UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

:

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON :

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND 21ST CENTURY :

AGRICULTURE (AC21) :

TWELFTH PLENARY MEETING :

:

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

A meeting in the above-entitled matter was held on March 27, 2006,
commencing at 8:27 a.m. in the USDA, 1800 M Street, Waugh Auditorium,
Washington, D.C. 20036.

Patricia Layton, Committee Chair

APPEARANCES

Patricia Layton, Committee Chair

Michael Schechtman, USDA

Kathy Grant

Abby Dilley

Adrian Polansky

Bernice Slutsky

Cindy Sulton

Russell Kremer

Randal Giroux

Leon Corzine

Alison Van Eenennaam

Gregory Jaffe

Carole Cramer

Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes

Steven Pueppke

Ronald Olson

Josephine Hunt

Michael Dykes

Margaret Mellon

Robert Herdt

Duane Grant

Elizabeth Milewsky

Jerome Slocum

Daryl Buss

Lisa Zannoni

Bradley Shurdut

Carol Tucker Foreman

Vincent Vilker

Greg Wandrey

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

MR. SCHECHTMAN: This is the 12th meeting of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture\'s Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century
Agriculture, or AC21. By the way, can you hear me in the back, in the
audience? Okay, good.

My name is Michael Schechtman, and I\'m the Executive Secretary and
Designated Federal Official for the AC21. To my right is the AC21
Chairman, Dr. Patricia Layton, from Clemson University. To my left are
our facilitators,

Ms. Abby Dilley and Ms. Kathy Grant, from the organization Resolve. And
Ms. Cindy Sulton, from the organization HW&W, who are our partners in
helping to make this advisory committee process work.

I would like to welcome our committee members. I believe 16 or so of
whom are here at this point, including two new members, only one of whom
I see so far, the new members being Dr. Steven Pueppke and Dr. Nicholas
Kalaitzandonakes, who I don\'t see here yet, who our chair will
introduce in a few minutes.

I\'ll also extend a welcome to our *ex officio* members, a couple of
whom are here today. And I\'d like to specifically welcome a new *ex
officio* member to this committee representing the National Association
of State Departments of Agriculture, or NASDA, and he is Adrian
Polansky, Secretary of Agriculture from the State of Kansas. Welcome to
our discussions.

MR. POLANSKY: Thank you.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: As you already know, we intend to put you to work
immediately. We have you on the agenda as a speaker tomorrow afternoon.
We will 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 the
committee and USDA this afternoon between 3:30 and 4:45. For members of
the public who request to speak during the public comment period, I will
need hard or electronic copies of your remarks. We will be preparing the
minutes of this meeting, and a computer transcript of the meeting will
also be available within a few weeks.

We hope to get the minutes and all meetings announcements up on the web.
The AC21 has a website linked to the overall USDA website. The
committee\'s new web address is [www.USDA.gov/ac21Main.xml.]{.underline}
The new committee can now also be reached through USDA\'s main portal
with just a few links, a few clicks, rather.

For any members of the press who may be in attendance, you are welcome
to speak to whomever you wish during the breaks of this meeting, and
before or after the m meeting itself. We ask that you not conduct any
interviews or request comments from our members while the AC21 is
actually in session.

Dr. Layton, our chair, and I, will be available for questions and
comments at the end of each day of the meeting. I would 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 cell phones and
beepers while in the meeting room.

Bathrooms are located just outside the restricted access door where you
were let in through, and straight across the hall. On the side of the
room there\'s a table with meeting documents, and background documents
on them. Please take only one copy.

For the information of the members of the public, let me indicate that
the AC21 has two distinct charges from the Secretary of Agriculture in
its Charter. The first is examining the long-term impact of
biotechnology on agriculture, and the work of USDA, which the AC21 has
interpreted to mean, over the next five to 10 years. And secondly,
addressing pressing biotechnology specific issues identified by the
Secretary.

The committee is currently near completion of a paper which deals with
several aspects of that first charge, and we anticipate that the
committee will begin new work relating to the second charge at this
meeting as well.

As for meeting documents, there are several background documents for
this meeting. They are, first, the official AC21 Charter. The Charter
has had a few revisions since the last meeting, which I will talk about
in a couple of minutes.

Secondly, the AC21 bylaws and operating procedures. Third, a package of
biographical sketches of all of the current AC21 members, old and new;
and fourth, the draft meeting summary prepared from the 11th AC21
meeting, which had been held on January 5th through 6th of this year.

Specific for this meeting, we have a few official documents. One is, of
course, the provisional agenda for this meeting. Then we have a series
of three documents from which we will be working. I\'m sure that there
will be additional discussion about what is in these documents, what
they do or don\'t contain, and why, and how those documents are
organized.

I\'d like with your indulgence to postpone that discussion until the
committee jumps into the actual discussion on the paper. So just for
introduction, for the moment, and to identify the three papers, this is
what they are.

The first of these is the document that was sent out for comments to
members on February 3rd of this year. It contains all of the agreed-upon
texts from the January meeting, plus the suggested texts that were
provided by Abby at the January plenary for possible resolution of
issues raised in other portions of the document. All of Abby\'s texts,
her suggested changes were, in quotes, accepted by the editing software,
but they are obviously not all necessarily accepted by the members of
the committee.

Now, this document is in the form that the committee agreed should be
provided to it for comment, following the January plenary session. Its
header is entitled, "Version Post-editing at the January Plenary with
Colorful Version Suggestions for Items Not Covered." And this document
is dated February 3rd. It is the only version of the text containing
line numbers, so that there is no confusion between which set of numbers
we\'re referring to.

The next document is the same text into which all recent member comments
on sections that were not discussed at the January plenary have been
included. It is headed, "Version Post-editing at the January Plenary,
with New Compiled Comments," and it is dated March 14th.

The rules for parsing members' comments in this document are the
following. Any texts that are in question are in brackets, which may be
either attributed to a member by initials, or be unattributed.
Unattributed brackets represent the original text, and suggested changes
to it are shown in subsequent brackets. The original is always shown
first.

If there is only bracketed text attributed to a committee member,
what\'s being proposed is an addition, an insertion. There is a little
bit of nesting of brackets, but I tried to keep that to a minimum. Small
phrases or individual words are sometimes nested in the original text
option for simplicity.

I hope that that\'s clear. It should be fairly obvious when you look at
the text. And presumably you\'ve done that already.

Please note, as I indicated to members in an Email dated March 13th, the
compilation does not include comments submitted by a number of members
on the topics of discussion that the committee agreed upon during the
January plenary session, with just a couple of exceptions that I will
come back to when we actually discuss this paper. But I\'ll come to this
in greater detail when we begin the discussion on the paper itself.

Now, on the sections that were worked on and discussed in detail in
January, the general rule was that only grammatical changes were
included. No other changes, even for clarity or addressing a slight
difference in a shade of meeting were put in, with a couple of
exceptions I\'ll come to when we start those discussions.

Finally, there\'s a document entitled, "Proposed Changes to Texts That
Were Not Discussed in January." And that document is dated March 15th.
This document is the work of our facilitators, starting with Abby. It
contains possible language incorporating many of your collective
comments on the February 3rd document on those sections.

