistence may be limited by lack
of co-identification of products in each production system or country of
origin. For example, organic \-- for example, the label organic will
incompletely satisfy the preference of some consumers who wish to avoid
GE-products. This reflects an increasing focus of consumers on an
increasing focus on the presence or absence of specific attributes in
foods that may or may not be links to safety or nutrition.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Boy, I think that\'s a great way to start. But,
Daryl, I think you got it.

MS. DILLEY: Daryl, if you don\'t mind giving that language to Cindy and
then we can type it up and can think about it over lunch and then we can
come back to that bullet. Greg?

MR. JAFFE: Can I make a non \-- just an announcement of order?

DR. LAYTON: Yes.

(Discussion off the record)

(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken at 12:30 p.m.)

[A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N]{.underline} 1:52 p.m.

DR. LAYTON: Let\'s get started. Michael, you and Randy were going to
give us something, so, you ready to go, Michael?

MR. GIROUX: Yes, we\'re ready. So, the text we have \--

DR. LAYTON: Page 5.

MR. GIROUX: The alternate text we have, two sentences, introduction of
GE crops do not have adequate test methods available to manage them in
the supply chain.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Actually, why don\'t you read it first.

MR. GIROUX: Introduction of GE crops that do not have adequate test
methods available to manage them in the supply chain have the potential
to impact coexistence. Introduction of such crops would impact the
ability to market and meet implicit/explicit standards.

DR. LAYTON: What you\'ve got written down, just give that to me. Thank
you.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And then we can all look at it.

MS. DILLEY: You cannot read it from there?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: For those of you who can\'t read it down at the bottom
here because I\'m in the way it says "Introduction of GE crops that do
not have adequate test methods available to manage them in the supply
chain have the potential to impact coexistence. Introduction of such
crops will impact the ability of markets to meet implicit/explicit
standards."

DR. LAYTON: So now we\'re back to page 6.

MS. DILLEY: We can go back to Daryl\'s.

DR. LAYTON: Daryl.

MR. BUSS: This was a consolidation of the two.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi, did you have a question?

DR. MELLON: I\'m trying to figure out whether the phrase "lack of clear
identification of consumer products from each production system" is the
limit. I mean, that would suggest that the solution is to somehow be
clearer in the identification of products.

DR. DYKES: This is where I have a problem with all these things.

MS. DILLEY: Jerry?

MR. SLOCUM: I agree with what Michael says. Coexistence is not limited.
Production of a specific crop may be limited. Consumer challenge may be
limited by that coexistence.

DR. DYKES: Well, I think we\'re in issues. I\'m not sure what we\'re
referencing.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi and then Carol.

DR. MELLON: The issue is that there are a lot of people, or, not a lot,
there are some people who would like a GE-free product in this country.
They cannot find them in the marketplace because there\'s no
requirements the labels affirmatively label food that\'s GE and it\'s
very hard to label them as not having GE so they\'re using this \--
they\'re using the organic label as a *de facto* GE-free label, but,
that means for organic farmers is that they are trying to satisfy, you
know, the demand of these consumers who want this GE-free product and
from their point of view they have a very difficult time satisfying that
demand for which they, you know, could get very good prices for product
because they either have to buy seed that is already \-- has levels of
GE in it or because some parts of their system needs I don\'t know, but,
because there are opportunities for the contamination of their system
with the GE element, so, the coexistence is that there are folks that
would like to satisfy a market.

There is a market out there and if they have a difficult time doing it
in today\'s world and we\'ve identified that as an issue. It wouldn\'t
be an issue if people had other \-- it wouldn\'t be as much of an issue
if there were other places for those consumers to go to. But, they
really are not in this country.

DR. LAYTON: Can I ask a question? What I think you said was and from
what I remember and heard you all say, organic does not mean it has to
be GE-free. The process does not mean it has to be GE-free. However,
there is this idea in the consumer marketplace that because it is
organic it is GE-free.

DR. MELLON: There\'s a demand for GE-free and there is a desire and
there is an idea that, hey, this thing might be it.

DR. LAYTON: So organics are trying to be GE-free even though it\'s not
required.

DR. MELLON: Well, yes. In order to meet \-- it\'s just like some
consumers want, you know, pink Kleenex®. If there are people out there
you can supply you will.

DR. LAYTON: Right.

DR. MELLON: They would like to supply that market. They think that they
ought to be able to do it, but, they really can\'t for reasons they \--
you know, because it has nothing \-- you know, for reasons that they
really cannot control and so that\'s the coexistence issue.

DR. LAYTON: But, the issue is either \-- but, what\'s the reason they
can\'t supply the issue? Is it \--

DR. MELLON: Because either they \-- either they have \-- either they
cannot buy the GE-free seed. There is no certification for that seed and
that\'s a hard thing to do because they happen to live nearby within an
insect, pollinating insect or, you know, they live down wind from a
facility, or, you know, perhaps because there are other opportunities
for physically missing it, you know, they may have an operation that has
an organic and a non-organic part of their own farm and they might find
it difficult to keep those into parts. I don\'t know.

But, there are \--

DR. LAYTON: But, it sounds like we\'ve covered most of those issues in
other previous \-- I\'m just trying to point out we keyed this out in
other previous issues and the issue here is you were just trying to say
organic is not *de facto* GE.

DR. MELLON: Well, I do think we need to say \-- I mean, from the point
of view of some farmers this is the way they\'d like to make some money
and it\'s not as close to them and it\'s not as easy as they would like
it to be and it\'s a big deal to them when consumers \-- you know \--
when they try to grow GE-free product and the consumers bring it back
and say we\'re not going to take it. We don\'t care whether it\'s
certified or not.

DR. LAYTON: Are we talking consumers or customers?

DR. MELLON: We\'re talking consumers and customers. And, you know, like
I said, that it\'s not insolvable, it\'s not that it\'s an enormous
problem, but, it is a real problem and it is where the rubber meets the
road with this issue of coexistence. And we\'re just identifying it as
an issue.

MS. DILLEY: I wonder if then that it\'s just like the seed availability
or this is more affecting what farmers can choose to grow.

DR. MELLON: Consumers and \-- I mean, if the farmers are the customers
of the seed companies. I get a little mixed up there, but, it is both
that there are farmers who want to serve this market. They\'d love to.
They can do it. They\'d like to be able to do it. They can\'t. And there
are people willing to pay premium prices for this market \-- for this
product. So, that\'s the market they would like to be able to serve.

MS. DILLEY: There are a couple of parts that \-- Carol and then Adrian
and Stephanie and Michael.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I\'m now less optimistic than this can be addressed
more fully because I think that Mardi\'s argument that organic farmers
want to take advantage of a particular demand are unable to do so
because their products are not GE-free so they may not be able to appeal
to that market is a coexistence issue.

I think the other coexistence issue is the one that\'s hinted at in the
bullet before which is there is a market for non-GE foods. Farmers
really can\'t meet the demand of that market because there\'s no
requirement for labeling genetically engineered food products. So, the
customer can\'t go pay the farmer who wants to raise GE-free and
preserve the identity of because there\'s no way to convey that to the
final consumer.

DR. LAYTON: But, General Mills would say, and if Sara were here
wouldn\'t she say I can sell GE-free?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not GE-free. Non-GE.

DR. LAYTON: Non-GE. She would say non-GE.

DR. MELLON: Yes. She would say that she can supply as a big food company
she can determine some level of GE that she thinks would be acceptable
even to her most demanding customers. She does not \-- she would never
guarantee to anyone who called General Mills that they are supplying a
GE-free product, but, she thinks she buys \-- you know \-- by very
careful buying can draw that level down to a point where she\'s
comfortable in dealing with that market.

Now, whether \-- and that may be, you know, one bullet. I mean, it
demonstrates that the market is \-- you know \-- has some flexible
dimension to it, a flexibility that I would argue could have been taken
advantage of if people actually went for labeling because, you know,
they have to set up a floor. But, that being said, either way we were
talking about very little GE or GE-free. It\'s very hard for farmers to
comply with that demand, you know, in a world where there are all these
forces of mixture.

DR. LAYTON: In corn crops.

DR. MELLON: Today it\'s in corn crops, in soybeans. Tomorrow it would be
in wheat and sugar beets and whatever the next set of products, you
know, might be. There will be people who want little or none and the
coexistence question is who in the U.S. can satisfy that market with all
the realities of infrastructures, wind, insect pollination.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Even if General Mills says they can\'t do it, it is
still a coexistence issue because clearly not everybody can do it and
they have to take very detailed, expensive steps to do it. There is a
coexistence issue.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. We\'re trying to get our hands around this matrix of
farmers and consumers choices and then the GE-free market and the
non-GE. I mean, we\'re trying to distinguish between that. That\'s where
we\'re trying to get that idea in my mind.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Most of these things that we\'ve been discussing
today are just it seems to me issues of trying to get the thing worded
the way we want. This is one where I think I said some subset, come to
agreement, or, understanding on it and it might be worthwhile to see if
we could get a small group to off in the corner and see if they can come
up with something because it seems to me it\'s not quite like the other
ones that we\'ve been wrestling with today.

MS. DILLEY: That may be later on. We\'re wrestling with a couple of
different things and we kind of merged them and then just aggregate them
and I think that\'s part of it and it also may be basic substantive
difference. I don\'t know. That\'s what I\'m trying to gather so we know
how to divide the group to go off in private.

DR. LAYTON: I don\'t know that I disagree. I think that I just don\'t
understand what it is that\'s different because we\'ve covered seed and
we\'ve covered transportation and infrastructure and we\'ve covered \--
you know \-- so I want to make sure I know what else is there \--

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Labeling.

DR. LAYTON: \-- and if it\'s labeling is that not already covered in the
traceability and labeling document. And I\'m quite sure that\'s \--

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: It\'s also GE.

MS. DILLEY: And it\'s also the GE-free market piece that we touched on.
Adrian and then Stephanie.

DR. POLANSKY: I\'m struggling with some of the, you know, issues, I
guess. And I know there\'s a lot of rhetoric apparently that farmers
can\'t buy seed or place the land or whatever and I just don\'t see that
as a reality. If there\'s an organic farmer, Russ may not be able to buy
seed from me that I\'ve grown organically then I\'d be more than happy
to contact a variety of his choice and he can go home and we\'ll share
the profit. I mean, I just don\'t \-- if people \-- I\'m trying to say
this politically correct.

People are claiming they can\'t do something because they haven\'t
really tried and, in fact, there are other people that do it for them I
guess concern me and that\'s a lot of what we\'re talking about here, at
least from the previous area because that\'s the world I live in and
that\'s the reality, I mean, in my opinion. I mean, I\'m being fairly
direct here. But, it\'s not that difficult to find a way, to find the
seed, to find the field, to deal with \-- I mean, I just don\'t think
that\'s reality. What\'s going on?

MS. DILLEY: I hear what you\'re saying, Adrian, and I think other people
are expressing the opinion that if you are trying to service a market
for GE-free you have an increasingly steep slope to climb. It\'s
becoming more and more difficult. It\'s difficult already if you want to
service that market and that\'s your choice if you decide you want to do
that. And that\'s why I think part of what I have heard before on other
points, not that it\'s more deceptive because that\'s doable. It may
just affect how you do things and your choices in producing what markets
you\'re serving, servicing. This is kind of a link between there\'s a
consumer out there who wants GE-free something can you actually provide
for that market and growers have a problem getting a product to those
consumers.

That\'s where we keep bundling up things and then just aggregating them
and I\'m not sure that I\'m expressing that right, but, I think the
point that we haven\'t talked about up till now in this document is that
GE-free market.

DR. MELLON: What if we focused on the future. What if we accepted that
to do it right now but in the future it could become more difficult?

