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

**Eleventh Plenary Meeting**

# January 5-6, 2006

**Room 107A, USDA Jamie L. Whitten Building**

**Washington, D.C.**

# Draft Meeting Summary

On January 5-6, 2006, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
convened the eleventh plenary meeting of the Advisory Committee on
Biotechnology and 21^st^ Century Agriculture (AC21). The meeting
objectives were:

-   To complete major work on a paper examining the impacts of
    agricultural biotechnology on American agriculture and USDA over the
    next five-to-ten years, including determination of specific steps
    and timeframe for completion and submission of the paper to the
    Secretary.

-   To have brief discussion to prepare for future work of the
    committee.

The AC21 includes representatives of industry, state and federal
government, nongovernmental organizations, and academia. The following
AC21 members were in attendance: Dr. Patricia Layton, Mr. Leon Corzine,
Dr. Carole Cramer, Dr. Michael Dykes, Ms. Carol Tucker Foreman, Mr.
Duane Grant, Dr. Josephine Hunt, Dr. Gregory Jaffe, Mr. Russell Kremer,
Dr. Margaret Mellon, Mr. Ronald Olson, Dr. Bradley Shurdut, Mr. Jerome
Slocum, Dr. Alison VanEenennaam, and Ms. Lisa Zannoni. Dr. Patricia
Layton chaired the meeting. Dr. Kathleen Jones of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and Dr. Elizabeth Milewski from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency attended as *ex officio* members. Dr. Bernice Slutsky,
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Agriculture, and Dr. Michael
Schechtman, the AC21 Executive Secretary and Designated Federal Official
(DFO), also participated in the two-day session. Ms. Abby Dilley and Ms.
Kathy Grant of RESOLVE, and Ms. Cynthia Sulton of HW&W, facilitated the
meeting.

A full transcript of the proceedings was prepared and will be available
on the USDA website www.usda.gov/AC21Main.xml. Below is a summary of the
proceedings.

I.  **Welcome and Opening Comments**

Dr. Michael Schechtman opened the proceedings at 8:30 a.m. by welcoming
all the members, *ex officio* representatives, including Kathleen Jones,
the new representative from the FDA, and the public in attendance, to
the eleventh meeting of the AC21. He briefly introduced Dr. Patricia
Layton, AC21 Chair, and facilitators Ms. Abby Dilley, Ms. Kathy Grant,
and Ms. Cynthia Sulton. He also introduced Dr. Bernice Slutsky, Special
Assistant to the Secretary for Biotechnology.

Dr. Schechtman explained that the Committee is currently working on
completing a paper examining several aspects of the long-term impacts of
biotechnology on agriculture and the work of USDA. He noted that the
following background documents, previously distributed to AC21 members
and subject to discussion or reference during the course of the
Committee's deliberations, were available to the public:

-   The Official AC21 Charter

-   The AC21 Bylaws and Operating Procedures

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

-   The draft meeting summary prepared from the ninth AC21 meeting, held
    on October 24-25, 2005 of this year.

# A package of six meeting summaries from open-ended work groups that met between the last plenary in October and this meeting to work on the introduction and the various that follow. 

Documents specific to this meeting include:

-   The provisional agenda for this meeting.

-   The current version of the draft text of the current paper, both
    introduction and the topics of discussion that follow, side-by-side
    with all the comments compiled from members.

-   A one-page listing of the topics for future work for the committee,
    which was discussed two meetings ago, and which has one minor change
    in it reflecting discussions at that meeting.

Dr. Schechtman reminded the Committee of the October 13, 2005 Federal
Register Notice announcing an open nomination period for membership on
the AC21. The terms of approximately half of the members on the
Committee will end in February 2006. In addition, Richard Crowder of the
American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) has left ASTA and the Committee
to become Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the office of the US Trade
Representative. In expectation of the new topics the Committee will be
discussing, USDA is considering how best to reconfigure the Committee in
order to have the right expertise when the new work begins.

Dr. Schechtman then reviewed the meeting objectives (listed above) and
noted the Secretary's desire that the work on the paper be substantially
completed by the end of this meeting. Dr. Schechtman emphasized again
the value a Federal advisory committee provides when, despite diverse
points of view, it presents a picture of where consensus exists. He
acknowledged that for some topics, the Committee will only achieve
consensus with a "some members believe A, some members believe B"
format. He encouraged the Committee to use this format only when
absolutely necessary.