Just as was done with a similar document before the last meeting, this
document is not intended to be the text from which the committee will
work. It\'s not a substitute for the draft sent out on February 3rd or
the subsequent documents. Instead, it\'s offered as a means of
facilitating both the editing process as well as the deliberations of
the final language for some of the challenging sections.

The plan is that the AC21 will work from the other two documents.
However, if at any particular point it becomes desirable and appropriate
to bring in the proposed language of this other document, that can be an
option for the committee. As I recall from the last meeting, committee
members thought that the earlier document prepared by Abby was, at
times, very helpful in the committee\'s work.

Additionally, there\'s a one-page listing of the next work topics for
the committee. We will start work on these topics starting after lunch
tomorrow, and it\'s been a long time since I\'ve said this to the
committee, we will have some presentations for the committee to listen
to and reflect on. I\'ll introduce these topics as they come up later on
in the meeting.

I\'d like to take a moment to thank all of the committee members for
their willingness and hard work in reviewing these documents, and in
seeking out language to bridge gaps and complete the paper that we\'ll
be starting on in this meeting, or rather that we will be starting off
work in the meeting on.

Please note on the agenda that there are breaks scheduled for this
morning and afternoon. Also on the agenda, let me note that we are
planning a period of one and a quarter hours of public comments, 3:30 to
4:45 p.m. today, as I mentioned already. 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.

Any members of the public, please be sure you have signed up at the
door, if you wish to make a comment, and you haven\'t done so already,
so that we can plan that time.

I have a couple of updates for the committee. In addition to our new
members, USDA has made a few amendments to the AC21 charter. They are
the following. Based on the advice of counsel, the roles of the *ex
officio* members are now spelled out explicitly in the charter in
paragraph 3(d). *Ex officio* members are to participate in discussions,
but not, but do not have the role of joining in any consensus.

Secondly, the committee size limit has been increased from the old 15 to
20 members to now 20 to 25 members. And that\'s in paragraph 3(b) of the
charter. This is in expectation that increasingly varied projects may
require an even broader range of expertise and interests to be on the
committee, so that it may be useful to be able to increase the size of
the AC21 accordingly.

And finally, a slight change in membership terms has been made.
Committee members were previously appointed for terms of one or two
years. Now they may be appointed for terms of up to two years, with the
terms of reapppointment, which is to say up to six consecutive years,
being unchanged.

As the committee moves onto new projects, some of which may be
relatively small or discrete projects, the Secretary\'s office wanted
some additional flexibility to bring folks in for a defined amount of
time to work on a specific project.

I should also mention that the appointment of our two new members was
made prior to the Secretary\'s signoff on the Charter amendments, so it
is therefore possible that there could be some additional members
appointed prior to the next AC21 meeting.

One other update that I will give you is to mention to you that Bernice
Slutsky, at the end of this month, will be leaving USDA to join the
American Seed Trade Association. I will be picking up many of her duties
on an interim basis, while the Secretary\'s office decides what it wants
to do with the position. She will probably be in briefly sometime before
lunch tomorrow to say her goodbyes in that particular role, and thank
the committee.

Now, from USDA\'s perspective, and I\'m sure everyone will want to join
me in thanking her for the role and the help she\'s played in getting
and keeping this committee going.

From USDA\'s perspective, we have a few objectives for this meeting.
First, obviously, the introduction of new members, which will take place
in a few moments. Second, what I would say is the main objective for
this committee, is to complete old plenary work on a paper examining the
impacts of agricultural biotechnology on agriculture in the USDA over
the next five to 10 years, through revision and review of the current
draft text.

Following that, we will have introductory presentations and preliminary
discussions on the committee's two new work topics, and the charge to
the committee. And then last, we will, the committee will devise a work
plan to address these two new topics.

And just finally, a few thoughts in starting off this meeting. The
committee is obviously in the last stretch of finishing off a report
that many of you will have been working on for nearly three years. All
of our continuing members have worked very hard to get the report to
this point, as have several past members of the committee. And I think
that the January meeting really provided indication of the ability of
this committee to come to consensus and descriptions of really difficult
fundamental topics.

It was for me an excellent demonstration of a cooperative spirit and a
dialogue where people listened carefully to one another, where people
with opposing viewpoints proposed language to help each other articulate
their views in a constructive way.

We\'ll need a bit more of that and some efficient use of the AC21\'s
time to complete this task, but I\'m really confident, based on the
evidence from the last meeting, that you will complete this task today
or tomorrow morning, and we will start off work with our newest members
tomorrow afternoon with a sense of accomplishment and confidence.

I am very grateful to Nick, Steven, and Adrian for agreeing to just
listen for the committee for the discussions for wrapping up this
committee\'s third paper, and get a better sense of how the committee
works. And the three of you will join in the fun tomorrow.

Let me just reiterate a couple of comments I made at the last plenary
session. The paper we intend to complete at this meeting will arrive
later than we had initially hoped for the Secretary, but it remains of
great interest. It will be a benefit to USDA to be able to view this
document in parallel with the previously submitted "Preparing for the
Future" report, as the collective completion of a major piece of
analysis. We are anxious to see this paper completed. Let me stress
again that the cooperative spirit needed not only to present in a
collegial way your point of view to others, but also remind you of the
need to compromise on issues large and small on everyone\'s part.

As is evident by now, the report does not describe the world as any one
of you sees it, or describe topics in the precise words every one of you
would prefer. The tradeoffs are clear. Members can\'t expect others to
compromise in some areas without offering a similar willingness
elsewhere in the paper.

The committee has brought forth some of the topics under discussion in a
single unified position, but for others there have been descriptions of
different points of view. Doing that has enabled you to work through
some difficult stuff.

I think the committee has been relatively parsimonious in its use of the
some think A, some think B format. As I\'ve said before, though, what an
advisory committee, rather than a group of individuals, can particularly
and uniquely add to USDA\'s understanding of a complex field is a
picture of where consensus can actually be found. I hope that the
remaining topics will prove mostly a bit less controversial than some of
the ones that the committee worked through last time.

One final point, let me suggest to each of you, again, probably in vain,
that you do your best to hold back from interjecting editorial
suggestions solely for the purpose of making the report read a little
better, or to fit more perfectly into your own writing style. We have
many talented writers, grammarians, and stylists here. By all means, fix
the problems, but please also keep in mind the end goal and how
necessary a particular change is before raising it.

I\'ll have a little bit more to say about the drafts in front of you in
a little while, but first let me turn to our chair, Dr. Patricia Layton,
for your words of welcome, your views on the work the committee has done
thus far, and your thoughts for this meeting, and of course, for
introducing our new members.

MS. LAYTON: Thank you. Good morning everyone. I think I\'ve spoken to
almost everybody individually, but if not, good morning, and welcome
today. We have a day and a half for this document, and I\'d like to be
done with it far before that, but I think it\'s the allotted time we
have.

And I can\'t tell you when I left our last meeting in January how
excited I was about how far we had gotten. You know, going into that
meeting, I was not optimistic. But I came away an optimist yet again,
and I feel comfortable, extremely comfortable, that we can finish this
document up in the day and a half time period.

And yes, I did push. We are starting at 8:15 tomorrow morning, so coffee
will be a quick 15 minutes, and we will be here and ready to go, and out
of here by noon, with the document ready to get final edits, or get
final typing up and out to the Secretary. So I want to make sure that we
get that done because we have to move onto our new work. And I believe
we can do that. I think that everyone around the table was just
wonderful last time, and I think we can do that.