DR. POLANSKY: That would be helpful. That would be helpful I think.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. POLANSKY: Because I just have a hard time agreeing that currently it
can\'t be done because I just don\'t see the real world that that\'s
reality.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. POLANSKY: And we\'re only talking about a few crops.

MS. DILLEY: Michael, then Alison, then Randy and Leon.

DR. DYKES: I guess, as I\'ve said repeatedly, I just don\'t see \-- I
think to the other point, I think we\'re just getting into a list of
issues. If we look at the factors enabling coexistence, all this second
section is, is the reverse of what the factors enabling. Here\'s some of
the factors that enable coexistence that were not talked about. The
development and availability of an identity preservation system and test
methods; ability of the seed industry to provide diverse seed that fits
a wide range of demand; an infrastructure and distribution system
capable of handing both commodities and specialty products; a
comparatively small size organic, identity preserved crop acreages
provide a lot easier accommodation of production needs in organic and IP
non-GE crop production systems; the willingness of some customers and
consumers to pay a premium for differentiated food products. Example,
organic non-GE.

All we do and we said all \-- we\'re saying all the factors enabling and
all we\'re doing in this section is coming back and rehashing and
re-facts and saying the converse of. I just don\'t see this. I mean, I
just think that we just \-- I just don\'t see it. I mean, I don\'t think
we need to say it in one way and say it in a different \-- to say the
same concept a different way on a different subject. All this is, is
conversing the first section. I would suggest that maybe perhaps we go
through and look at the facts as to what we have in the past for factors
enabling and maybe we could decide we only need to say it one way.

DR. LAYTON: And just have a statement that says anything \-- the
enabling factors would inhibit?

DR. DYKES: I don\'t think that would be as good. But, I mean, maybe we
need to say, but, I mean, people may disagree with that, but, read the
factors enabling and we\'ve listed all this.

MS. DILLEY: But, the feedback that continues to come up in terms of it
being a hard thing to change is that you have more traits and more types
of products.

DR. DYKES: Isn\'t that on the plan fully on the top of page 4?

DR. LAYTON: Let\'s hear from a couple of other folks here. Alison,
Randy, and then Leon.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: To Michael\'s point, I think the issue we\'re trying
to deal with here is markets going to zero. That seems to be the issue
that we\'re dealing with which is the converse of having workable market
thresholds depending on what market you\'re servicing. But, I think
you\'re right here on what we\'ve been talking about here. The issue
we\'re talking about is zero percent. It\'s an issue because it\'s not
possible.

DR. MELLON: It\'s very small, very low. It may not be possible
theoretically, but, that factor, I mean, it isn\'t possible to get it,
to take steps that will approach it in a meaningful way and I think that
there\'s a market.

MS. DILLEY: Randy.

MR. GIROUX: I\'m listening to the discussion and I\'m thinking about
what markets exist right now and what we already know about it and I\'m
just challenged on the discussion. I mean, the first comment made was
General Mills can do it, but, the rest of us can\'t do it. But, if you
go to the marketplace and you look at non-GMO products that are
currently on the market I would argue that 90 percent of those products
you find in the marketplace are the small guys, not the big guys.

They\'re marketing non-GMO, non-GM products. We had a quart of
raspberries I\'m talking and I picked up the package and looked at it.
It said non-GMO right on it. I didn\'t even realize it and I may not
have bought it. The second thing is that the idea that the only avenue
for people to buy non-GMO is to buy organic and that simply is not true.
There are some major companies that produce soy products in the market
today that do it and all their products are marketed in the marketplace,
large labels on the very front that say non-GMO. And there are more and
more products in the marketplace that say non-GMO.

So, this idea that the only market is organic is simply not true because
there are non-GMO markets. It is a voluntarily labeled non-GMO market
which simply there are large markets for. The problem is the cost of
those products that get on the commodity and that is simply based on the
fact that the cost of production that makes that voluntary claim costs
more and the consumers are willing to pay for that. Marketing is their
choice. They can do that in the marketplace.

It\'s simply true. And, lastly, this GE-free almost sounds like a
phantom to me because we already know several people tried to market
GM-free products five years ago and FDA clearly came out and said you
cannot label something GE-free.

DR. MELLON: How are they labeling a non-GMO?

MR. GIROUX: Non-GMO, it does imply zero. And the fact of the matter is
the reason I don\'t think we see GM-free products in the market is
because they don\'t believe \-- I don\'t believe that people ever tried
it. But, I do believe that when people did try it they found they could
not make that claim at a price at which the consumers were willing to
pay. So I don\'t believe that it can\'t be done.

In fact, I believe, I think that you could easily do it. You could make
these claims. GMO-free, you could make those claims on a product and you
could develop that system, but, it would not be at a price that a
consumer\'s willing to pay. So, what we\'re really talking about here is
GMO-free products being available at the same price as conventional
products, and not just from a market reality perspective, I just don\'t
see it happening.

So, you know, I\'m sure because we talked about all these things, as
Michael said, and we\'re chasing after something that at least the
premise of which I\'ve heard on the table are simply not correct.

MS. DILLEY: Leon and then Mardi.

MR. CORZINE: I agree with what Randy said and really back to Adrian. I
think they\'re the same set here that just out in the field are not
bashful. You can do some things and my concern here that we are
what-if-ing so much into this paper now and we have the word potential
but we\'re ending up with a bigger laundry list of what-ifs and it\'s
way out of balance here and how many times it was actually addressed.

I\'m not sure we need this at all, but, we if had the language, whatever
we came up with is fine, but, if we\'re going to try and make it a
laundry list of every wish and desire of an organic farmer or maybe a GE
farmer or a conventional farmer we\'re going to have a book here.

MS. DILLEY: We\'re not doing that.

MR. CORZINE: So that\'s the path that we\'re headed down right now.

MS. DILLEY: Well, we\'re deleting and we\'re consolidating. What we\'re
trying to get to is language that we all understand what it means and be
able to articulate it. So, if we have \-- what I don\'t \-- what I\'m a
little bit lost on is the two bullets that we were working on and we
merged them and we\'re kicking around what is the example we\'re trying
to get to here and kind of say it in a way that makes sense and that is
it a coexistence issue.

So, I mean, I don\'t think we have a long laundry list. We\'re trying to
actually eliminate bullets. I think we\'re going through that process,
albeit painful, but, we are going through that process and we need to
struggle with those two bullets then we got three bullets that are
pretty close to being deleted. So, if we can parse on with these two
bullets and see if there is something here that we can extract out and
put in then I think we have to go to the larger question that Michael
raised. Is this just the flip side and we\'re just saying the other
thing and do we want to take a lot of time to say it.

I hear different things in here but that\'s a group decision whether we
have a document and how we want to convey it. So, if we can wrestle with
these two bullets for right now and see if we\'ve got something here
because I\'m a little bit lost and then we can go through the other two
bullets then I think we\'ll see that, in fact, we have shortened our
list and we have tightened it quite a bit.

So, let\'s try that and I think we\'ve heard people don\'t have any
issue here and some people do. So, if those people who do see an issue
here can take another run at it that would be helpful. Mardi?

DR. MELLON: I just want to respond on a general point, but, we can
easily come up with a paper that says there\'s no problem from the point
of view of lots of people on this committee and even from the point of
view where you all are sitting, you don\'t see a problem, and you don\'t
have one. It\'s not something I could sign and I think it would not \--
I mean, saying that there\'s not a problem I don\'t think does the
Secretary of Agriculture any good.

The fact is there are \-- that there is a perceived problem, if you want
to say that, out there in the countryside; that those people are
vigorous, they are important, and they are going about proceeding their
agendas in other ways that, you know, may or may not be the ones that
you would like to see even used.

But, I think to \-- I mean, what I feel, from my point of view, is that
by saying there\'s no problem we are denying the existence of those
folks and we\'re basically telling them \-- you know \-- we\'re not
going to help the USDA. It doesn\'t even see you as having a problem.
You go out and do whatever you can do. You use your boycott. You use
your consumer stuff. You use whatever tools you\'ve got out there
because you\'re not going to get any help from us.

And if that\'s the message we want to send that\'s fine. But, I don\'t
think it\'s a helpful one but it\'s not because I don\'t believe that
seeing some different perspectives, I mean, you may not see a problem.
But, I will assure you that other people do and that, you know, dissing
them doesn\'t help.

MS. DILLEY: No, no, we\'re not doing that. I think what lays out the
theme of the paper, the overall kind of two sentence pieces that
coexistence is working well, it distinguishes the U.S. from other places
in the world, and our intention, and the factors potentially inhibiting
coexistence we\'re going to talk a little bit about those intentions and
if they\'re not addressed, if you don\'t foster, you don\'t pay
attention to them they could become bigger issues of coexistence.
That\'s what it says right here.

It doesn\'t say the train\'s about to go off the tracks and we\'ve got
all these problems and here\'s the laundry list. It says we\'re working,
we need to pay attention to a couple of things, and here\'s where some
of those stresses are. That\'s what it says right now. So, if we can put
language around what those stresses are and where it\'s agreeable to
people I think that\'s what we\'re trying to do here.

Michael.

DR. DYKES: Abby, I still think it might be helpful to go the factors
enabling coexistence. I do think if you read through it you will see
that most of these things are addressed there and I don\'t see any of
that in yellow. So, then you go through the factors enabling coexistence
and they will have all of them. To me, the appreciation for how we\'ve
dealt with them on one side and I still firmly believe that many of
these are just a converse of what we\'ve got on the enabling.

MS. DILLEY: I think we can do that, but, I think we really have to take
a run on finishing up on inhibiting coexistence piece only because I
think bullets numbered 13, 14, 15, if we can get a placeholder for the
two bullets we were just trying to wrestle with and we need to do more
work on that, but, the 13, 14, 15 are ones that I believe, and I just
thought I\'d see from people, okay, can I just put my idea out on the
table and I\'ll come to you, you say that 13, 14, 15, those may or may
not be the factors, but, I want to know that and just get a feel for
that.

Then we can at least take a first stab at the language following that
because there are some things that basically say also ultimately, you
know, consumer preference in the marketplace, that\'s going to dictate
some of these things and we have no idea how it\'s going to play out,
but, here\'s some things that may help address these things we just
talked about. Why don\'t we go through that enabling process and that
will at least give us that background of being able to then evaluate the
enabling section.

So, that would be my suggestion.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I would argue it\'s not logically inconsistent. In
fact, it\'s quite consistent with a well-developed paper to say these
are the things that are working and these are the little things about
those things that aren\'t working quite the way they should be or if
they\'re not addressed these things won\'t continue to work. So, I
don\'t see any illogic at all to addressing the converse in these
bullets. That\'s what this section was for, to say we can\'t all go out
and just whistle Dixie and think that this takes care of it.

So, I support going ahead and trying to \-- I think that, again, that
this one \-- we continue to pursue these but we\'re not making much
progress on it and it might be worthwhile to get a group to go off and
try to \-- to see if we can figure out what it appears we\'re talking
about.

MS. DILLEY: I think it is too broad to deal with it right out and we
have some conversation. It would probably be helpful to probably have a
group go off and try and key out the particulars on that, whether it\'s
one or two bullets. If we want to do that and set that aside for now
then I think we should go to the three that are highlighted because that
may be a fairly quick conversation and then we get to some other text.

Then at least we\'ve got a whole run through of that section and we\'ve
got different pieces of it that need to be worked on. Then I think we
can move on to another piece so if we can do that \-- Mardi, you\'re
nodding \-- so unless anybody has an objection to that we\'ll do it that
way.

All right. Just in terms of having a group to work on those two bullets,
Mardi, would you work on that with somebody else? Would somebody else
work with Mardi to do that and come back with some language? Okay.
Mardi, you\'re on your own. You have total license here.

DR. LAYTON: I\'ll help you.