Dr. Layton welcomed members of the Committee and congratulated them on
the tremendous work they had done since the last plenary. She stated her
view that the Committee was very close to completing the paper and
encouraged them to find compromises on the remaining substantive issues.

II. **Review of the October 24-25 meeting minutes and agenda outline**

Ms. Sulton referred the Committee to the draft meeting summary of the
tenth AC21 meeting held on October 24-25, 2005. She asked that any
comments on the summary be provided within one week, so that the meeting
summary could be finalized and posted on the USDA AC21 website.

Ms. Dilley reviewed the meeting agenda and explained that the main
objective for the meeting was to make progress on the paper. She noted
that the Committee would work first on the topics, beginning with those
with substantive outstanding issues, and that, if necessary, the
Committee would break into work groups to develop specific language for
these topics. After completion of the topics, the Committee would work
on the introduction. The meeting would end with a brief discussion about
the Committee's future work. Ms. Dilley reiterated Dr. Layton's view
that the Committee was very close to completion of the paper. She
encouraged members to focus their efforts on offering language that
would satisfy different perspectives.

III. **Discussion of Topics and Assessment of Statements**

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

Dr. Schechtman summarized the Committee's discussions on every paragraph
of the paper via work groups and reviews by members since the last
meeting, as reflected in the draft text with side-by-side member
comments. The actual title for the paper is still up for discussion. The
introduction was covered in considerable detail, with exception of the
third paragraph that will describe the nature of the consensus the
Committee reaches.

There are 29 topics of discussion, including a new topic #10.5 that
separates the international trade impacts of adventitious presence (AP)
from the domestic impacts of AP discussed in topic \# 10. Topics \# 14,
17, 18, 19, 23, and 25 contain the formulation "some Committee members
believe A, and some B." Topic #20, relating to benefits of current
transgenic products, was refocused so that it would not seem out of
place with the other topics presented. In the text, italics highlight
language that could be considered a recommendation, and brackets
highlight areas where additional language will be needed in order to
address different points of view.

The Committee agreed to focus their discussions on substantive issues
rather than on minor edits. They also agree to reformulate any language
that could be construed as a recommendation. The Committee then
discussed and agreed to the language for a number of topics, subject to
three caveats: 1) several members of the Committee who had not yet had a
chance to review the texts will be provided the opportunity to comment
on any major concerns; 2) one paragraph in topic #23 (in italics) will
be reviewed by the full committee, as there was not time for discussion
of it at the meeting; 3) all members would be given a chance to look at
the full text prior to a final sign-off and, as with all documents,
nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The following paragraphs
provide the outcome of those discussions:

Topic 1: *As transgenic organisms developed in other countries and
products made from them are imported into the United States, it is
important to have adequate U.S. regulatory systems in place to address
their safety.*

U.S. regulations and procedures for evaluation of an increasing number
of imported transgenic crops and their products into the U.S. must
ensure their food, feed, and environmental safety and be implemented and
enforced in a manner that maintains confidence in the U.S. food and feed
system. In addition, when imports of agricultural products are allowed
from countries developing and approving new transgenic events, a new
potential consideration is raised: the adequacy of the US regulatory
system to address adventitious (AP) presence of events that have not
completed all applicable regulatory procedures in the United States.

Topic 6: *The private sector provides most of the funding for research
and development of new genetically engineered crops, and this funding is
largely directed toward major crops that offer a substantial return on
the research investment.*

Privately funded research and private sector development of genetically
engineered crops is driven by potential profitability. Publicly funded
research aimed at development of new varieties has remained static over
the past several years. As a result, crops that do not appear to offer
substantial market returns are deprived of adequate research funding and
are not able to attract research personnel. Advances through
biotechnology could provide improvements in some specialty crops,
including forest trees, vegetables and fruits, yielding public benefits,
if adequate research funding were available.

Topic 7: *There is a need for more publicly sponsored data collection
and peer-reviewed analyses on the use and broad impacts of transgenic
organisms. Such data and analyses should be publicly available.*

USDA has a unique role in collecting primary data and providing
information to the public in a fair, understandable, and factual way.
Relevant topics include not only environmental impacts (e.g., on
pesticide use patterns, pest resistance management, soil loss, etc.,),
but also social and economic impacts (e.g., on net farm income,
distribution of benefits, economic opportunities, etc.). USDA also has
an important role in encouraging external, independent peer-reviewed
analyses of the data it gathers.