As you can tell, we\'re back in this auditorium. I think we\'ve started
our circuit again. I think that means we have to go back to the Shriners
Hall one more time. But we likes the Shriners. Anyway, I think that\'s
been exciting. Good speakers at the Shriners. I don\'t know if there is
something déja vu about it, for those of you who weren\'t here before
with us at this meeting, this particular column has blocked us many
times in the past. We\'ve done our work.

A point of note, we have a birthday girl today. It\'s Lisa\'s birthday,
so be nice to Lisa today. And we are happy to be here for her birthday,
and hopefully it\'s a happy birthday for Lisa. It\'s Bernice\'s
birthday, too? Wow, a double. But she\'s not going to be here today.

For our new members, just to remind you, when you want to talk, you just
have to stand your card up, and the facilitator will allow you to speak.
And even the chair has to stand her card on end. And we are on the
record, so that\'s important to remember as we go along. I think I can
see everybody. Mardi, you are the only one there, right? There\'s no one
\-- there\'s nobody between Mardi and the column? Okay.

And the other question I know for some of you is, if you can\'t see this
screen, is that flip chart in your way from seeing the center chart?
Okay. So everybody can see the screen. That\'s the important thing.

Speaking on that part, new members, we\'ve found that over the last
couple of meetings, it was extremely helpful to actually put the words
we are working on, on the screen, and be able to all see what\'s
happening. So we actually do edits on screen. So that\'s why it\'s
important to see the screen somehow or another.

And for those of you who are in the audience, if you can\'t see the
screen, move, and we will be working from the computer back at that
podium back there. So to be able to see around the person working at the
podium and the screen.

Starbucks is here for those of us who need that extra shot of caffeine
one more time. It\'s in the back for us.

And I am happy to be here in the spring and happy to, hopefully we\'ll
get this paper wrapped up and to the Secretary before May, as we did a
year ago, in May, when we gave him our last one. So I\'m anxious to get
that in. Maybe it will be his April tax time present. We\'ll get it in
then.

With that, I would like to have our new members kind of introduce
themselves very briefly. If you will tell us a little bit about who you
\-- where you are from and what your interest is in working with the
committee. We\'d really appreciate it. There are too many of us old guys
to sit around and do this for you again, so hopefully we\'ll all come up
and introduce ourselves to you as the meeting goes along.

And Nick is not here yet.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes, if I can just say, Nick was coming back from China
yesterday, so it\'s conceivable that there has been a little bit of \--
well, in the best, in the best case he\'s only facing jet lag. In the
worst case, he\'s still in China. But we hope he\'s here.

MS. LAYTON: And at least before tomorrow night.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes, and certainly by tomorrow at noon, we should expect
him.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. And what I\'m going to do, though, briefly, is ask you
to tell a little bit about yourself, but then we\'ll just go around and
tell you who we are and where we are from, so you\'ll know sort of who
is speaking as you go around. And with that, let\'s start with Steve.

MR. PUEPPKE: Well, I\'m Steve Pueppke. I work at Michigan State
University. I\'ve been there for about a short three months. I have
three titles there. I\'m the assistant vice president for research and
graduate studies, the director of the Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Station, and since last week the Director of something called the Office
of Bio-based Technologies. And if any of you know what that is or what I
should do, you can catch me during the coffee break, and I will take
your notes.

I\'m basically an academic. I\'m a plant pathologist by training. I\'ve
spent a career at a number of different universities, working in the
laboratory, and then increasing doing administration.

My background is agricultural, kind of a farm kid who didn\'t want to
work for his father, and saw an education as a way out of that. So, and
I\'m very pleased to be here.

MS. LAYTON: Thank you. Adrian.

MR. POLANSKY: Adrian Polansky, Secretary of Agriculture in Kansas. I\'ve
been in that position for about a little over three years now. I grew up
on a family farm. I\'m still continuing to operate that farm.

My dad grew hybrid seed corn back in about 1939 and \'40, so we\'ve been
involved on the seed production side for quite a long time.

I\'ve a degree from Penn State University in agronomy; been active in a
number of organizations over the years. I\'m Chair of U.S. Wheat
Associates, for example, and have had an opportunity to do a lot of
market promotion around the world.

I\'ve spent some time with the State Director of the Farm Service Agency
in Kansas in the nineties. My son and daughter-in-law and grandson live
on the family farm where I grew up, so we\'re continuing, certainly, to
have connections with production agriculture and the seed industry. So
I\'m pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this process.
Thank you.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: So if we could have just everyone else just name and
affiliation, so that people know who you are?

MS. LAYTON: That\'s fine, including give your new affiliation, Ron, as
president. He stepped up a notch in his work. Ron, start with you.

MR. OLSON: I\'m Ron Olson, from Minneapolis. I run the grain division
for General Mills. So Pat\'s referring to that.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s hard to hear you up front.

MS. LAYTON: That\'s not a microphone.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Those aren\'t mikes.

MR. OLSON: Sorry. I\'m Ron Olson. I\'m from Minneapolis. I run the grain
division for General Mills. I\'ve been in agriculture my entire life
with various grain companies, and a lot on the trade side, and I guess
all the way from growing grain on the farm to putting it in a box and
selling it by the pound.

So Pat is referring to the National Grain and Feed Association. I\'ve
been quite involved with that group as well, and just took over the
leadership of that about two-three weeks ago.

MR. JAFFE: I\'m Greg Jaffe. I\'m the Director of the Biotechnology
Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest here in
Washington.

MR. SLOCUM: Jerry Slocum, and I\'m a soybean, soft grade winter wheat,
and corn farmer from North Mississippi.

MR. BUSS: Daryl Buss, School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of
Wisconsin, Madison.

MR. SHURDUT: Brad Shurdut, located here in Washington with Dow
AgroSciences.

MS. FOREMAN: Carol Tucker Foreman. I\'m Director of Food Policy at
Consumer Federation of America.

MR. HERDT: I\'m Bob Herdt. I\'m at Cornell University in Ithaca.

MR. GIROUX: Randal Giroux, Global Science Regulatory Leader for
Agricultural Biotechnology at Cargill in Minneapolis.

MS. CRAMER: Carole Cramer. I\'m the Director of the Arkansas Biosciences
Institute at ASU. I\'m a molecular biologist.

MR. DYKES: Michael Dykes, Government Affairs, from Monsanto based here
in Washington.

MR. KREMER: Russ Kremer, I\'m a diversified livestock and crop farmer
and president of the Missouri Farmers Union.

MS. ZANNONI: I\'m Lisa Zannoni. I\'m head of Global Biotech Regulatory
Affairs for Syngenta.

MS. LAYTON: I\'m Pat Layton. I\'m the Chair of the Department of
Forestry and Natural Resources at Clemson University.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Michael Schechtman, Biotechnology Coordinator, USDA.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m Abby Dilley with Resolve, and Resolve is based in D.C.,
but I\'m based in Michigan, so it\'s nice to have another Michigander
here.

MS. GRANT: I\'m Kathy Grant from Resolve in D.C.

MS. SULTON: I\'m Cindy Sulton, from HW&W, which is based in Bethesda,
Maryland.