MS. DILLEY: All right. So, current initiatives for encouraging
coexistence. I think there are a lot of comments from a lot of different
perspectives that says this just doesn\'t seem like it fits here. There
are programs that are encouraging some things, but, I\'m not sure that
the message that I want is USDA to go fund some of these things or get
involved because those seem to be being supported.

So, I just open it for comments about deleting this and does anybody
have serious heartburn about deleting it? Leon, do you have serious
heartburn?

MR. CORZINE: No, I think we should delete it in line with what Michael
said. The last bullet under factors favoring coexistence is exactly the
opposite of this one.

MS. DILLEY: Alison?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Could we delete all three? Does anyone object to
deleting these three bullets?

MS. DILLEY: Is there any one of those that\'s sacred to anybody?

DR. MELLON: I\'m actually willing to delete them. I think there are some
reasons to. I mean, I would like to see the USDA and these entertain the
possibility of what it might do to foster coexistence at the state and
local level along the lines that this line, you know, has been outlined
out there. There are things that can be done.

You know, the USDA kind of intervenes at the state and local level in
lots of ways by making money available. I mean, I\'m not saying that we
should recommend any of that, but, it\'s just that I think that it does
demonstrate at least some areas where there could be an affirmative \--
where affirmative steps could be taken to try to help people work things
out on the ground.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I do think that we have that language in the end
section. No, Mardi, I think to your point, I think the end section we
believe that USDA should continue to support those factors enabling. One
could say that that\'s exactly an example. I\'m not sure we want to list
specifics because that would duplicate the paper. So, that\'s how the
question is that I don\'t think anybody disagrees with it, but, in fact,
you say do want the USDA to continue to support those factors enabling
coexistence. It\'s just whether it really needs an extra bullet.

DR. MELLON: Okay. Well, we\'ll take the bullet and get rid of the bullet
and have it out there. We\'ll bite the bullet, delete the bullet.

MS. DILLEY: Anybody have any problem with deleting any of one the last
three? Okay. The last we\'ll start ultimately and then go to two-thirds
on the next page up into issues for USDA to consider. Couple of things.
There was a couple of different comments that we\'ve accumulated over
since \-- from the last meeting including the technology pieces and the
comments on some of that as well as other comments that we\'ve received
including there may be other things that happen in the future that could
affect coexistence.

So, there were judicial decisions; there were new technology pieces;
there were things that interacted with the new technology pieces. In
fact, that last paragraph I think just aggregated some of the second
paragraph, the paragraph on 7, and so it doesn\'t hang out there like a
sore thumb, but, there is a combination of things so we put that in the
last section to say after we talked about some of these things, the
factors that inhibit coexistence, by the way there are a few other
thoughts and let\'s just hear those, and that\'s what ended up making up
that last part of that section.

So we wanted to see if people had comments. Again, taking some comments
on pieces and not gotten it completely right so people have questions
about that section we\'ll talk about it a little bit. And we left them
in highlight. If we\'re going to talk about judicial decisions
specifically to this we need to have a little bit more information on
that particular \-- those cases.

Carol and then Daryl.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: It seems to me we could drop the paragraph that
starts "Ultimately" and just start with "It\'s possible in the future
there will be technical solutions" and I\'m one of those people who said
that the judicial \--

MS. DILLEY: I\'m sorry. Just so I understand. Get rid of that whole
first paragraph and start that section with it is possible?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: And I might do some rewording in that it is
possible, but, I think that\'s conveyed some good information that would
be helpful to have in the paper. And the judicial decisions, I\'m one of
those who said that what we\'re going to say a lot more there than I
think we shouldn\'t say anything at all because those four lines or
three lines is not very meaningful.

And then I\'d leave the paragraph about price differential and you could
perhaps compare that \-- couple that with a couple of words from the
ultimately paragraph about consumer preferences and that would be the
wrap up. I think the new technologies information there is a useful
contribution and I\'m not sure that \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, we did talk about it, the aspect of it, and one of the
assignments for Nick, who volunteered to do that and Guy assisted with
that is developing on technologies and addressing some of these factors,
so we had a placeholder and we talked a little bit about it but we
didn\'t have \-- and that conversation has continued in the comments on
the draft.

DR. MELLON: Well, I\'m willing to leave it in but I would say I\'ve
looked in detail into a lot of things and they are not ready for prime
time so perhaps I should not hold out, so \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, as I said, the last time it\'s hard to predict whether
or when this technology could be implemented.

DR. MELLON: I mean, anybody who really think that those are going to be
any kind of near-term solution here.

MS. DILLEY: And I think that perspective\'s in there, Mardi, but, you
should \-- well, you said that last time to your point.

DR. CARDINEAU: I think we\'re talking about future problems and future
solutions and while they may not be here today I don\'t think the
problems we\'re talking about are necessarily here today. That\'s part
of the rationale is that technology evolves and that as problems evolve
we\'ll develop technology to address the problems.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. Daryl.

MR. BUSS: I guess I would look at this just from the flip side approach
and looking at that paragraph that starts with future and I\'m looking
at the merits of retaining that and actually deleting the other
verbiage, in other words, keeping that at a high altitude and not
getting into the examples of this, that, and the other.

MS. DILLEY: You mean just say the future and that\'s how they contribute
and leave it at that?

MR. BUSS: Well, we can do that. I\'d probably word it and say "Future
events may impact coexistence" because all of these are not fostering.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. BUSS: But, if you said that I\'d be disregarding that paragraph and
deleting going right down to number 4.

MS. DILLEY: It certainly makes it shorter. You want a two sentence
paragraph and delete the rest?

DR. LAYTON: Future events also may impact coexistence.

MR. BUSS: We don\'t need the also. Future events may impact coexistence.

MS. DILLEY: Randy.

MR. GIROUX: So, I would support Daryl\'s contention except for this idea
of deleting out these new systems to be developed by the government or
the types of industry systems that are being developed that directly
address these issues of coexistence. So, the new technology piece I
think I could let go. It\'s just the larger paragraph.

But, I\'m not sure that I don\'t want someone in this document to be
talking about how either we\'ve seen government intervention or straight
private sector intervention to address some of these issues that
adventitious presence, approvals, and I think we want \-- there\'s a lot
of good work going on there. These programs are going to be very helpful
to address some of these issues.

So, I want to at least keep it in the document so the Secretary knows
that there is some things going on at the government level and things
going on at the private sector level that are trying to redress
themselves. The new technology piece, I\'m not sure when that comes to
market, when and if that comes to market, but, I do know that the
management systems are under development. They are being implemented and
we need to \-- we should highlight it.

MS. DILLEY: Daryl.

MR. BUSS: I would argue that Randy\'s comment that that should be
integrated is by adding the sentence or doing that and keep the same.

DR. LAYTON: So, delete the "It is possible" paragraph.

MR. BUSS: Right. And I would remove "New technologies coupled with..."
because they\'re independent of each other.

DR. LAYTON: And just start at "New management systems..."?

MR. GIROUX: Sure.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m confused. So now we have future events may impact and
then we have new technologies. No. New management systems. We take out
new technologies \--

MR. GIROUX: Right.

MS. DILLEY: \-- and just start it with new management systems also
should address.

MS. BRYSON: With all in one paragraph?

MS. DILLEY: We could do that.

DR. CARDINEAU: We could do that.

MS. DILLEY: So you\'re suggesting only those two paragraphs?

MR. GIROUX: Right. Two paragraphs.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, as one paragraph.

MR. BUSS: As one.

DR. CARDINEAU: I think that\'s all it needs.

MR. GIROUX: Actually, I think there\'s one more thing and that\'s the
part on consumers which Carol made and I think that\'s a critical part,
but, I think this statement should be even stronger.

MS. DILLEY: Ultimately?

MR. GIROUX: Yes. In fact, if you could mark that farmers and making the
consumers want. If that\'s true ultimately that changes consumer
preferences in the marketplace will dictate changes in some production
practices requirement.

MS. DILLEY: Is it ultimately must be noted or changing consumer
preferences will \--

MR. GIROUX: Change.

DR. MELLON: Yeah, but, couldn\'t we say that also there\'s a way.

MR. GIROUX: So we\'ve got three paragraphs \-- two paragraphs. Two
paragraphs.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Ultimately changing consumer preferences will \--

MS. DILLEY: Will dictate changes in some production \-- that\'s the last
sentence.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Fine by me.

(Discussion off the record)

MR. JAFFE: I sort of agree with Carol if you\'re going to talk about
judicial decisions you\'ve got to talk about law more than you put here.
But, judicial decisions are more like laws and regulations so I don\'t
know why you would distinguish these from saying if regulations change
those would affect coexistence also. If the laws change those would
affect coexistence. The judicial decisions are just law. They don\'t
have any more impact than a regulation made by USDA.

MS. DILLEY: Do you want it taken out?

MR. JAFFE: I don\'t mind having those two words, judicial decision,
there, but, my comeback to Duane would be what are judicial decisions?
They are a statement of the law. Regulations are a statement of the law.
It\'s a statement by Congress to say that judicial decisions could have
an impact on coexistence. Regulations could have an impact on
coexistence. Laws could have \-- you know, Congress could have an impact
on coexistence. So, I think just saying that is not specific.

If you want to talk about the alfalfa case saying there\'s a particular
case out there that may have some impact that\'s one thing, but, then
you have to go into a fair amount of detail about what that case is why
you do it. That seems sort of beyond the scope of this report. It\'s
getting very technical very quickly.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi?

DR. MELLON: I agree with Greg. The law is the law, but, I think what
makes judicial decision somewhat different from other kinds of law is
that is that they can be provoked by individual parties who bring a
lawsuit and I\'m not sure that I agree that we shouldn\'t really talk
about suits in any detail. I would have liked at least to have judicial
decision, potential lawsuits much in somewhere in here because from the
10,000 foot level that is one of the tools people have available to them
who don\'t feel the USDA is doing anything to serve their interests.

They go to court and they will continue to go to court, you know,
probably certainly better than we can put in this document, but, in
general, I think it\'s not unimportant for the Secretary to be at least
briefly reminded that folks who feel they have grievances and problems
have a number of ways of Congress going about them and that the ability
to go to the courts can prove to be quite successful. I mean,
surprisingly successful from the plaintiff\'s point of view and will
continue to be an option that they have.

MS. DILLEY: So, Mardi, I\'m just trying to follow through.

DR. MELLON: I like this the way it is. Just mention that, include the
role of technology, the judicial decisions. Maybe you want to change it
to lawsuits.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Changes in law and I think changes in law and
regulation. I think Mardi\'s point is well made. If you want to just say
\-- I don\'t know, Mardi. You know, changes in law and regulations seem
to me to come to judicial \--

DR. LAYTON: I disagree and I\'m going to give you an example that\'s not
biotech. The Clean Water Act setup was in law for more than 30 years. A
Supreme Court decision took away the authority the U.S. Government to
work on or to regulate isolated wetlands in one fell swoop and it had
been done for 35 years and it was a judicial decision of the Supreme
Court that said isolated wetlands are no longer part of the waters of
the U.S. and a judicial decision interprets the law and it can change
the interpretation of the law no more than [Roe v. Wade]{.underline}
did. So a judicial decision changes a lot and regulation.

MS. DILLEY: We\'ve got to have language to that \-- It seems that it
covers a lot, but, at least we\'ve got some language, right?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Changes in law through Congressional or judicial
decision.

DR. LAYTON: But you don\'t change law with a judicial decision. You can
change the interpretation of the law.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: You can change the effect.

DR. LAYTON: Change the effect, but, not the law.

MR. JAFFE: It\'s now the law. It\'s what the Supreme Court said.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: The law of the land.

MR. JAFFE: That is the law of the land. No matter what district you\'re
in, it\'s the law.

DR. LAYTON: If you all interpret it that that\'s fine, but, I just
wanted to \--

MS. DILLEY: Changes in regulation and in law.

MR. JAFFE: Just do separate commas.

MS. DILLEY: I can do separate commas.