Topic 10.5: *Adventitious presence remains a significant trading issue
internationally for the food and feed supply chain.*

Adventitious presence of transgenic varieties in commodities for food or
feed use can occur with transgenic events not yet approved in export
markets, events unapproved in all markets, or events present in
conventionally sourced specialty programs. The development of
country-specific AP policies that do not encompass considerations of
international trade is unlikely to satisfactorily resolve trade issues.
Development of global, commercially viable AP policies that also ensure
food, feed and environmental safety might minimize trade disruptions in
the food and feed supply chain. The adoption of different approaches to
AP by different countries hinders the flow of food and feed products and
exposes trade to shipment rejections and substantial costs. Situations
in which no adventitious presence of a particular transgenic event is
allowed carry the risk that even after multiple tests at origin have
tested negative, a subsequent positive test at destination may place a
shipment out of compliance. This is an important and complicated issue
requiring input from a broad range of interested stakeholders.

*This topic is discussed at greater length in the above-cited report
previously submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture by the AC21.*

Topic 12: *Commercial differentiation between conventional and
transgenic agricultural products is creating opportunities and
challenges for the U.S. marketing system.* The current U.S. commodity
handling system is extremely efficient at managing commodity streams
segregated by distinct functional characteristics as long as there are
commercially-viable tolerances for off-types and AP. Segregation of
transgenic products that do not have distinct functional characteristics
may be difficult. The cost, complexity, and time involved in
differentiating between transgenic and non-transgenic products increase
when contractual specifications detail stringent segregation
requirements.

*This topic is discussed at greater length in the above-cited report
previously submitted to the Secretary of Agriculture by the AC21.*

Topic 13: *The emergence of markets that seek only non-transgenic
products has introduced a new level of commercial risk, creating
additional liability and insurance implications for some participants in
the food/feed chain.*

Certain insurance companies have exclusions in their policies for claims
arising from the presence of transgenic material. This creates
uncertainty as to which agents in the food and feed chain will bear the
liability for a transgenic-related claim. Additionally, the rules for
apportioning liability along the food/feed chain are still evolving in
certain situations: (1) when shipments tested at origin meet transgenic
specifications but then test outside transgenic specifications at
destination; and (2) when transgenic trait testing is imposed under
commercial contracts for products produced under an identity-preserved
process providing a verification "paper trail."

Topic 14: *There is a major concern that food crops genetically
engineered to produce medical or industrial products never intended for
food or feed use could inadvertently end up in a food or feed product.*

New genetically engineered organisms designed for medical and industrial
markets could offer substantial health and economic benefits. There are
a number of new products under active development in these categories,
and some of those being produced in plants have been engineered for
production using important food crops. Consumers generally do not want
such substances in their food.

One group of committee members believes that the federal government
should not approve the use of food crops for the production of medical
and industrial substances, even if the substances are deemed safe,
because no regulatory process or containment system can assure that
these products will never enter the food supply.

Other committee members believe that adequate regulatory oversight of
crops producing medical or industrial products utilizing a tiered
risk-based approach can ensure the safety and integrity of the food and
feed supply. These members believe that at small scale, complete
segregation from food products can be ensured by a combination of
physical and biological containment strategies. As scale or potential
risk increases, food safety assessment may be required in addition to
stringent containment procedures.

Topic 16: *Transparency in the regulatory system is important for
stakeholders including the consuming public, in the U.S. and around the
world, to have confidence in the safety of genetically engineered
organisms.*

Transparency enables the public to learn about, and gain access to key
information on the regulatory requirements established to ensure food,
feed, and environmental safety of new products. In a transparent system,
organizations and individuals would have the ability to gain timely
access to regulatory process and to the safety information submitted in
support of new products. In addition, the public would have information
about the basis for federal regulatory actions and the regulatory
systems and structures from which they derive, and would be able to
comment on proposed actions. Although aspects the federal regulatory

Topic 17: *While all AC21 members agree that insuring the food and feed
safety of transgenic crops is important, members differ in their views
about whether the current FDA regulatory system for transgenic crops is
adequate to ensure safety and public acceptance.*