MR. VILKER: Vince Vilker. I\'m the *ex officio* member from the
Department of Commerce and the Associate Director for the Center of
Advanced Research in Biotechnology at NIST in Gaithersburg.

MR. GRANT: Duane Grant. I\'m a wheat and potato farmer from Idaho.

MS. MELLON: Margaret Mellon. I\'m the Director of the Food and
Environment Program at Union of Concerned Scientists.

MS. HUNT: I\'m Josephine Hunt. Scientific Affairs Group in Kraft Foods.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I\'m Alison Van Eenennaam. I'm in the Animal Science
Department at UC Davis. And I\'m really happy to see Nick on the
committee, because now I don\'t have the weirdest last name. I think
it\'s worse.

MS. LAYTON: And the only other one that is missing is, other than Nick,
is Leon Corzine, and I assume he\'s somewhere in Illinois planting wheat
or corn. And he\'ll be here tomorrow. So you\'ll meet our other member
and hopefully Nick tomorrow. So we will all be present, a really
exciting time for us. Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Just two more things that I realized I didn\'t mention.
One is that the new members, just for clarification, will not be joining
in the consensus on the document we\'re first starting off with, because
they haven\'t been involved in the process. And it would be very hard to
have them join in that at the 11th hour, last minute.

And secondly, there\'s the possibility that we may run a little bit late
today, depending on how the meeting is going. We could extend the
meeting as much as a half an hour, 45 minutes if need be.

Were there any questions, particularly on the introduction, before we
jump into the next item on the agenda?

MS. LAYTON: And one more thing, if you are a member of the audience, the
public, and you want to speak at today\'s public comment period, please
be sure you sign up outside with Dianne prior to that time period, so we
know who\'s going to be speaking. And remember that we need your
comments in writing if you are going to speak.

MR. DYKES: I was going to ask a question about outside speakers. Would
you give \-- I just, I didn\'t know we were going to have outside
speakers. Just, could you give a little more background about the
thinking and how that fits into what we are doing? Are we going to have
others?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Well, we may very well have some more on these topics. I
could see that we might have some more at the next meeting.

MR. DYKES: So these are just a decision you just made?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: These were, as we have done in the past, getting
speakers for these things, these were, you know, things that were
discussed within the Secretary\'s office, and getting a few perspectives
in for the meeting.

MR. DYKES: Okay. I just didn\'t know, because I didn\'t recall us
talking about it on the committee.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, I think we mentioned that there could be some
outside speakers coming up for these meetings. Anything else? Okay.
We\'ll talk more about these topics tomorrow when we introduce them. We
are now up to the overview of agenda.

MS. SULTON: Rather than summarize the agenda, what I thought we would do
as we did in the last couple of meeting to save time, is ask if anyone
has any amendments, changes, and clarifications to the amendment
proposed in the January meeting? If they could, provide an Email to
Michael within the next week so that we can update the minutes.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And again, those minutes are by the door. And presumably
you will have all received them in advance of the meeting,
electronically.

MS. DILLEY: You said agenda. You meant summary.

MS. SULTON: I meant summary. I\'m very sorry. I didn\'t mean agenda. I
meant the summary. The summary from the January meeting.

MS. DILLEY: From the January session.

MS. SULTON: So if that\'s agreeable, then we\'ll look to get comments
back within a week, if there are any. Otherwise, we\'ll post them on the
website.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And there are copies of the summary, if you haven\'t
had a chance to look at them. You don\'t need to do that during the
course of this meeting, but you might want to pick up a copy for your
airplane reading going back to wherever your destination is. No? Fine,
and I can understand that.

MS. SULTON: That\'s the one no for today.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. A couple of things. One is, not only do we have a
column in our midst, but we also have a challenge on the acoustics. So
people, really, you\'re going to have to shout to the coffee pots in the
back there. And Josephine, I know I\'m going to be saying speak up,
speak up, speak up, so \--

MS. HUNT: I know, and I\'ve got a cold as well.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, no. We\'re going to get a lot, just for you. So we are
challenged by the acoustics in here, so please just be mindful of that,
and speak up when you are making points, and trying not to talk to the
person next to you, but the person farthest away, especially, so other
committee members can hear, as well as the audience.

Just a couple of things, briefly. Pat and Michael have already pretty
much gone over the agenda. I just wanted to make a couple of
observations. One, first of all, the document is in green, the agenda,
if you haven\'t already picked one up. It\'s really, except for the
color of the paper, I don\'t think it\'s the one that went out to you in
advance of the meeting. Just a couple of things.

We basically have two meetings in one, and we talked about that in
January, and they are both very high energy tasks that we have for both
meetings within the three days, which are to, for the first day and a
half, really wrestle to the ground. We are kind of doing forest and
trees, just meaning, we are doing, in honor of you, Pat, the chair \--

MS. LAYTON: Thank you.

MS. DILLEY: \-- on trees, we\'re wrestling the trees to the ground on
this report, or the paper, over the next day and a half, and really
trying to finish that off and be as focused as possible in getting that
accomplished. The order in which we are going to do that I\'ll talk
about in just a minute.

But that\'s really, as you know from the January meeting, it\'s very
high energy, and it takes a lot of concentration and good work, and I\'m
sure we\'ll move through that in the next day and half as efficiently
and comfortably as possible.

And then the next day and a half will be really trying to get our hands
around, or our arms around, the two new charges to the committee, which
I believe the time frame of which is around a year. So we\'re really
trying to hone in on what\'s being asked from, by the Secretary and USDA
for the committee to deliberate on, and then how do we want to establish
our work plan having listened to some background presentations on two
different topics, and then focusing on the development of the beginnings
of a work plan for wrestling these two topics.

How do we want to do that? What does that look like? And those are,
obviously, describing for us at a very big-picture level, and getting
enough of our crystallization of what we are trying to do to be able to
develop a work plan to carry us through getting the charge completed in
the time frame that we have, and organizing our work accordingly, with
probably one more meeting between now and October, is that what we
talked about?

So trying to figure out what\'s the work that needs to come out of the
discussion by the end of this meeting, and then how do we organize our
work, any work to be done between now and the next meeting, and try to
get a sense of that. And probably scheduling efforts happening
immediately after the meeting to make sure we identify dates for the
next couple of meetings, so that we\'re sure to, again, match our work
effort with the work plan that we need to take on these two new charges.

Just in terms of looking at the agenda, then, for the first day and a
half, we\'re going to do a very similar approach to what we did at the
last meeting, which is \-- first of all, we\'ve got 11 and a half
topics, if you will. We completed 18-and-a-half topics at the last
meeting. And I think the vast majority of the most challenging ones were
in those 18-and-a-half topics. So I think that\'s good news in terms of
the pace of our work, and the intensity of the discussion.

That doesn\'t mean that we\'re not going to have any rough patches. I\'m
sure we\'ll have our challenges, but I think in terms of looking at the
roster of topics that we have left to work on, I think at least we have
fewer of them, and I think there are some that, having looked at the
comments and spoken to people, between the last meeting and when the
document went out, that we\'ve got some opportunity to really move
through them, effectively and efficiently.

We\'ll take the, Michael had listed the three documents that we\'re
using. And I know that\'s hard, but it\'s also, it was impossible to put
everything in one document without being totally confusing.