MR. JAFFE: Changes in regulations, comma, judicial decisions.

DR. LAYTON: Say it again, Greg.

MR. JAFFE: I just commented that judicial decisions.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

DR. MELLON: I would put lawsuits.

MR. JAFFE: No, not there, after regulations. Lawsuits and judicial
decisions, whatever.

DR. LAYTON: Lawsuits impact.

DR. MELLON: The lawsuits impact agencies even in some ways regardless of
how they turn out.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: Changes in laws and regulations, comma, lawsuits and judicial
decisions, comma.

MS. DILLEY: Changes in laws and regulations, comma, lawsuits and
judicial decisions \--

MR. JAFFE: Comma.

MS. DILLEY: \-- comma, consumer preferences, etc., etc.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I think take consumer preferences out of the setup
because it becomes the ultimate in the primal setting.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So now we have two paragraphs and a sentence. The
"Future events may impact new management systems" also and then also "It
must be noted that changes in consumer preferences in the marketplace
could dictate changes in some production practices and requirements for
coexistence."

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Will dictate.

MS. DILLEY: Will dictate. That\'s what Randy said.

DR. MELLON: Could we take out it must be noted.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: Must be noted, we\'re taking out the must be noted. We\'re
noting it. Okay. Are we good? Michael?

DR. DYKES: I just don\'t like the question. If you read that last
paragraph, we based it on everything in production and agriculture. We
included the kitchen sink on the section on coexistence. I still don\'t
\-- I just think we aren\'t \-- this is a coexistence paper but it\'s
everything imaginable plus agriculture, demand, prices, transportation,
laws, regulations, lawsuits, consumer preferences, I mean, we\'ve got
everything in here as affecting coexistence.

So we should try to write a paper about production agriculture in the
United States.

MS. DILLEY: That may impact coexistence.

DR. DYKES: I beg the question. I still think we just got \-- I think
we\'ve gotten off this topic for the paper.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I think, again, \--

DR. DYKES: It\'s true statement perhaps. I just think we\'re way off
topic of the paper.

MS. DILLEY: Well, again, I think there\'s a kind of subtext is
coexistence is working, it\'s a feature of the U.S. ag production. The
distinguishing feature is U.S. Here\'s how we\'re evaluating that. And
there are some tensions in the systems and if you don\'t pay attention
to fostering what\'s working and potential stresses they become greater
or less because there are lots of things that could increase or
decreases those stresses so it is kind of a blabbing thing but
ultimately the suggestion is it\'s working pretty well and you need to
pay attention to some of these things and we\'ll talk about them here in
the paper in order to keep it all working well.

I think that\'s what you\'re saying and you\'re right. It could have
gone all over the map. It\'s kind of like our chief scenarios in the
first paper. It can go this way or it could go that way. We don\'t know.
We should try some of these regs that we talked about.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s a lot of external factors that could play into how
well, what may be only an analysis of things that specifically refer to
coexistence, but, all these things will impinge on it. I think that\'s
what folks are saying.

MS. DILLEY: Randy?

MR. GIROUX: I\'m just saying that we\'re changing consumer preferences
because definitely as I listen around this room these consumer
preferences already exist.

MS. DILLEY: Isn\'t that consumer preferences?

MR. GIROUX: Yeah, consumer preferences.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. LAYTON: They will change. They are dynamic. If not, we wouldn\'t
have new products.

MS. DILLEY: So is it will dictate or does dictate?

MR. GIROUX: Does dictate.

MS. DILLEY: Steve, you had your card up.

MR. PUEPPKE: Yeah, it is. The next paragraph down that starts with
history\'s been. Could you could scroll down to the next paragraph. This
may be a small point but \--

MS. DILLEY: You mean upper paragraph.

MR. PUEPPKE: Up.

MS. DILLEY: Run through the future events may impact. Yes?

MR. PUEPPKE: Yeah. I mean, don\'t we want to say something more than
these are the things we talked about. I mean, isn\'t it these should be
considered or somebody should pay attention to them?

MS. DILLEY: Well, initially we said several possibilities discussed by
the AC21 included.

MR. PUEPPKE: That sounds just extremely well versed as to things we
talked about. Isn\'t the intent that these are worthy of thinking about
in the future being considered or monitored or something to that effect.

MS. DILLEY: Carol.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: As Alison just pointed out was that what issues
could USDA consider.

MR. PUEPPKE: I mean, aren\'t they issues that should be considered in
the future or should be considered in the future.

DR. LAYTON: But, then do they move down to the last portion of the
paper?

MR. PUEPPKE: No. I\'m only arguing that I\'m not sure what value it
appears from things that we talked about and we\'re writing them down,
here\'s some other things we talked about and we didn\'t write them
down.

DR. DYKES: I think there\'s several issues that should be included. I
think that\'s that what you\'re getting at?

MR. PUEPPKE: Yeah, there were several such possibilities that should be
considered or \--

DR. LAYTON: Discussed by AC21 take out?

MR. PUEPPKE: Yeah. If you put a little more active verb because I think
they\'re in there because it signals the Secretary these warrant
attention.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Are active enough?

MR. BUSS: The words need to be consistent if you\'re calling it future
events you\'d probably say several such events are \--

DR. LAYTON: Is a possibility.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Could you then change the relative technology to new
developments in technology or something else or event?

DR. LAYTON: Such events are technology development? Changes in
technology?

DR. MELLON: New developments in technology.

MS. DILLEY: Anything else on that section? Leon?

MR. CORZINE: Abby, I think the grammar\'s correct, but, if you look at
what people \-- or the Secretary\'s going to read that future events may
impact coexistence is that in a negative sense or a positive sense? So,
what I\'m wondering, should we designate and put future events may
enhance/impair coexistence so that both are there and inhibit is a verb.

DR. MELLON: It actually is a verb.

MR. CORZINE: Right.

DR. LAYTON: And you may want to just say or instead of the slash.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Alison.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: In that next paragraph I just wonder if you want to
have the word determination. We tried to kind of keep that out of \--
it\'s got some emotion attached to it so is that good enough or cross
pollination or something.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just call it AP.

MS. DILLEY: Could address some AP. Could we at least define that? All
right. Anything else? What\'s the status of the public comments?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: There is no one signed up at present for public comment.
When we get to the official time when it\'s scheduled we will take a
break. We\'ll ask the question then officially at 3:30.

DR. LAYTON: Let\'s keep going.

MS. DILLEY: All right. So, the section for issues for USDA to consider
and that\'s where we refer to that a couple of times in terms of the way
that USDA should continue to support the factors that are identified in
the system; take note of the potential factors in the coexistence; and
consider actions that it might take to further foster coexistence among
different agricultural production systems.

Then we talked about this a couple of times. You would go further into
defining what those actions you want to consider are and there have been
some comments about the state and local programs or with the piece here
on funding for competitive programs available that production systems
attract.

I think the question is similar to either topic, it\'s either all or
nothing. You either start listing things and we are comprehensive, or we
don\'t. So, I think the committee needs to make a conclusion about that
recognizing that if we go down that path it\'s going to take more than
finishing up today to do that.

DR. DYKES: I would suggest we leave the last one there for the reasons
you stated. Otherwise, we\'re going to need to flesh that out some.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I just check on that. I know, Alison, you had strong
feelings about \--

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I had issues with issues.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: You had issues about it. I mean, we can go with a
conclusion instead of \--

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: No. That would make me happy because we really
haven\'t identified any issues, just the summary would be what it is.
Somebody come up a conclusion to whatever people are comfortable with.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: A conclusion. It\'s not a summary. I think it\'s a
conclusion.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Excellent. So can we wrestle with the definition of
conventional so we can \-- you know what, I think we do need to do the
factors. What I\'m trying to parse out is maybe we can map out the
conventional definition between now and 2:15 when we have a break
scheduled, take a break, making sure we go through public comment, and
then come back to factors enabling.

All right, Greg. Give us a definition.

MR. JAFFE: The first sentence in the footnote. "Conventional crops in
this paper refer to crops produced from non-GE crop varieties that are
not produced in order to meet the requirements of the Organic Standards
Act." Period. The way we\'ve defined it in this paper are two things.
One, the rest of the world doesn\'t consider conventional to mean IP
non-GE. Everybody in the world thinks conventional is \-- before 1995 it
was everything. Before 1990, it was all varieties grown everywhere.
Conventionally it\'s a kind of breeding type thing.

So, it\'s a matter of sort of saying only IP non-GE doesn\'t make any
sense to me. Also, I think a big part of it is because that\'s the way
other people are going to read it, even if we define it differently. So,
I think part of this \--

MS. DILLEY: So the answer is go with that sentence?

MR. JAFFE: That\'s what conventional means and in the paper when we
talked about it many times we say IP non-GE conventional meaning a
sub-set of conventional is IP non-GE.

DR. LAYTON: But we\'re saying it is non-GE.

MR. JAFFE: Conventional is non-GE. But, preserved non-GE.

MS. DILLEY: So if we stick with it, the brevity is up front here.

MR. JAFFE: And if you\'re worried about it having a different definition
from what \-- then say commodity conventional includes GE because it can
be mixed if you define what commodity means. Commodity means a mixture
of whatever varieties, you know, are done at the lowest cost. I don\'t
know how you define commodities, but, \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we\'re stopping at the end of Organic Standards Act
period and then the question becomes do we need to define anything else
and you started talking about commodities.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: You were saying non-GE crop varieties. Is that the end
of conventional?

MR. JAFFE: No. That are not produced in order to meet the requirements
of the Organic Standards Act because organic is something separate.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: So that first sentence is okay?

MR. JAFFE: That first sentence is okay. Okay. The question really is, do
we have four types of production systems or three? Where do we stop with
this issue? I think everybody agrees there\'s conventional. The problem
is we\'re mixing both varieties or breeding methods with production
methods and with marketed products and we\'re sort of mixing those three
things together. Everybody agrees on organic. I mean, they come from
conventional varieties but it\'s the production method that makes them
organic.

Everybody agrees that GE is a specific kind of seed that\'s used in a
specific or combined technique, recombinant DNA, putting in DNA as a
genetically engineered variety. Conventional has been all the other
varieties, mutagenesis, chemicals, normal breeding. It\'s divided into a
kind of variety but it\'s also a different production method.

The question is, is there some \-- do we have a production method here
which is non-GE IP. Is that a production method that we have concurrent
cultivation or is that \-- do we just specify in specific cases where we
want it specified like we do throughout the paper?

MS. DILLEY: If you talk about IP specifically that means we need to be
explicit about that.

MR. JAFFE: Right.

DR. LAYTON: This kind of bothers me in that the definition of organic
does not say non-GE. So, really, we had sort of two production systems,
the conventional production system and the organic production system and
that literally you could take either kind of seed through either
production system. You could take non-GE seed through organic or
conventional and you could take \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: You can\'t take GE through. You said GE \-- non-GE on
the one hand and the other one I thought was GE.

DR. LAYTON: Right. Well, there\'s seed going through the system, be it
GE or non-GE, but, they go through two production systems. There\'s only
two production systems. There\'s conventional. I\'m not sure I\'m would
no till, but, that\'s sort of conventional. See, that\'s what really
bothers me.

MR. GIROUX: You\'re talking about production systems. You shouldn\'t
talk about production system. You should talk about what is it, either
GE plant, is it organic seed, grain, what type of production system.
There\'s hundreds of production systems.

DR. LAYTON: Production systems.

MS. DILLEY: But, we\'re talking about coexistence among three
agricultural production systems.

DR. LAYTON: We\'re talking about crops.

DR. DYKES: You\'re talking about concurrent cultivation.

MR. GIROUX: Concurrent cultivation.

DR. LAYTON: Concurrent cultivation of three types of crops.

MR. GIROUX: GM, Organic, conventional grain. Not the production system.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So we\'re talking about crops and they\'re
conventional, organic, and GE.