For foods and feeds derived from transgenic crops, FDA employs a
voluntary consultative process to review safety data. While FDA does not
require pre-market approval of these products, FDA does require
pre-market approval of food additives\* regardless of method of
production. In considering this system, some AC21 members have noted
that all foods from biotechnology-derived plants that are on the market
today have successfully completed the FDA\'s pre-market consultation
process and that the same safety standards apply to all foods regardless
of their source, so that the consultation process mirrors the voluntary
process widely used by the food industry to notify FDA prior to
marketing new conventionally-produced substances that are \"generally
recognized as safe.\" The submissions reviewed by FDA scientists under
the consultation process provide the basis for the developer\'s
conclusion that the food is as safe as conventionally-produced
counterpart foods and may lawfully proceed to market. The biotechnology
and food industries understand that, although the FDA consultation
process is technically voluntary, marketing a food from a
biotechnology-derived plant without obtaining the appropriate clearance
from FDA is simply not a viable commercial option, making the FDA
process effectively mandatory. These members support making this
consultation process mandatory.

Other AC21 members believe the Federal government needs to establish a
mandatory pre-market approval process for transgenic crops eaten by
humans and animals. They note that those crops receive such treatment in
virtually ever developed country where such crops are marketed. With the
next generation of transgenic crops poised to include more
scientifically complex products as well as crops developed in other
countries and imported into the United States, a regulatory system that
provides mandatory pre-market assessment for environmental and
agricultural concerns related to those crops but not a similar food
safety assessment is not protective of the public that will consume
those crops. These members further note that, when informed that there
is no mandatory pre-market safety approval for foods regulated by FDA,
most Americans respond that they are unaware and that they would be more
inclined to accept the foods if there were such a process.

\*Definition needed

Topic 18: *There is no clear, comprehensive federal regulatory system to
assess the environmental and food safety of transgenic animals before
they are commercialized.*

The next generation of genetically engineered products will include
transgenic animals developed for food and non-food purposes. The federal
government has not clearly indicated how and under which laws and
regulations transgenic animals will be regulated. The Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP) published a package of regulatory case
studies in 2001, one of which described a prospective pathway for the
regulation of transgenic salmon using FDA's "new animal drug"
authorities under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. FDA indicated
in that case study that it "...intends to publish draft guidance on how
the new animal drug provisions of the FFDCA pertain to transgenic
animals, and on procedures by which companies developing transgenic
animals can comply with those provisions." However, the government has
issued no further guidance on the scope or implementation of such a
policy. If FDA's new animal drug regulatory process is used to regulate
transgenic animals, there are concerns about the lack of transparency
and public participation in the process. There are also concerns about
whether FDA has adequate legal authority to assess and address the full
range of environmental risks that could arise. In 2003, USDA indicated
that it was reviewing whether it might have the legal authority to
regulate certain transgenic animals. As research involving transgenic
animals moves toward commercialization, a credible, appropriate and
transparent federal regulatory framework applicable to such products as
food animals, animals genetically engineered to produce non-food
products (such as drugs or spider silk) and non-food animals other than
those sold for use in scientific research is increasingly important.

Topic 19:Number range CHAPTER *The application of modern biotechnology
to specialty crops continues to be limited by the cost of product
development and the unique characteristics of specialty crops.*

Nearly all of the genetically engineered crops currently on the market
are major commodity crops such as corn, soybean, and cotton as opposed
to "specialty crops" (a term defined by Congress to mean "fruits,
vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops \[including
floriculture\]"[^1]). The public could potentially benefit from modern
biotechnology-derived innovation of specialty crops, but the extent of
commercialization of transgenic specialty crop is currently limited by
multiple characteristics. Those characteristics include, but are not
limited to, the small market size of specialty crops, access to
intellectual property, acceptable return on investment, unique or
individual biological characteristics of specialty crops, the dynamics
of the marketplace, and other commercial challenges.

Topic 20: *Farmer demand has become a driver for the continued
development of new agricultural traits derived from modern biotechnology
because benefits have been delivered to the production segment of the
food and feed chain.*

Since the first commercial transgenic crop traits were introduced in the
United States, herbicide tolerant crops and insect protected (Bt) crops
have generated substantial production benefits including: improved soil
conservation through enhanced use of no-till or minimal tillage systems;
lowered pesticide use; improved flexibility and ease in pest management,
which has been documented in at least one instance to result in greater
net returns for farmers; and improved crop quality of Bt corn in those
cases where decreased insect damage leads to decreased fungal damage and
reduced levels of natural mycotoxins. Most farmers who have grown
transgenic crops are enthusiastic about the prospect of additional
production benefits from other new traits, and will choose to grow
varieties containing new traits. This demand will help drive the
development of new traits. Some farmers believe that there are downsides
to modern biotechnology and that similar benefits can be attained
through other methods.