So what we\'ll do is, we\'ll work off of one, the document that\'s
numbered. And that\'s basically the document as it was coming out of the
January meeting, because that was the one that we had the 18-and-a-half
ones pinned down, those topics pinned down, the half being number 23,
which had one paragraph that was italicized coming out of the meeting,
was still in play, if you will. It was still being worked on by a couple
of members, and had not been discussed. And so we will go back to that,
because there were some comments on that particular paragraph that was
italicized.

But we plan on not revisiting any other text. And I would encourage us
to keep with that plan. I think obviously nothing is over until it's
over, as somebody said. But what we really hope is that you have a very
high bar, the committee has a very high bar in revisiting any of that.
Preferably we don\'t revisit anything.

But if it\'s a matter of your signing on or not signing on to a
consensus, obviously, then we need to hear what people have to say. But
we are hopeful that we are focusing on the 11-and-a-half topics that
have not been discussed today, as well as the introduction, which we
haven\'t worked through in quite a while.

And the committee decided during the January session to tackle that
last, because a big portion of it is to summarize kind of what is, what
are we trying to set up contextually before people start reading the
topics, and what do we want to, how do we want to distill out the gist
of what

they are going to read, and the context for what they are going to read
for the topics discussion.

So we will do that, again. This time we will finish off the topics and
then get to the introduction. We plan to get through, hopefully, the
whole document review, at least review it for our first go around by the
end of today. And the reason is, is that if we have any drafting effort
necessary, that that be done, that we know that, for one thing, and that
we also, hopefully, get that accomplished so that tomorrow we\'re just,
we\'re crossing the T\'s and dotting the I\'s and finishing up the
document, and then can talk about how, the specific next steps to draft
a cover note and deliver it to the Secretary.

And then we can have our ticker tape parade. I liked Mardi\'s idea the
last time, to celebrate accomplishing completion of a document. Or we
can do a victory lap around the tidal basin with the cherry blossoms,
however you want to do that, to celebrate. And then set that aside and
move onto our next charge.

What we\'ll do is use the document that\'s lined, again, to work off of
that. You do have two other documents in front of you, one of which is a
compilation of all committee members' comments on the numbered document.
So that if when people submitted comments, after that went out for your
review, people sent in comments, and those are all compiled on the
document that Michael put together with the brackets and nested
brackets.

So that\'s, you know that that\'s a document, so that you can refer to
those comments and use that for reference. And the other document, which
is facilitators, our kind of run at, taking a run at trying to take some
of those comments, some of them the topics it wasn\'t that challenging.
You can really wade through the comments and be clear about what
comments are made. Others, I found, it was a little bit more
challenging.

So I just took a cut, we just took a cut at offering some language to
kind of wade through and distill out one way to go with it. As Michael
had said, it doesn\'t have any special status, it\'s just way to say,
okay, we received 10 comments on this, and here\'s a try at trying to
integrate all those comments into some proposed language.

Again, we won\'t work off that document unless you want to use some of
the language from that. You may want to just want to set that aside. We
will be using the lined document because it\'s just easier for
reference, and it\'s the one that we came out of the meeting in January
with, having the language agreed to on 18-and-a-half of those topics.
And so we\'re clear just where we\'re working from in terms of a
baseline.

We\'ll use the same approach, as well, that we did last time, which is
to take a minute or two for people to review the topic and refresh your
memory about what that topic says, and then you can refer to whatever
documents you need to, to kind of get organized, to make, to have the
discussion. And then we\'ll discuss the document first. We\'ll try to
pin down, and I think it was really a constructive way that we did this.
We really tried to distill out what is it exactly we are trying to say
in the topic.

Sometimes it\'s already there. We\'re there with it. Other times, I
think even the last time we took the summary, the last summary
statement, and it was a better way to express what the topic statement
was, rather than what we had previously. So we\'ll try to pin that down.
And then any discussion after that is, will be the last part that we
will develop and complete.

For each topic, I would suggest that we go in order of the topics. The
only exception to that, potentially, so we start with 2, which is the
one that we, the first one that we haven\'t worked on and go through it,
the only exception to that, I would suggest, is possibly after 9 doing
15, because there was a reference and a comment made that maybe we want
to link those somewhat, maybe not link them directly. And we\'ll give
that a try. They are very similar in nature, in terms of their comments.
We\'ll take a run at it.

If it\'s just not working, well, we can go back in order, but those are
the only way, time that I thought we might step out of order in terms of
working through the rest of the documents, in order.

And then when we complete those, we\'ll go to the introductory section
and work through those section by section in the introduction,
obviously, line by line, to the degree that people have comments. Carol,
your card went up, and Greg, so I assume you have a comment on the
protocol or procedure?

MS. FOREMAN: Our time is real limited, and we\'ve learned over the past
meetings how hard it is to get language that works, that\'s easily
understood in a group this large. I\'d like to propose that we use the
document that has the lines, but we have next to it the facilitator\'s
document and then unless we find something in the facilitator\'s
document that we don\'t like, that we try to work from it.

Because what we\'ve got in number 1 is stuff that we\'ve been over
before, and that people have offered a lot of changes to. I think
you\'ve done a good job. And I don\'t agree in every case, but a very
good job of smoothing it out. And I just think we\'ll move through this
a lot faster if we can have those in a side by side. And unless there is
a problem with what the facilitator\'s draft says, go with it.

MS. DILLEY: Greg.

MR. JAFFE: Yes, I have another sort of process question. I mean, maybe
remind me better what the February 3rd draft is. But my understanding
was, we had a draft for our January plenary. Then we had a colorful
draft. And then the February draft took the changes that are up there in
number two, for example, the proposals from the colorful draft. And
people were asked for comments on those written. And then the March 14th
draft no longer put those in bold or in color anymore. They were now
adopted, except for where people had problems with them. And then we had
people\'s new comments on it. So I don\'t understand why we\'re not
using the March 14th draft as our current draft. I don\'t think we need
to go through whether such tasks are there, currently available, those
words should be adopted anymore. Those were, sort of, they were in the
February draft that people commented on.

So it seems to me we are stepping a step backwards by using the February
3rd draft as our sort of baseline draft today, because people are going
to have comments on those. My understanding was those had been adopted
in the March 14th draft, and that\'s what I used, that one and the one
that Carol talked about were the two that I used to prepare for this
meeting. I didn\'t go back to the February 3rd draft. So I\'m confused
why we\'re going back to that draft. And I think we\'re going to add to
ourselves a whole new set of, because I want to go back to these
colorful changes. I thought we had all said in the January meeting,
let\'s cut out those colorful changes. Let\'s get comments on them. We
did that, and now they are no longer involved in this March 14th draft.

So I\'m sort of also, I love Carol\'s idea, but I think we should be
using the March 14th and the March 15th as our two working drafts today,
not the March 3rd draft at all. I think that takes us back a step.

MS. FOREMAN: I agree.

MR. DYKES: February 3rd.

MR. JAFFE: February 3rd, excuse me, the February 3rd draft. I think that
takes us back. Maybe I\'m forgetting the history.

MS. DILLEY: Unless people have a disagreement with that, we can go that
route. It\'s just hard. We\'ve got all three documents, if you want to
use them.

MS. FOREMAN: Don\'t use the large, the compilation draft, I have the
colorful draft.