MR. GIROUX: Correct.

DR. LAYTON: And conventional for us then has nothing to do \--
conventional crops produced from non-GE crop variety.

MR. GIROUX: Non-GMO supply chains will use conventional crop but not all
conventional grain is non-GMO produced.

DR. CARDINEAU: Most of it isn\'t.

MR. GIROUX: Half of it isn\'t.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: So the issue is in the first sentence of methodology
then. You have coexistence of conventional, GE, and organic production
systems. Is that what you\'re saying is then the problem?

MS. DILLEY: Also, we defined it above and then we\'re kind of redundant
with \-- then we call it something different by using that as a term and
along with the rest of that sentence. Alison and then Leon.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I guess I\'m with Pat in my understanding of
production systems so there\'s organic and conventional and a sub-set of
conventional use GE seed and some don\'t and that\'s their choices. And,
so, to me, to say a production system is GE and that organic is a crop,
it\'s not organic crop. It\'s a crop that\'s been produced using organic
production methods.

MR. GIROUX: Conventional supply chain is nothing. It\'s generic corn
which is a mixture where you don\'t care. Corn is corn. And then you\'ve
got a subset that is non-GMO, but, that\'s not a conventional supply
chain, it\'s conventional corn. It\'s GM corn, there\'s conventional
corn, and there\'s organic corn, but, moving them through the supply
chain you wouldn\'t say it\'s a conventional supply chain.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: So if you\'ve got a mixture of GE and non-GE corn you
don\'t call that conventional corn. It would be \--

MR. GIROUX: No, you\'d have a commodity.

MS. DILLEY: Is it coexistence of systems producing conventional, GE, and
organic products? I don\'t know.

MR. BUSS: We don\'t need that verbiage. Can\'t we just say the AC21 has
discussed a number of topics relevant to coexistence and report over to
the Secretary of Agriculture.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. But, I don\'t think that\'s the only place there\'s a
problem.

MR. CORZINE: Does it help because if you take a look at where we are
today? I would argue that conventional really is GE\-- I mean, if you
look at percentage of the crops and if you look at what is done
conventionally. What I wanted to that point is would it be better to not
say conventional, to say identity preserved, non-GE. Is that better?

DR. LAYTON: After the word conventional. I think that was the issue for
me is the word conventional. Well, I think it\'s the organic.

MR. CORZINE: Because everything that we talked about really addresses
what would be identity preserved, non-GE, and the GE, and the organic,
right?

DR. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. CORZINE: We don\'t really talk about the commodity because commodity
doesn\'t care.

DR. LAYTON: Doesn\'t care.

MR. GIROUX: But aren\'t you talking about commodity when you\'re talking
about organic?

MR. CORZINE: Yeah. See, that\'s another reason to not necessarily say
commodity or conventional. I mean, it kind of gets to \--

MS. DILLEY: So you would say conventional or non-GE?

MR. CORZINE: Yeah, that works.

MR. JAFFE: But, this paper is not just about four grains, it\'s about
more than that because we talked about other crops and things like that.
We know there are things in the future when there will be other crops,
so, I mean, what is all that we were growing today. Is it conventional?
It\'s not IP, non-GE. I mean, nobody\'s doing IP systems. It\'s not GE
and it\'s not organic. People in the rest of the world would say you\'re
growing conventional wheat. That\'s what you\'re growing. People call
all the varieties out there that aren\'t GE, conventional. That\'s what
they call them.

MR. BAZER: Maybe Guy could clarify this, but, to me, you say, the
comments being made, you\'re talking about cRNA, you use the term GE or
GMO, because you\'re probably using genomic DNA to modify these
properties. You\'re not really using recombinant DNA. So genetically
engineered in terms of recombinant DNA is not a correct statement here.
It is very well defined.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So conventional, organic, and genetically engineered
crops. We\'re not sure how big of a problem we\'ve got here. Go with
conventional being defined only in that first sentence and the longer
definition. Then we just need to make sure that we\'re not using
coexistence and then contradicting it in other places. I think Daryl
said you could do that for that seed but then we need to look other
places to make sure that we fix it in other spots so it makes sense.

DR. LAYTON: So conventional is non-GE. It doesn\'t matter whether you
identity preserved or not. That\'s what you\'re telling us.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. LAYTON: And organic can be anything as long as you grow it the right
way.

MR. GIROUX: Except for GE.

DR. LAYTON: You just said that it could be GE \--

MR. GIROUX: Right.

DR. LAYTON: \-- if it was adventitious presence.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: Let\'s get our hands around the definition issue. I don\'t
think we have that in the paper. Steve, go ahead.

MR. PUEPPKE: I\'m just curious about relating the definition of
genetically engineered include processes that are recombinant. I mean,
is that the intent? Separate from crops which are recombinant?

DR. LAYTON: We\'d have to go back to our original document to find out
we defined genetic engineering.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: What we do for genetically engineered is we just go back
to what specifically what we did in our previous paper and say for the
purposes of this paper this is what it is.

MR. PUEPPKE: This definition is very confusing relative to proper
process.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And that\'s to answer the question of some of the \--
whether you want GMO versus GE. There\'s some governmental issues around
using one versus the other and there are, you know, some of this has to
do with just the way this has come out historically in government
regulations so it\'s probably all the points may be well taken but it\'s
\-- we\'re likely to just go down the very complicated dead end by
trying to make the definition specific.

MS. DILLEY: So the proposal, Michael, is to go back and look at how we
defined genetically engineered in other reports.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: See if they work. I mean, I think that was to your point.
Guy, do you have another comment or definition?

DR. CARDINEAU: Well, I\'ll go with Michael here, but, I mean, I read
that definition and I know exactly what it says to me as somebody who
does this on a daily basis. I mean, I would say recombinant DNA is when
I put in DNA and it integrates and either I can officially \-- that\'s
mutagenesis. We just said mutagenesis doesn\'t fall under genetically
engineered.

MR. BAZER: When I expressed the recombinant protein I used recombinant
DNA because I\'ve got to have the promoter to produce the protein.

DR. CARDINEAU: I think what we need to do is go with the definition
we\'ve used historically in order to not create confusion.

MS. DILLEY: You had a comment, Daryl.

MR. BUSS: Well, not exactly that. I was just going to suggest that (B)
is now heading the definition of coexistence. I think it would make more
sense just to say definitions and use that also as the location to
define customer and consumer.

MS. DILLEY: Definitions. Okay. I think your suggestion of making this
the definition section makes sense. I think we\'re making progress on
it. We\'re pinning it down. We know we need to add customers and
consumers and we did that in previous reports. And we need to look at
that genetically engineered document and how you got that.

Alison, did you have another definition?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: No. I wanted to clarify whether we ended up with
those three things being crops or production systems because we used
production systems almost predominantly through this document and we
define it here as crops.

MS. DILLEY: You\'re right and I think we\'re with crops and we need to
figure out that plays out in the document and correct it.

MR. PUEPPKE: And the genetic engineering definition will refer not for
production systems but for basic food processing. Products derived from
them are produced through recombinant process. You could take a
conventional barley and turn it into beer with recombinant yeast and it
fits by this definition.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: We will find the old definition that was agreed upon in
the previous papers and fit it in there. I guess \--

DR. DYKES: It still won\'t answer your question.

MR. PUEPPKE: Yeah, and I\'m only asking. I\'m not arguing for one or the
other. I\'m asking for an answer.

MS. DILLEY: To sort of clarify.

MR. PUEPPKE: Yes.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I think we could rearrange these words, just switching a
couple of pieces around and make the problem go away. I think what we
need to do right now is take a very short break so that we can be back
in time for the scheduled comments so please if we can come back to this
point after we have public commentors leave. So please be back promptly
for starting to go at 3:30.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken)

DR. LAYTON: It\'s 3:35 so we\'re five minutes late. We\'re asking are
there any public commentors who have not signed in at this time? Hearing
none and seeing none and having none signed up on the form outside I
will then delay and ask again for public comment later in the afternoon
during the public comment time to make sure that we are not overlooking
anyone and with that I will \-- oh, Carol, are you having a public
comment?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: No, but, I have a question.

DR. LAYTON: Yes, ma\'am.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I notice that the agenda for tomorrow does not
include a public comment time. I think the discussion tomorrow might
generate public comment where today our detailed parts in the language
and comments would put the audio to sleep. There might be comments that
people might want to make tomorrow and I know it wasn\'t announced but
it is possible to reserve time this time since it\'s not being used for
tomorrow?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I guess my one thing about that is that in the Federal
Register we announced that the comment period is going to be today.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Well, that would just be another complaint that I
would make about the agenda, Michael, but, I understand that having not
announced it, it\'s an issue, but, we\'re announcing \-- you know \-- we
might announce it now and the word might get out.

DR. LAYTON: I guess I would say, Carol, that if there are people who
want to public comment I can say this, Michael, on your behalf, I would
say that every meeting that we\'ve had of the 17 that we\'ve had the
public comment for the entire meeting has always been on the first
afternoon from 3:30 to 5:00 and it\'s announced in the Federal Register
and in practice we\'ve often had public commentors who are not speaking
about the subject of the day which was the case with our last public
commentor and I would hope that tomorrow\'s session is opening up and
hearing things and that if there are public commentors on the issues
that we talked about today or tomorrow that they could come to our next
meeting and be on the record during the public commentor time at 3:30 to
5:00.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And I think what, maybe what else we can do is we can
consult with, there is a meeting for the next meeting. We should provide
the agenda for that. Is that okay?

DR. LAYTON: Because I think it has to be fair-handed. I certainly would
like to get everybody here if they want to comment on something either
way.

MS. DILLEY: Let me just say, we also started the committee having public
comments the second day but we found that committee members had to catch
planes and were leaving a little bit early so we moved it up to the
first day in order for everybody to be in attendance during the public
comment period. So, the only thing I would say in terms of rejecting
that is that we be mindful of that dilemma as well for the next go
around.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. With that, Mardi and I have talked over the issues
that were in the paper.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Before we go into the issues I do want to just ask one
question on the last subject that we were on regarding the definition.
Was it the sense of people in here that we wanted to also talk about
what \-- the crops for which GE varieties exist, what we mean by
commodity crops? Is that something we want to talk about or at least
explain what that is or not when we rewrite these definitions?

MR. GIROUX: Ask that question one more time, Michael.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. We have a definition now I think for conventional.
We\'re going to be talking about crop production systems from my sense
of what people have said. Are we going to at least describe what people
mean when they say commodities, corn, for example?

MR. CORZINE: So commodity, IDP, organic, in terms of production systems?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. I mean, commodity is not necessarily a production
system. It\'s the amalgamation of \-- I mean, do you want that in there
or not?

DR. CARDINEAU: Do we use the word commodity anywhere in the report?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I\'m sure we do.

DR. CARDINEAU: I\'m not sure we do.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. The other option is \--

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: The conventional crop in this paper refers to crops produced
from non-GE crop varieties that are \--

MR. JAFFE: Right. Blue corn is a non-GE crop variety, but, it\'s
identity preserved.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I have the sense that we can fix this. But, I just
wanted to know where people were.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. And we did find definitions from "Global Traceability
and Labeling" on customer and retail consumer but not plain consumer and
you can use that. So those are found. Mardi is going to give us a lead
on what we have decided.

DR. MELLON: Okay. Well let me tell you because I\'m not entirely sure.
Here\'s what I\'ve proposed. Let us go back to the two bullets. In the
first paragraph of Section 3 on page 4 in the factors potentially
inhibiting coexistence the first one mentions adventitious presence and
it contains as the last sentence the idea that adventitious presence
could have an impact on customer choices and contract and could ideally
suggest the word "reduced choices" for those consumers seeking GE-free
products.