Topic 22: *AC21 members have different points of view regarding how
strongly consumers feel about whether their food is genetically
engineered a not addressed by a regulatory system designed to assess and
manage health and safety risks.*

In addition to safety, some people consider other factors in their food
purchasing decisions. They also may be concerned with a product's
origins and whether the foods are "wholesome," "pure" or "natural." Some
consumers may raise moral or ethical issues about certain products. As
one example, some find the genetic engineering of animals to be
ethically problematic and may object to the presence of meat and milk
from these animals if they enter the food supply. These concerns may
continue to impact the marketplace and, if so, may influence the
development and acceptance of aspects of modern agricultural
biotechnology.

Topic 23: *AC21 members have different points of view regarding how
strongly consumers feel about having information about whether their
food is genetically engineered and whether the food should be labeled as
such.*

AC21 members agree that consumers are interested in having access to
more information about their food and that food issues are more visible
and discussed more frequently.

\[The first group thinks that American consumers have a fundamental
right to know about the origin and makeup of ingredients in their food.
Having information about whether foods are or are derived from
genetically engineered organisms included on the label would allow
consumers to choose to purchase or avoid those products. Members of this
group think that American consumers do not understand why the EU and
other governments require such information on labels and our government
does not.\] **Note:** **This paragraph needs to be reviewed by members
of this group.**

In addition, these members believe that consumers are more likely to be
uncomfortable with or opposed to some future genetically engineered
products, especially milk and meat derived from transgenic animals. 
Unlike the first generation of products that have been largely invisible
because virtually all are used as animal feed or ingredients in
processed foods, future modifications may be more controversial. For
example, even if consumers accept that genetically engineered animals
are safe, they may want to avoid them because they have moral or
religious objections to altering sentient animals. These members believe
mandatory labeling of products of modern biotechnology is the middle
ground: allowing such products to come to market but making it possible
for consumers to avoid products they oppose.

Other AC21 members believe consumer interest is not focused on whether
food products are derived through agricultural biotechnology or contain
genetically engineered ingredients. They assert that those consumers who
do have an interest in whether products are developed from genetic
engineering, have multiple means of finding this information, including
the Internet, calling the company and other avenues. Some specialty or
niche markets have been developed for those consumers who want to avoid
these products.  Consumer preference can be addressed further by market
driven voluntary labeling that provides truthful, non-misleading and
verifiable information to consumers. These members also believe that the
majority of American consumers are primarily interested in food quality,
safety and cost.  To mandate labeling of products, they believe, could
send the wrong message regarding safety of these products -- potentially
and erroneously confusing consumers.

Topic 25: *Other governments' moratoria on allowing the entry of new
transgenic crops or de facto moratoria on reaching decisions on such
crops are limiting the ability of the United States to sell those
transgenic crops and other commingled varieties.*

Market access for transgenic varieties and derived products that have
completed U.S. regulatory review is required for those goods to reach a
broad cross-section of users, including consumers. However, some
governments, such as those in the European Union, have effectively
prevented trade in some products through *de facto* moratoria on
approvals of particular transgenic varieties. Such moratoria can affect
not only the import or growing of transgenic varieties, but also affect
the import and use of the wider range of derived food and feed
ingredients**.** The existence of such moratoria is a disincentive for
the commercialization of new transgenic varieties and even for trade
with some other nations without moratoria. Some members believe that the
incorporation of political or socioeconomic criteria into some nations'
regulatory evaluation processes, as has been done in Argentina and South
Africa, are factors that could also inhibit the development and
deployment of potentially useful new crops. Some members believe that
conditioning regulatory decisions based on social and economic
considerations is a legitimate exercise of sovereign authority. Other
members see no evidence that socioeconomic considerations within the
regulatory process have prevented a transgenic crop from being
commercialized and believe there are ways that those issues can be
addressed by those governments without impacting trade from the United
States. Addressing these barriers for transgenic crops and derived
products will directly impact trade, technology advancement, and
diffusion.