MS. GRANT: Okay. Let\'s figure out what we are calling which.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay, let me just make one point. The only small
complication will be that that draft is our numbered. But we can deal
with that.

MS. DILLEY: We\'ll figure that out.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: We\'ll deal with that.

MS. LAYTON: So which one are we going to work off of?

MS. DILLEY: So that means the ones dated March 14th, and the one dated
March 15th, if you will, one of which is, one of which at the top had
version post-editing of the January plenary with new compiled comments.
And I have that as document two. And that, so that looks like this, with
a

\-- it has no blue on the first page. Okay. And it\'s dated

March 14th, 2006. Version post-editing of the January plenary with new
compiled comments.

And then the other document has March 15th at the top, in the right hand
almost corner, and it\'s titled, proposed changes to text not discussed
in January. And it has red titles and then a blue \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Whatever color.

MS. DILLEY: If you didn\'t pick up the one, sorry, in the back of the
room, right. So there is, just go by the top version.

MS. LAYTON: So we\'re going to work off of 14, the March 14th.

MS. DILLEY: March 14 and March 15.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Is everyone okay with that?

MS. DILLEY: Duane.

MR. GRANT: So I just want to be clear because my understanding of the
reason why we have February 3rd still in our packet was that there were
a number of these which we simply did not review previously. And so we
haven\'t actually signed off on the colorful text, because we haven\'t
gone through it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MR. GRANT: And so I have no objection to using the 14th draft, that\'s
got it all in it, but I don\'t think we\'ve accepted all of that either.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, no. I think that\'s absolutely right. Just because a
piece of text is not bracketed on those ones that we haven\'t discussed
yet, does not mean that it is accepted.

MR. GRANT: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: Can you make us aware when we talk about those parts which
ones they are?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: We\'ll do our best.

MR. GIROUX: Thank you. That\'s all I ask.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So yeah, right now, it\'s all 11-and-a-half topics are
in play, and the introduction are in play. It\'s just a question of
which document are we trying to start the conversation from. And we\'ll
use the 14, March 14, March 15 documents. If you want to go back to some
language in the February 3rd document, absolutely, if you think it\'s
better.

Any other procedural questions?

MS. LAYTON: So what\'s on the screen is the March 14th document, right?
Just everybody, you need to be sure, what\'s on the screen is the March
14th document.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any other, any other questions about overall, the
agenda for the next? We\'ll go into more detail on the agenda at each
break. At the end of today, we\'ll review where we are with the staff,
so the paper, or what assignments, if any, we need to tackle and what we
need to get done tomorrow to wrap up the paper and determine next steps
for its finalization and submission to the Secretary. And then we\'ll
also go over the agenda when we go to the newer charges, and reconvene
after lunch tomorrow afternoon to start the new charges, we\'ll go over
the agenda again. But I just wanted to see up front if there are any
questions or other process issues that people want to raise? All right.

If I don\'t see you, Josephine, if you put your card up, just yell at
me. I\'m around the pillar. I\'ll try and make sure that \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: You have long arms. You can reach that one out and do
this.

MS. HUNT: It has to be good for something, long arms.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Do this.

MS. DILLEY: Well, especially if you have a cold. And to my right, that
can often be a little challenging, so just wave your flag at me if you
need to. And I\'ll try and make sure that I\'m getting everybody who
wants to comment into the discussion.

All right. So are we ready to dive in then? All right. So why don\'t we
take a minute just to \-- I\'m sorry, Michael, go ahead.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. Before we actually dive in, I want to just talk a
little bit more, because I can\'t help myself, that\'s right, about what
is and isn\'t in these documents, and what happened between the two
meetings.

We\'ve talked about all these versions. I would mention that after the
January session, as we indicated, we would do, we sent the documents to
the two members who were unable to attend the last meeting, give them a
chance to look through the materials, and see if there was anything that
had been agreed upon that they could not live with, particularly,
specifically on topics most near and dear to them.

And there were, a few, what I would say were relatively minor changes
made in the agreed upon topics, which everyone has seen.

We\'ve talked about the documents that we\'ve assembled for this
meeting. And I spoke about how to interpret the bracketing. And I hope
that\'s clear for everyone.

Let me talk for a moment or two about what is not in the document. There
were comments that were received from members about other sections that
were essentially closed in January. Those comments were not included for
a number of reasons.

First, at the time of the meeting there was a general consensus that
agreed-upon texts wouldn\'t be reopened. Second, it\'s our judgment that
if any one of those texts is reopened, all of the texts could then need
to be reopened. And third, once texts are reopened, it will probably not
be possible to complete the work in the time allotted.

So what that means is that no editing changes were included, even if
they were provided by members solely for the purpose of making the
report sound better. As we\'ve seen previously in the committee, one
person\'s editorial change can be another\'s substantive change. And
rather than spending the committee\'s valuable and diminishing time to
rehash those sections, we felt very strongly that it was best to focus
on those sections of the paper not yet discussed.

We think that as a general rule it would be problematic for the
committee to go down the path of widely reopening the texts, and it
would be an unwise course. It\'s my hope and expectation that we\'ll be
able to hold generally to this approach.

There were only three, what I think were reasoned exceptions to that
general rule of no modifications to agreed upon texts. One was for typos
or grammatical errors. Another was to include comments on topic 23 for
the first group-specific paragraph, which is in italics, since the
committee never got to review that paragraph at the end of the last
plenary session.

One other change that was made was in number 14 where a conclusory
sentence at the end which sounded like it represented the views of all
three different groups, in fact represented the views of just two of the
three groups. And that was clarified.

In my March 13th email describing the changes, I have indicated that no
comments have been received on the one paragraph in number 23. That was
my goof. There were those few discussions that have been mentioned, and
there were some additional discussions back and forth with the
proponents of that paragraph to make sure we had gotten it right.

We will need to check, obviously, on the ones that were, that have
different points of view expressed from different groups at some point
before we leave here, to make sure that the proponents of those are
comfortable with what they say. We will do that in due course during
this meeting.

And again, we\'ve mentioned the third document, which people seem to
think is quite useful. I should also mention that we received only a
very few title suggestions for the paper. They are included on the two
drafts we\'ll be working from, but I think it\'s pretty safe to say that
the list of titles is by no means exclusive or exhaustive at this point,
and if new ideas show up, that will be great.

I will be looking forward to the discussions of the title almost as much
as the discussions of the details of presenting the report to the
Secretary.

We will, of course, for a couple of minor points, renumber all of the
topics once we get it, so that there is no topic 10.5, and there is one
citation where I don\'t have the full citation yet listed for the
acreages under cultivation. And those things will be fixed before the
next meeting, will be fixed after this meeting, rather.

Also, the appendix listing the members who joined in consensus plus all
the members who contributed to discussions but were no longer on the
committee, that appendix will be put on. I\'m presuming that will not be
controversial in this process.

So now let me, with that, let me just turn it over to Abby for
additional comments.

MS. DILLEY: Carol, a question?

MS. FOREMAN: No. I understand the desire not to reopen the whole
document. But we all understand that nothing is final until we all sign
off on it.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MS. FOREMAN: There are a couple of things in the issues that are closed.
For example, in one of them, where one group\'s views is one-third, as
long as the amount of space given to the views of the other two groups.
And I will want to see issues like that addressed. I have maybe three or
four.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, and I \--

MS. FOREMAN: Just one thing. If we could, at the end of the day, before
we wrap this up, address those now, it would be a lot easier than trying
to address them at a later time. So if our time permits, that might work
better.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. What I would suggest is that we don\'t start there.