So, we\'ve mentioned early on that there is an impact of adventitious
presence on the ability of people to kind of meet the needs of those
GE-free products. So, to that extent it is redundant to take it out
later. And in view of that, I would propose that we delete what begins
"Changing expectations on the part of some consumers" that really deals
with this kind of demand, this market out there and it also talks about
the mandatory and legal but I\'m not sure that we can\'t live with that
because having those change expectations paragraph I would suggest that
we tweak and perhaps refine the second paragraph which is on the uneasy
role of organic products as *de facto* GE-free alternative, non-GE
alternative.

I think that that is still an important feature of the issue and I would
\-- I think one idea that is simply not captured anywhere else is
captured in the last sentence of that paragraph and it\'s this notion
that because of the domestic production systems may not be able to
deliver zero levels of GE material, I don\'t know if you want to say in
a few specific crops, but, domestic consumers who seek to completely
avoid GE materials might source those products from outside the U.S.

Now, I would say because future and I would alter that sentence but I
wouldn\'t say current. I think currently there isn\'t a big problem, but
in the future it could be and I think it\'s something we ought to draw
to the attention of the Secretary and if in the future we continue to,
and I\'ll kind of exaggerate it and say allow adventitious presence
that\'s going to keep on going, more and more genes into more and more
of the products, we may get to the point where we can\'t produce some
crops and products that are very low level, whether they\'re GE-free or
not. They\'re not going to be very low level.

But, somebody else will step up to meet that need. Elsewhere in the
world they will grow those products to meet that consumer demand. I
think that\'s an issue for the Secretary of Agriculture. It certainly is
for the producers who will lose that market to these overseas producers
and I think it\'s just as important for U.S. agriculture as a whole
where you\'re perhaps in a position of kind of, you know, just throwing
away that market, when, if we were to take some steps, I would argue,
not that difficult steps perhaps, we might be able to ensure at least
some part of that market would stay in the U.S.

So, I\'d like to keep that second paragraph containing the uneasy role,
modify the last sentence to refer to future production systems, and
delete the one above it.

MS. DILLEY: So I understand. We\'ve got that full paragraph fairly
intact except for the long sentence that now reads "Because future
domestic production systems may not be able to deliver, quote, unquote,
zero levels", and specific crops is the add-on you had?

DR. MELLON: Well, I mean, it\'s got a colon there now. I\'m not sure
exactly that, but, because we may not be able to supply this level.
It\'s not that they won\'t be able to supply any of these crops. But, I
mean, there will be a few crops. You know, we\'re not going to be able
to offer to domestic consumers.

MS. DILLEY: So, is it domestic consumers or customers? The main thing is
customer. I think it\'s more to customer than to the consumer.

DR. MELLON: They\'re probably both. Well, I just think, you know, what
we\'re going to have is the market on the shelf. If something says
GE-free they\'re more inclined to do that. I mean, and the honest thing
would be to say, you know, low, ultra low GE. That will no longer come
from the U.S if people want that. It\'s what they\'re doing right now.
They go to South America and they grow products, you know, with
equipment and systems that are simply so far removed from GE systems
that they can have quite demanding standards.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi, read your last sentence on what you were marking up.
Future domestic production system?

DR. MELLON: You want to take "current" and make it "Future domestic
production systems may not be able to deliver "zero". You put it in
parens to agree we don\'t believe it\'s possible. You know, period, I
would say. Because \-- let\'s put it this way, "Because future domestic
production systems may not be able to deliver zero levels of materials,
comma, and take out the colon, in a few specific crops, domestic
consumers who seek to completely avoid GE materials might source
products from outside the U.S."

If future programs are not able, if you want to take the "may" and turn
it into an "if." You know, change may to if in the future are not able
to deliver zero product, comma, in a few specific crops, domestic
consumers in the U.S.

MS. DILLEY: So I just want to make sure I understood what you were
proposing. Stephanie.

MS. WHELAN: I had a problem with this basically when we were coming from
Hawaii. There\'s an underlying assumption here is that we should be able
to fill the desires of everybody in the marketplace and, quite frankly,
Hawaii doesn\'t get many of the things that the rest of the Mainland
people get because it\'s not shipped over there and we cannot
economically produce it over there and, you know, so I just think the
underlying assumption that we should be satisfying everybody\'s desires
rather than basic needs is a fallacy. I mean, it\'s not reality in an
economically based economy. And Hawaii is an example of that.

I live over there. I came from California. You couldn\'t get \-- I
wouldn\'t eat any fruit in the grocery stores because they\'re so bad
unless it was papaya or mango that was grown there because I grew up
with apricots and watermelons and all of that stuff when I grew up in
California and no matter what the customer would like, we weren\'t able
to get because economically it wasn\'t feasible.

DR. MELLON: But, here the situation is going to be customers just like
you who want something and they\'re going to say I can\'t get it in the
U.S., I couldn\'t get it in Hawaii so I\'m going to go out and get it
from Argentina.

MS. WHELAN: It\'s already happening because it\'s happening because
economically because in Hawaii because of the higher costs we cannot
economically produce our own food so we get everything from the Mainland
and we get stuff that\'s much older so, you know, I see Hawaii as a
small microcosm of what the U.S. where it\'s no longer economically
feasible to do something we go find it where it is economically
feasible. That\'s a fact of life.

DR. MELLON: But, it matters to the USDA because it is a market that we
perhaps could have supplied but we cannot now. It may happen. You\'re
absolutely right. We may not be able \-- we may get to a point where
we\'ve got GE everywhere and we can\'t supply a low-GE product at all
and we may have to live with it as a country, but, that has implications
for the USDA that it should at least look into the future and see. Maybe
it doesn\'t want to do anything about it, but, it certainly is an issue
and I think that\'s all we\'re saying here.

MS. DILLEY: Carol, then Russ, then Randy, and Michael.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I have mine down for right now. Thank you.

MS. DILLEY: Russ.

MR. KREMER: Yes. I guess I see it more than a way to satisfy our
domestic customers, a potential missed opportunity to sell a market, a
huge market, and I guess I don\'t understand why it\'s just the
domestic. I guess I think of it as consumers in general when I\'m
looking at it in the farm production system as an opportunity to market
something that a missed opportunity causes maybe consumers wanting
materials that are \--

MS. DILLEY: So was there a particular language change you want, Russ?

DR. MELLON: You want to take away domestic?

MR. KREMER: Yeah, I do.

DR. MELLON: The second domestic.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Randy and then Michael.

MR. GIROUX: I guess the uneasy role, I don\'t know exactly what that
means so could we maybe find a better term?

DR. DYKES: That\'s the role.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s also not a sentence and I know if Nancy were here
right now she\'d complain about the fact that it\'s not a sentence.

MR. GIROUX: And I guess my other point, which is in the second sentence
that I\'m not clear on is it says that it will continue to incompletely
satisfy the needs of some customers. Why? Because it contains GM. I
mean, is that why it doesn\'t satisfy customers? Shouldn\'t we \-- we
scrape the issue and never say why it doesn\'t satisfy those customers
and if it\'s because customers think it\'s GM-free and it\'s not then
maybe we should state that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It\'s actually in the end of the sentence but the
grammar is so convoluted that it\'s the end part that \--

MR. GIROUX: And we shouldn\'t be so evasive to say that the current
production systems may not be able to deliver zero. They cannot deliver
zero. They can\'t deliver zero at any attribute out there including GM.

DR. MELLON: Well, I would rather use something like ultra low or very
low. They can deliver \--

MR. GIROUX: Non-GMO.

DR. MELLON: Pardon?

MR. GIROUX: That\'s not free anymore. That\'s non-GMO and non-GMO, as
part of building our last document, non-GMO is undefined because there
are different consumers who have different expectations what low is and
by leaving that undefined it allows the market people to find those
markets and service those markets. So, what\'s ultra low mean? To me,
that\'s 5 percent. Maybe .001 \--

DR. MELLON: I mean, I agree with you that you can\'t really define it
but you can certainly say that people can pursue it and they can keep
finding people that supply them with something that\'s a lot lower than
5 percent.

MR. GIROUX: Right. So I totally agree with you that there may be an
unmet market desire out there for ultra low non-GMO organic material.
Non-organic materials. I think for non-organic materials there is a
non-GMO market, voluntary labeling, non-GMO market that exists. I\'m not
sure I could agree that there\'s an unmet market need because clearly
there are people in the market who are trying to meet that need and may
not be completely doing that for economic reasons or maybe there isn\'t
a market there for them, but, for this ultra \-- this GE-free \-- it
took all my issues away.

Because it leaves an unattainable standard.

DR. MELLON: See, I agree with you and that\'s why every time they put in
non-GE I\'m quite in agreement with putting it in quotes because that
signal that means something else, you know, that we don\'t think it
means that. If you want to use ultra low that would be fine. I think I
would argue about the ability of folks to do less, but, there is an
unmet need for this kind of a product.

I mean, anybody who wants to go out and try to, you know, fight the
non-GMO label battle is \-- you know \-- they\'ve got to be brave
because the Department of Agriculture just said you cannot say "no
artificial BGH." They\'re taking away the right to people who want to
say they\'re non-GMO. So, it\'s not an easy thing for a manufacturer to
do and I don\'t think it\'s being done in a broad scale, in a broad
enough scale to satisfy the consumer.

But, I\'m more than willing to use ultra low GE, to put an asterisk
under GE-free and say that, you know, defined as not a single molecule
of a GE element. It is, you know, virtually impossible. But, I think
where there\'s a sticking point is if you look at people who want as
little GE as they can get and you say this is impossible to get non-GE,
go home. I mean, is there no response to them at all?

MR. GIROUX: The response is that you can have anything you want. In
fact, I mean, as a supplier of non-GMO grains, but, that is a discussion
that goes on between consumers and branded food companies and there are
enough people phoning up that branded food company saying, you know
what, I want ultra low non-GMO they may enter into that market. If it
really is a true market that market will grow and ultimately you will
see the development. So, there\'s no \-- I won\'t go there.

So, what I\'m saying is that the market will decide how big that market
is.

DR. MELLON: Right, but, isn\'t it true that if there is such a market
\-- it could disappear entirely \-- if there is such a market, the U.S.
is going to be in a very difficult position to satisfy any part of it if
it continues to allow adventitious presence in all of its products.

MS. DILLEY: Michael, do you have a comment?

DR. LAYTON: That was the key word.

DR. MELLON: What?

DR. LAYTON: I guess what Mardi said. I\'ve been trying to what is the
inhibiting factor and the inhibiting factor is there is no GE-free I
think is what she said.

DR. MELLON: There\'s GE-free a lot of things right now. GE-free broccoli
and GE-free a whole lot of things.

DR. LAYTON: Right, but, where there\'s GE in the crop system \--

MR. GIROUX: It\'s illegal. FDA\'s told them they can\'t call it GE-free.

DR. MELLON: Unless they put on there \-- right. But, that\'s what
inhibits \-- that\'s why it\'s difficult for folks to \--

MR. GIROUX: You can\'t say it\'s GE-free broccoli because it implies
that there is a GE one.

DR. LAYTON: I agree with that. So it\'s a labeling issue that is
inhibiting coexistence?

MR. GIROUX: I\'m not quite sure. I understand, Mardi, if I understand
correctly, Mardi, and I\'m sure I\'ve got it wrong, but, people who buy
organic have an unmet need because when they think they\'re buying
organic they\'re actually buying something with a low level of GMO on
it.

DR. LAYTON: Right.

MR. GIROUX: So there is a market need for non-GMO, ultra low, GMO-free.

DR. MELLON: I will put it differently. People who want non-GMO go with
organic as the only thing out there. It is not that they go \-- some of
them go to organic for a lot of other reasons, but, for those folks who
seek out organic because it\'s the only thing for the most part in the
market they\'re guaranteed any kind of control on GMO they are \-- you
know \-- it is hard for either the organic people or anybody else to
meet their needs in a world where there\'s a lot of adventitious
presence.