Topic 26: *Public ballot or legislative initiatives at the state and/or
local level in the United States to establish moratoria on certain uses
of transgenic organisms or to regulate them will lead to regulatory
differences across the country and will impact the use of these
products.*

Regulation of genetically engineered agricultural products is a role
that has been filled primarily by the federal government. Recent
initiatives have been launched in certain states and counties seeking to
regulate locally the commercial use of transgenic plants or animals.
Some members believe that local regulation is not necessary in light of
federal regulation and think that a potential patchwork of additional
regulations will significantly increase costs throughout the system,
impede commerce, deny choice, and slow the development of new products.
Other members think that state and local involvement with the regulation
of transgenic organisms is a reaction to inadequate federal regulation
and may lead to greater safety, increased information to the public, a
more transparent and participatory regulatory process and a regulatory
system that is more responsive to the public's concern.

Topic 27: *Protection of intellectual property (IP), in key
international markets and elsewhere, is essential for the capture of
sufficient product value to justify and recoup costs of developing and
marketing transgenic organisms.*

The cost of developing and marketing new transgenic varieties is
substantial. Other costs are likely to mount as new varieties
increasingly require the assembly of IP from multiple sources and as
gaining access to such IP becomes increasingly complex. Recouping costs
for new product development depends on effective IP protection,
nationally and internationally. The ability and/or willingness of
foreign governments to protect IP associated with transgenic varieties
have been highly variable. For some markets and uses, IP protection is
likely to be ineffective or non-existent in the foreseeable future.
Nonetheless, the overall level of IP protection internationally and the
effectiveness of U.S. efforts to promote adherence to IP standards by
other nations will influence technology transfer and investments in
developing and in some cases marketing new transgenic crop and animal
varieties.

Topic 28***:** Humanitarian use licenses are important for the transfer
of transgenic technologies and transgenic plant and animal varieties to
the poorest, most food-insecure nations. Securing all the necessary
licenses for these transfers is sometimes difficult to achieve.*

Future transgenic crop and animal varieties, especially those intended
for humanitarian uses, are likely to involve an increasingly complex
mixture of intellectual property from many sources, both public and
private. The priorities and attitudes of IP holders towards contributing
to humanitarian use licenses vary.

The Committee agreed that the two members who were unable to attend this
meeting would have the opportunity to review the finished topics and
bring any serious concerns to the attention of the Committee.

Topics 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 21, and 24 were not discussed at
the plenary.

##### Review and Work towards Finalization of the Introductory Sections of the Paper

The Committee had agreed at the beginning of the session that review and
finalization of the introduction sections would be more productive
following completion of deliberations on all of the topics. Because the
topics were not all completed during this meeting, the Committee did not
discuss the introductory sections of the paper.

##### Discuss Options for Beginning Next Work Projects

The Committee did not discuss their next work projects.

##### Public Comment

William Hensley from the public relations firm, Bayer Crop Science,
addressed the Committee. In reference to Topic 14, Mr. Hensley
encouraged the Committee to frame the discussion of this topic in the
context of the very substantial benefits genetically engineered
organisms can offer. He also emphasized the importance, in Topic 10.5,
of indicating that the development of a unilateral adventitious presence
policy in the United States is an important step in moving this issue
forward at the international level.

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

In order to stay as close as possible to the goal of completing the
paper by January 2006, the AC21 discussed and agreed to the following
next steps to prepare drafts of each section of the paper:

-   Michael Schechtman will explore options for continuing completion of
    the report, including time frame limitations and extensions of
    current Committee membership and scheduling the next Committee
    meeting.

-   Based on the information above, a date for the next plenary meeting
    will be determined. The next plenary session may be extended by a
    half day or full day to ensure that there is time to finish the
    paper and begin new work.

-   The Chair will circulate a new draft reflecting changes to topic
    statements and explanatory text agreed to during the January 5-6
    plenary meeting. The draft also will provide proposed changes to the
    introduction and topics based on Committee members' comments
    provided before the meeting -- the "colorful" text language.

-   In addition to the new draft, suggestions will be made for how best
    to advance additional sections of the report and/or possible titles
    for the report, including scheduling conference calls and/or
    requesting and compiling additional comments.

##### Summary 

Dr. Layton thanked Committee members for their work during the meeting
and adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m.

[^1]: Section 3, Pub. Law 108-465. Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act
    of 2004.