MS. FOREMAN: Oh absolutely.

MS. DILLEY: That we start with the topics that have not been discussed
at all so far. And again, I would ask that people, that we get through
all of that, so we know where everybody is by the end of the day, and
that people have a high, you know, again, and I\'m sure this is part of
your thinking, Carol, as well as everybody else\'s, is that yes, nothing
is over until it\'s over, and we\'ve stated that up front. And we hope
that people will use a very high bar to figure out what they want to
open up, because it\'s just it makes it feel more ameba-like to put it
to rest.

So having said that, we\'ll make sure that we have time today to check
in with everybody in terms of where you are with the document, so that
we know what needs to be done to get this thing completed by lunchtime
tomorrow. Okay.

Any other comments, questions, et cetera? Okay. So why don\'t we just
start right in then with 2 and take a minute or so, so that you can
review, just remind yourselves of what the topic statement says, and
have a glance at what people\'s comments were that were submitted, and
do any other review.

Again, just a reminder, in terms of the topics that were discussed in
more detail, in the previous reports submitted by the committee,
particularly for those of you in the audience, or for the new members,
there is a footnote at the bottom of those that references another
report. And what we were trying to do with those was making sure that we
weren\'t being contradictory, for one thing, with that report, and that
we\'ve got a fairly brief and concise discussion of that topic when it
does reference the other report.

So I\'ll stop talking now so you can read, and we\'ll start in on the
discussion in a minute or so.

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. DILLEY: Okay, just one other comment, too. Leon is not here today,
but he did have a suggestion on this particular topic, so I will just
throw this out there in the mix of the discussion. He had suggested an
additional statement for the first line, so the topic statement,
basically, that reads, "..as technology evolves, bringing new products
to market, testing standards and methodologies need to evolve as well."

So I\'ll just toss that out in the general mix. And I have Jo, Duane,
and Randy and Greg that have cards up, so I\'ll take them in that order.
Jo.

MS. HUNT: Okay. Just looking at the header.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. HUNT: I will keep my preference to the original text, because in the
suggested text in red it talks about testing and something, just the
term, in general, grains. And then I think what\'s different is the
testing, the something, the grain product is going to be different. So
we need to capture both of those in the heading. And that\'s why I
prefer to keep with the original version that we\'ve got there in black.

MS. DILLEY: So supplying and sampling.

MS. HUNT: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s more comprehensive, the first statement, the original
statement?

MS. HUNT: Yes. Yes, and my point being, for example, the sampling
methods are going to apply to grains, and it\'s going to be different
for a partly processed product.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Duane and then Randy and then Greg.

MR. GRANT: So I was just going to suggest that Cindy has drafted a nice
job of smoothing this issue, and I was going to suggest that we just use
the facilitator\'s draft. I don\'t disagree with what Jo just brought
up, so maybe I\'ll just withdraw my comment. I guess my first reaction
was, I thought the facilitator\'s job was a nice compilation of this.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Well thanks, and we\'ll see out it plays out on the
first statement. Randy.

MR. GIROUX: Just two comments. First on the title statement, I\'d like
to \-- we were very deliberate in the way we talked about the first one,
because as I see in the improvement, it talks about risks associated
with testing. Well, really it\'s risks associated with supplying grain
and grain products.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. GIROUX: And so I would like us to refer to the original header,
because it\'s more clear and deliberate as to exactly where are the
risks of what we\'re talking about.

Secondly, just an update. We talk about improved sampling methods.
There\'s a recent resolution in ISO that suggests that sampling for
biotech grains, those sampling methods for grain are reasonable and
sufficient for sampling biotech grains. And so we really don\'t need
improved sampling methods. At an international resolution at ISO to that
effect, and simply we need common sampling methods.

So where we do need improved testing methods, I agree. But I think now,
as time has moved on from this original document, we now know that we
just need common methods based on current ISO standards.

MS. DILLEY: Just so I\'m clear, that I have that, it\'s more, you want
common sampling methods or common testing? But you want \--

MR. GIROUX: So I think we need, as it says, improved standards for
testing, and common sampling methods.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: And it\'s interesting to note that ISO moved faster than
this committee.

MS. DILLEY: They\'ve been talking about it a lot longer, haven\'t they,
Randy? Okay. Okay. So what we were talking about is being clear about
what exactly we are saying in the lead statement there, and I understand
the difference between our, what\'s clarifying what. So Greg, comment on
the topic statement, and then Mardi?

MR. JAFFE: Yes, I was just going to comment on the, this is more of a
question for me, the new version that was proposed, something about
improved standards for testing and sampling transgenic grains. And I
wasn\'t sure, you talk about improved standards. I\'m not sure there are
any standards for testing and sampling transgenic grains. So both there
and then also in the body when we talk about not validated, not
validated, based on international standards. I guess the question in my
mind is, are there?

I thought the whole thing was, based upon what we did with the
traceability of labeling for one thing, we don\'t have a set of
international standards here. How can we talk about improved standards?
If we\'re talking about standards generally for grain, you can improve
them to deal with transgenic, but the problem that I have with the
language there is it talks about improved standards for testing and
sampling transgenic grains. And I\'m not sure we have those standards
there. So I\'m not sure it\'s accurate.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay, so it sounds like potentially we just need to
revert to that first statement, because, the original statement \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: With some changes.

MS. DILLEY: \-- yes, with some suggested changes. Mardi.

MS. MELLON: I just had a comment about, or I guess a question, whether,
whether this comment should be directed to true national organizations.
USDA has no role in fostering this. This is as if we\'re kicking the
whole issue out to a set of international organizations. And I\'m just
wondering whether \-- I don\'t really have a problem with that, except
it seems like this is directed to the Secretary of Agriculture, it might
be more \-- if Agriculture would take the lead or work with
international organizations, or something. Be more proactive rather than
just leaving it to other folks to do.

MS. DILLEY: Though we are avoiding any recommendation on that.

MS. MELLON: Sorry. Withdrawn. We will hint. We will not recommend.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: But Mardi, will you be okay with reverting to the
original language with \--

MS. MELLON: Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And right now we\'re looking at the original statement
with some suggestions that have been proposed.

MS. MELLON: Although I will say the original one stresses that
variability is the only problem with such tests. And I do think that
there are more than just variability \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, improved standards, I would reference that, I would
think.

MS. MELLON: But they are required to address the variability of tests. I
mean, it just seems to me that there are a lot of questions associated
with those tests that, and in a way that the second addition was a
little more general, but I don\'t feel strongly about it.

MS. DILLEY: So Cindy just offered adding language to your point, and
obviously we need to discuss it. Are required to address such issues as
the variability, so it\'s not just variability. Pat and then Randy.

MS. LAYTON: I withdrew mine.

MS. DILLEY: Randy, are you okay with that?

MR. GIROUX: I would be supportive of what Mardi is saying, and just say
issues associated with such tests, and just not include variability at
all.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: Just use issues as a general term.