MR. GIROUX: That\'s simply not true, Mardi, because there are non-GMO
soy milk on the market because there\'s sufficient demand from soy milk
drinkers that they want to buy non-GMO soy milk and that market exists
and go into any grocery store in Washington, D.C. or in the country and
find major producers who are non-GMO because there is a market there,
there is a market for them to pay a premium for non-GMO soy milk, and
that market exists. That\'s the only alternative.

DR. MELLON: But, I would say that at least it\'s arguable that there is
not \-- there are not enough product people, that that market is not
sufficiently well developed, and that even if it is developed, the
people who are in it are going to have an increasingly difficult time
supplying that market presuming they\'re getting their soy from here,
right? Isn\'t it going to become harder and harder for them to do that?

MS. DILLEY: You\'re taking extremely low GE and linking it to only
organic, Mardi.

DR. MELLON: There is two separate consumer demands. One is for non-GMO
which is apart from all the other stuff and for the most part the only
place they can go for food across the board has been looked at for GMO
is organic. So, it\'s *de facto* from them. It is not what they want.
They want something better than organic.

MS. DILLEY: Michael and then Carol, sorry, and then Leon. Michael was
first.

DR. DYKES: I\'ll cede my time.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Carol.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: And I want to address a later sentence so I\'ll hold
mine if we\'re still going to \-- I want to get to the "Future domestic
production" sentence so I\'ll wait if that\'s appropriate.

MS. DILLEY: We are there at future domestic production. We\'re working
both of those sentences. We\'re not there yet, but, you wanted to speak
specially to the second sentence?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yeah. Just because we\'ve got consumers down there
and consumers I think don\'t source. Alison and I have been talking
about that down here. I would suggest that if there are no domestic
sources for zero levels, for food with GMO levels of GE material, some
retailers can be expected to use foreign sources to meet consumer
demand.

MS. DILLEY: Leon.

MR. CORZINE: I wonder if that is what we\'re driving at is if we really
wanted a bullet and what you just said. We need the first sentence.

MS. DILLEY: The *de facto* on?

MR. CORZINE: Yes. It seems to kind of, you know what I mean, is it
important to make that statement or it seems like it simplifies a lot of
things to drop that part out.

MS. DILLEY: So if you\'re describing GMO you don\'t need it?

MR. CORZINE: Yes, that\'s the issue really is \--

MS. DILLEY: The future domestic production systems are not able to
deliver quote, unquote, zero, or are we going to very low or ultra low
or whatever?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I like the zero in quotes.

MS. DILLEY: You said it did make sense for you to put zero in quotes?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yes. Because I think we\'re saying in quotes that we
know there\'s no absolute zero.

MS. DILLEY: The technology of the future domestic production systems are
not able to deliver zero levels, quote, unquote, zero levels of GE
material in a few specific crops. Some retailers are expected to use
foreign sources to meet consumer demand.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I want to know, Mardi, why is it necessary to have
in a few specific crops there?

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t think it was her particular language.

DR. MELLON: Yes. I\'m just saying that it may not \-- I think the only
reason we put it in was to indicate that, you know, it may be in some
crops you will be able to come up with an ultra low conventional
alternative but not in all, but, I think it\'s implied and I\'m more
than comfortable to take it out.

MS. DILLEY: Michael.

DR. DYKES: I think \-- I don\'t think any of this belongs to the
coexistence. I\'ve said that many times. But, if we\'re going to have it
in there then I think having the first part of that organic not being
GE-free is important to have in there as to context around why this
clause is there. So I\'m in favor of \-- I\'d be in favor of just
starting it just for the second sentence there, organic *de facto*,
because what this is about at the time that organic is not GM-free and
therefore is not totally satisfying consumer demands then they may go to
outside sources outside the U.S.

So, I\'d like to keep it in here that organic is not GE-free.

MR. BUSS: Actually, if you reworded that a little bit I think it would
read better. And it would read something like "Some consumers may
purchase organic products because of the primary desire to avoid GE
materials. However, organic production was not developed for this
purpose" and just stop there or you can continue, "and is not designed
as GE-free" period.

DR. DYKES: Just delete out from that word on.

MR. PUEPPKE: I would put the period before in part. Avoid GE materials
period. This is in part because blah, blah, blah.

MR. BUSS: We\'ve already said that in the first sentence.

DR. LAYTON: Yeah.

DR. DYKES: That\'s the whole reason why we\'ve got this point here is
that organic is not GE-free. Therefore, we\'ve got a coexistence issue
that we need a source outside the U.S. for. That\'s what the whole
sentence is for to my understanding.

DR. LAYTON: I think you\'re re-saying that.

MR. BUSS: If it read for this purpose and is not GE free.

DR. MELLON: I think it\'s important to say there are people who want
whatever that last phrase was. They want \-- they\'re just interested in
the GE-free part.

MS. DILLEY: And then you say to meet consumer demand. Then you\'ve got
it phrased differently so it is to meet consumer demand, right?

MR. GIROUX: I only have one word I would like to change and that is
retailers because I think the entire supply chain will go with that,
right?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: It\'s not the whole supply chain because it\'s not
farmers.

DR. DYKES: It\'s customers.

MR. GIROUX: How about some retailers and their suppliers?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Retailers and their suppliers.

MR. GIROUX: Retailers and their suppliers.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Food processors and retailers. Some food processors
and retailers. The only reason I\'m suggesting in this case not to use
customers is that it\'s really confusing with it right up against
consumers and in this case since we\'re not talking about farmers we
just said the farmers, in this instance, aren\'t able to do it. If the
farmers aren\'t able to do it, the processors and retailers, some, can
be expected to go to foreign sources.

MR. GIROUX: Right. And that would be both for logistic reasons and
perhaps cost efficient reasons.

DR. DYKES: Cost reasons I think are the primary reason. I agree.

DR. LAYTON: Is everybody comfortable?

MS. DILLEY: Alison?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I guess a lot of organic producers really love the
fact that GE-averse people are buying their products, but, organic is
not GE-free to some people, suggests that you can use GE in organic. Can
we put "not guaranteed GE free"?

DR. CARDINEAU: Is not necessarily. What we\'re talking about is
processed food products with corn and soybeans in it. We\'re not talking
about broccoli and tomatoes and, you know, there\'s lots of organic
products that are GE-free.

DR. LAYTON: In the future we may be talking about that.

DR. MELLON: I like guaranteed.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Guaranteed to be.

DR. MELLON: Because it\'s a little more \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: But, could we just add a little bit to that, "were
not developed for this purpose and are not guaranteed?"

MR. GIROUX: Specific organic products and that addresses the issue of
\-- I mean, it\'s only an issue for corn products, soy products.

DR. CARDINEAU: But none of the organic products were developed for that
purpose.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So take that out.

DR. LAYTON: Organic. Just say organic because the organic \-- what was
it?

DR. CARDINEAU: Organic products and production.

DR. LAYTON: Organic referring to those crops or products produced in
compliance with the Organic Standards Act. Later you could just say
organic.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MR. KREMER: I made a mistake and I just want to set the record straight.
Carol, there are farmers and I\'ve got livestock farmers whose source
for milo for their feed sources of non-GE crops so farmers do speak out
and, I mean, \-- what\'s the generic word?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Well, the thing is that put in the this context, I
think, Russ, the start of the sentence says if future domestic
production systems aren\'t able to deliver the zero levels some food
processors and retailers will go elsewhere. It\'s only in the advance
that we can\'t do it to meet the demand that people will go abroad. So,
I don\'t think it includes what you\'re doing. It\'s saying that if
you\'re not able to deliver adequate amount at zero levels of GE
material it might take care of your issue there.

MS. DILLEY: You got a retailer to purchase grains that are GE-free
though so doesn\'t that cover you?

MR. KREMER: I don\'t consider another farmer a retailer. I\'m okay with
it. You know, I can live with it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any other comments on this bullet? Carol?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I actually think Russ\'s point \-- if you go back up
to our new paragraph, from that I think, that because we\'re assuming
that we will where it says if future domestic production systems are not
able is there any reason not to put sufficient zero or sufficient
amounts of zero levels?

DR. LAYTON: Satisfy demand?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Satisfy, yeah.

DR. LAYTON: Levels to satisfy demand of zero levels.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Then you\'ve got demands in there twice.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: You come up with the different words.

MS. DILLEY: Daryl, go ahead.

DR. LAYTON: Adequately.

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Yeah, thank you.

MR. BUSS: Just put adequately before deliver.

MS. DILLEY: Any more discussion on this bullet?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: Go back to the lack of modernization. Can you just
say our antiquated transportation and storage infrastructure hinders?
The lack of modernization is a proper phrase.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. We\'ve got two sections that we haven\'t gone through.
I would suggest that we go to factors that enable coexistence and see if
we have any comments on that section. And then we\'ll come back and do
the overview or anything else if you have comments on that section. But,
we\'re getting close. We\'ll have you out of here at five at the latest.
Let\'s take a look at your factors enabling coexistence where it says on
page 3 and goes onto page 4 and see if there are any comments on that
section on those bullets.

Factors enabling coexistence, page 3 and page 4, section two. Any
comments? If no editing then we don\'t need to belabor the points.

MR. BUSS: I just have one minor edit. Under number 3, now it reads,
potential factors inhibiting coexistence. I think it would be better to
say factors potentially inhibiting.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right. We\'ve got a handle on how we need to
change the definitions section so we need to just fill in the blanks on
methodology. Then we come to the overview section. And the sections that
are highlighted in yellow is trying to strike a balance of saying that
in the United States currently to support coexistence among, and I know
we need to change agricultural productions systems now that we\'ve
talked about the definition, but, then it\'s also stating that we have
different views but we also think that you also agree that coexistence
is important and worthwhile goal.

We took sentences from different places based on comments that people
had to try and bring those closer together because they were separated
out more in the document and then it seemed to get big from a lot more
comments so we put them together to see if that helps break that down
and that\'s why we had to highlight them in yellow and we also had them
in two different spots.

So, that\'s why they\'re listed as option 1 and option 2.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Option 2 then would be the sentences above that are not
in yellow before the yellow part of option 2 and option 1 would be the
sentences in yellow before the sentence that "We concur."

DR. LAYTON: The sentences in yellow are the same. They\'re identical.
It\'s whether it goes ahead of the paragraph. What\'s different? That\'s
what I couldn\'t figure out.

MR. BUSS: Today, currently today in option 2 right by \--

DR. CARDINEAU: Today currently is redundant.

MR. JAFFE: So one is having the whole sentence and one is having the
whole paragraph?

MS. DILLEY: After that we ended up in placement. But, if those are
different that\'s different than what\'s in the previous document which
had those separated out. So, two sentences.

MR. JAFFE: I\'m not sure what those two options are. One is having a
full paragraph with the yellow paragraph? The yellow \-- the two yellows
are identical except for the words today.

MS. DILLEY: Part of it is actually doing the moving of the sentence
because if you look at the previous 11/25 compile those five sentences
were not together. It said "It appears to the Committee that the United
States currently supports coexistence" with concurrent use of different
production systems," blah, blah, blah and then the statements about
"Members have different views... is working but agree that fostering
coexistence is our goal." It used to be at the very end of the section.

So what we tried to do is say basically pull that together as a complete
thought which is it appears to the committee that the United States not
only supports coexistence because we just said the four bullets above it
was what we\'re using to say that it\'s for coexistence and there are
things that are working and we know that different members have
different views about how well or not well it\'s working or will work in
the future, but, we all agree that lastly coexistence is a good thing.

And then we go on to explain, you know, what are the factors enabling.
You know, there are things in the system, you know, second section,
we\'re going to talk a little bit about those and give you a little bit
of defense of that, and then we conclude that USDA needs to pay
attention to things, monitor those things that are creating tensions,
that they become less or more and that\'s kind of the theme.

I\'m sorry it\'s confusing. It\'s not really option 1 and option 2, but,
the basic sentences are highlighted for you that we rearranged where
those statements are made in order to try and address some of the
comments we were getting and to either put it in front of the paragraph.
So, one is the question did it make sense to put it there and does it
help alleviate some of the concerns and then, two, is where you actually
put them.

DR. DYKES: For me, I\'d just leave it as what you have for option 1 and
I\'d delete option 2 and I think the rest of it reads well.

DR. LAYTON: Ag systems or ag production?

MS. DILLEY: Well, the ag production system has developed as it supports
coexistence among production systems that produce organic or \-- I may
not be saying it right, but, it\'s \--

DR. DYKES: That\'s the first question is where we want that to be and
I\'d put it first.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. You\'re nodding Daryl.

MR. BUSS: I would put it first as well and I think it fits there
especially well if that sentence after the yellow now starts concurrent.
If it started it must be recognized that the concurrent use of different
production systems and I think it flows together much better.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Greg.

MR. JAFFE: I don\'t think you have a choice. If you don\'t put it there
after that it automatically says concurrent uses in the production
system doesn\'t make any sense. You have to have some sentence at the
beginning after those four bullets at the conclusion of those four
bullets before you can go into the rest of the paragraph. It doesn\'t
make any sense to put it the other way.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: If I could just check. The first thing that was done was
that the two sentences that are in yellow didn\'t used to be together
and they\'re now together and that\'s a good thing because everyone said
that\'s a good thing. Okay.

MR. PUEPPKE: I concur with the placement of the yellow stuff, but, the
second sentence in the white you don\'t grow production systems side by
side. The big intent there is the proximity. Proximity of different
production systems sometimes causes \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. BUSS: On that same sentence get rid of the "for". Now it says for
between. And then where it now ends with a period instead insert a comma
and the word although. Lower case for farmers.

MS. DILLEY: So basically you want to just make that one sentence.

DR. LAYTON: Could we make that between neighboring farms although
farmers often cooperate. I think that\'s better. And is it between or
among?

MS. DILLEY: Okay. We still have enough of the document that we need to
get other sections, so, Alison.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Yeah. I guess are we changing production systems to
crops? Is the wording going to be that the United States currently
supports coexistence among the concurrent cultivation of different crops
and so that would be if you took it from the definition that part would
read and it \--

MS. DILLEY: That\'s the end of the sentence.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: Coexistence among concurrent production of different crops,
right?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: No, I just wondered how people felt about that. It
sounds a little weird. Cultivation of different crops since it\'s not
being production system anymore.

DR. MELLON: I mean, that just doesn\'t seem to quite cut it with
concurrent cultivation of different crops, that sounds like corn and
soy.

MS. DILLEY: Can you say concurrent cultivation of organic, blah, blah,
crops?

DR. MELLON: I guess you\'d just have to repeat it.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s different because we\'re really talking about the \--
we can maybe even mix up the order.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: If you can get rid of concurrent cultivation in there.

DR. DYKES: I don\'t think you have it here. It\'s not a big deal. I
thought one of the general themes in all these presentations on
coexistence was that historically we had coexistence issues. We had
blue, yellow, and white corn, but there are times historically farmers
have cooperated to reduce those problems. I don\'t think there\'s any
need about the historical. The only reason coexistence works with what
we\'re talking about now is historically we\'ve dealt with coexistence
in different manifestations, so, maybe historically farmers cooperate.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Foremost in the last bullet.

DR. DYKES: There is a bullet.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: The last bullet. Specifically farmer cooperation but
it\'s there.

DR. DYKES: But, to me, if I take away all the presentations and all the
discussions one of the huge underpinnings of why coexistence works in
the U.S. is because of historical cooperation among and between farmers
for whatever it is.

DR. LAYTON: Coexistence works by any other traits before and we\'ve been
able to take our existing coexistence system and make it work for GE is
what we\'re trying to say.

DR. DYKES: Historically farmers have cooperated.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Cooperation.

MR. BUSS: I have some concern about that modification because it implies
that that\'s been true in the past and that isn\'t today. I\'m concerned
about using historically.

DR. DYKES: I\'m not wedded to it.

DR. LAYTON: So we\'re going to take it out.

DR. DYKES: Take it out.

DR. CARDINEAU: You could say have been continued.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Does that work? Okay.

MR. CORZINE: Abby, could we go to the first sentence there under option
1 where it says it appears today that the United States currently
coexists among different agricultural systems. Can we just put an "and?"
I would strike "Members have different views about how well the system
is working" because the statement we want to make is that we agree that
fostering coexistence is an important worthwhile goal. I don\'t know if
it gives any value to putting that first few words in here.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I think it gives it even more value at some levels.
It\'s technology and people have different views, but, everybody agrees
that fostering is important.

DR. MELLON: It\'s important to me to have it in there because there is
some sense of disagreement about how well the system is working and I
think that\'s real and it\'s an important statement.

MS. DILLEY: Guy and then Michael.

DR. CARDINEAU: How about if we said "Although AC21 members may have some
different views about how well coexistence is working..?"

MR. CORZINE: I agree. I thought maybe there was enough in here already.
I thought that really simplifies things a little bit in my mind. Do we
need that phrase in there? We do? Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Michael.

DR. DYKES: I\'m just not \-- the first sentence. It appears to me that
the U.S. currently suports, that doesn\'t make a lot of sense.

MS. DILLEY: Take out \--

DR. DYKES: Coexistence in the United States currently. I don\'t think
the United States supports. Production and agricultural systems in the
United States currently support.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, I see, so you want production \--

DR. DYKES: It appears to be that \--

DR. MELLON: Just say U.S. agriculture currently supports.

DR. DYKES: Okay.

MR. BUSS: Do you need currently in there?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

DR. DYKES: Production and agricultural system in the United States.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Are we getting rid of production systems.

DR. DYKES: Agricultural.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: We talked about that. So potential things in the future.
So currently it is probably setting the tone for the rest of it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Is everybody okay with that out? Anything else on that
paragraph? Can we move on to the committee explored the aspects of, is
there anything on that?

DR. MELLON: There\'s too many futures in that last sentence there. I
mean, we\'ve got both tense it needs to be. That the analysis of what is
currently working well where issues exist and what potential problems I
think it should be could occur in the future, you know, will help USDA
support diversity that, I don\'t know, in the future. You\'ve got too
many futures there.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right. Next page. Daryl?

MR. BUSS: On the paragraph at the top I\'d like to suggest the deletion
of evenly. I have no idea what that means.

DR. DYKES: Take evenly out.

MS. DILLEY: Other comments?

DR. MELLON: How about that would just end up the government will be
supportive of different agricultural \--

DR. LAYTON: Yeah, I have to say, evenly is a very important word.

MR. BUSS: What\'s that mean?

DR. LAYTON: Well, it means, for example, that ARS will not only just do
research and GE breeding but that they would then continue other types
of research.

MR. BUSS: Is that equally or is that proportionately?

DR. MELLON: Let\'s say proportionately.

MR. BUSS: Would you be happy with proportionately?

DR. MELLON: We\'d be real happy to have proportional support.

DR. LAYTON: I mean, quite frankly, when we look at it from the tree
world we don\'t think we\'re proportionately afforded, just to corn.

DR. CARDINEAU: You know, it begs the question, like evenly, proportional
what? That\'s what we\'re asking. It\'s a lot cleaner just to \--

MS. DILLEY: Will be supportive of.

DR. LAYTON: Maybe just take it out. I\'m fine. I\'ll leave it out.

MS. DILLEY: Will be supportive of the ag production systems or something
now different as well, isn\'t it?

DR. MELLON: In some cases you get a verbal yes and in other cases you
get half a yes.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: We can leave the production systems here now.

DR. MELLON: You know, it could be governmental. It probably would make
it too long, but, you know, will provide research, training, support,
you know, of different kinds.

DR. CARDINEAU: What about uniformly supportive? No?

DR. MELLON: It should be proportionately.

MS. DILLEY: Can you just say supportive?

MS. TUCKER-FOREMAN: I really think that you don\'t want to modify
supportive. You don\'t \-- what might sound good today five years from
now might get quoted back to you.

DR. DYKES: I think Carol\'s right. I think proportional could have
ramifications.

MS. DILLEY: Supportive, let\'s keep it supportive. Anything else?

DR. MELLON: Should we put in will support these different agricultural
systems that would relate or support back to the conventional and
genetically engineered products?

DR. DYKES: Now we got to go back to what we just took out of
agricultural production systems.

DR. LAYTON: We didn\'t take any.

DR. DYKES: We\'re talking about these. What\'s these?

DR. LAYTON: Conventional and genetically engineered products.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Daryl?

MR. BUSS: On the two paragraphs and the sentence that starts the second
strip, that support plays an important role in ensuring that, plays an
important role and just go to the rest of the sentence.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Is that better?

DR. CARDINEAU: I would suggest we put the conventional, GM, organic in
the same order and use GE and not genetically engineered in one place
and not in another. I think they should be in the same order.

MS. DILLEY: I think now that pretty much covers the entire document.
Alison?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I just was reading through the factors enabling
coexistence. It\'s a little bit to Michael\'s point, but, an
infrastructure and distribution system capable of handling both GE and
specialty products is in the part that\'s enabling and then you have
discussion about the factors inhibiting and I wonder if we use "failure
to expand and modernize" in the hindering things as the introduction
instead of "lack of modernization."

That way if we don\'t keep it up we\'ll have problems rather than
dealing with that now.

MS. DILLEY: Better language.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Failure to expand and lack of modernization.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Failure to expand and modernize our transportation
and blah, blah, blah.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Failure to expand and modernize.

DR. DYKES: Failure and lack of modernization as well.

MS. DILLEY: So, in terms of finalizing this document that\'s what we can
do. We can go back and make sure we\'ve incorporated all the changes and
then do some of those fixes and get the definition stuff done and sort
it through and then we need some time table, something rapid and
there\'s no reason why it couldn\'t be, to turn things around rather
quickly and get it in front of you so we can finish it up.

The paper may be there before the Secretary is.

DR. LAYTON: So, the process of clean it up and send it out for one last
review and \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And then the process is in more detail next time.
Typically tomorrow rather. What we typically have done is people have
been offered an opportunity to, at a very, very high bar, to say that is
there something in here that will prevent me from signing the paper and
we will try to resolve those things in conference calls if necessary
just between us, but, that\'s a very high bar.

DR. LAYTON: But we\'re not coming back to this tomorrow?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Just to talk about this process in more detail at the
end.

MS. DILLEY: Going back tomorrow and talk through it.

DR. CARDINEAU: Are we going to see whether or not we have a problem?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: No. We\'re just going through the details of that
process, just sort of reiterate how we\'ve done that in the past and \--

MS. DILLEY: How high the bar is.

MR. CORZINE: Will you have copies tomorrow of what we finished here
before we leave tomorrow? Can that be printed off?

MS. DILLEY: You want a reproduction of this?

(Discussion off the record)

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Let me commend everyone enormously for having gotten it
to a point where except for our \-- the last look at this document and
our making sure that we have included what you all said over the course
of this day that you\'ve made an amazing amount of progress.

MS. DILLEY: Just in terms of tomorrow\'s discussion you all have Rebecca
Bech\'s questions. If you haven\'t looked them over the questions are in
this draft summary that she offered last time. Those are still relevant
and what she\'s using for the topic of discussion tomorrow and then
there are other materials, back up materials and so if you haven\'t
picked those up to look those over that would be helpful to it going
tomorrow.

DR. LAYTON: Tomorrow we begin at 8:30 with coffee at 8:00.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And our work will start promptly at 8:30 tomorrow
morning. Coffee will be here at 8:00.

(Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to reconvene on
November 29, 2007 at 8:30 a.m.)