MS. DILLEY: Address issues \--

MS. LAYTON: Associated with such \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- associated with such tests. Okay. So right now we have,
"...to reduce the commercial risks associated with supplying grain and
grain products based on transgenic testing results, and improved
standards for testing and common sampling methods are required to
address issues associated with such tests." People comfortable with that
language?

MR. JAFFE: That was the issue statement, Randy? Are you okay with that?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. GIROUX: It was improved in the other one. They were talking about
improved standards for \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: \-- transgenic grain.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. GIROUX: The one above was talking about improved standards and
methods required or associated with supplying grain and grain products.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: It\'s broader, so it\'s fine.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: It\'s when it was only talking about standards for grain for
transgenic products that I wasn\'t sure we had it right.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right. So we\'re good with the statement then?
Great. Randy, is your, can I approve your text? Still thinking? No, your
card is down. Okay.

MR. GIROUX: My card is down.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And Leon\'s comment?

MS. DILLEY: Was a suggestion for a different suggestion for the title,
but I don\'t think we\'re going to go with it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: We\'ll explain when Leon is here. Okay. So other comments on
the rest of the text, then? Any comments? So Duane had suggested maybe
that we adopt the changes that are reflected in the March 15th draft.

Are people comfortable with that, if we take the revised issue
statement, and the text in your March 15th draft? Are people comfortable
with that? I see nodding. Any disagreement? Okay. Going, going. All
right. So we can mark off two. Excellent.

MS. MELLON: So we are deleting the comments, too?

MS. DILLEY: We are taking out, we\'re adding Mardi\'s text, basically.
No, we are adding Mardi\'s text, because that\'s what was inserted
there. The "many of the currently available" is replacing the first
bracket. And then deleting that clause, "better understood." See the
better understood bracket? Yes. Just delete. Right.

MS. LAYTON: All right.

MS. DILLEY: Got to make sure. So people are clear on what we are
approving? That\'s always good. All right. Excellent. Are we ready to
move onto three? Okay. So take a minute or so and review three, and
we\'ll start with a topic statement.

MR. GIROUX: Abby?

MS. DILLEY: Yes, Randy and Carole.

MR. GIROUX: Carole just reminded me of something.

MS. DILLEY: On two or on three.

MR. GIROUX: So can we go back to two \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: \-- just to make sure we use the word "common" in the text,
as well as we did in the title.

MS. DILLEY: Good point.

MR. GIROUX: Make sure they are consistent.

MS. DILLEY: So they\'re consistent. Okay.

MS. LAYTON: And that would be where?

MS. CRAMER: Internationally agreed upon sampling, replacing with common
sampling.

MR. GIROUX: And get rid of internationally agreed upon, because I
believe that\'s already been done.

MS. LAYTON: So after the an and before the comma?

MS. DILLEY: Not the international organizations but internationally \--
yes.

MS. LAYTON: All the way to common. No.

MS. DILLEY: She\'s okay. She just \--

MS. LAYTON: It\'s the way the computer does it.

MS. SULTON: Do you have the phrasing?

MS. CRAMER: Just international, three words in front of common that you
just put in the green.

MS. SULTON: So there.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: The only thing worse than editing, is editing in front of an
entire committee. So Cindy has a tough job today.

MS. LAYTON: Do you have a mouse, Cindy, or are you using a finger?

MS. SULTON: A finger.

MS. LAYTON: I have an external mouse, if you

would \--

MS. SULTON: There\'s a mouse here.

MS. LAYTON: Do you want me to try to plug in my external mouse for you,
a USB mouse? Is it easier to use? Yes, it\'s working. I know mice are
easier than fingers.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. DILLEY: Are people ready to begin? Okay. So why don\'t we start with
the topic statement, then, and move from there to pin that down, and
then move from there. Greg?

MR. JAFFE: I think it\'s important to keep the concept of safety in the
topic statement. I mean, I think that\'s \-- I think the question here
is, those questions, not what we want. I mean, I think, based on my
experience traveling abroad and talking to other countries, they are
most interested about the safety of these organisms.

We\'re most interested in telling them how we regulate them to ensure
the safety, but they\'re most interested about the safety of them. So I
think it\'s important to keep both those concepts in the topic sentence,
and some of the proposals want to delete that thing about the safety.
And so does the sort of colorful draft. So that comment.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. If you have a particular place as to where to insert
that, or if you just want to refer to the original language?

MR. JAFFE: I\'m comfortable with the original language.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: About the safety of these organisms and how they are
regulated in the United States.

MR. DYKES: Mardi captured it all.

MR. JAFFE: I\'m comfortable with that also.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so Mardi\'s language, Michael, did I hear you say?

MR. DYKES: Yes. I like Mardi\'s.

MS. DILLEY: So you will see Mardi\'s language. MM is the statement at
the \--

MS. LAYTON: The topic sentence.

MS. DILLEY: \-- topic sentence, the red, that portion of it. And it
reads, "As new transgenic organisms are developed in the United States
and enter the international marketplace, U.S. Embassy staff will be
approached with questions about the safety of those organisms and how
they are regulated in the United States." Any comment, further comment,
questions? I see nodding heads. Okay.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So we\'ll go with that statement as the topic statement.
Okay. All right. Can we move onto the text then? I think part of the
question that was here was whether "and potentially require additional
training" was recommendation language. We\'re trying to stay away from
that. And that\'s in additional comments that were incorporated into the
March 15th draft. So just comments on any of the language. Carol.

MS. FOREMAN: I don\'t have any trouble with it, so I\'m just going to
\-- I\'m having a little trouble with how it breathes. And since we\'re
trying to put these to bed, it seems to me we\'ve basically made the
same statement three times over in one place.

MS. DILLEY: We just wanted to be sure that it got through.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: As long as they\'re consistent.

MS. FOREMAN: Do we intend to keep the bracketed in modern biotechnology
continues to be in the vanguard, that sentence?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Can you scroll down just a little bit, Cindy?

MS. CRAMER: I like Carol\'s suggestion.

MR. GIROUX: I do, too.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, that was the statement in play.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I left out a bracket on the end of that one, on the
question version. There\'s a right bracket missing.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, go ahead.

MS. FOREMAN: It just seems to me, and I haven\'t, I\'m not entirely
familiar with the comments on this one, because I didn\'t have issues
with it. But it seems very repetitive, and then it has a contradiction
where it says that U.S. Embassy staff with the appropriate expertise are
not always available or able to answer the questions.

Well, if they have the appropriate expertise, one does assume they are
able to answer the questions. So it may be just are not always
available, and we\'ll need to fix the first part.

MS. DILLEY: So just take out are able.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Is that what you are saying, I\'m sorry, Carol. I just want
to make it clear.

MS. FOREMAN: And then if you drop in embassies, because that\'s what
we\'re talking about, science officers are typically generalists. But
again, at the top we\'ve said that there are people there who have the
necessary expertise.

MS. DILLEY: No, I think actually \--

MS. LAYTON: Undo what you just did, Cindy.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I think Carol\'s, I think you\'re reading off the
15th draft.

MS. DILLEY: You want to keep the not always available, and strike, or
able?

MS. FOREMAN: No, I\'m working off the colorful, the one that the
facilitator gave us.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s right. Okay.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Yes. I wonder if we should have the 15th draft up
there.

MS. FOREMAN: This is the 15th.

MS. DILLEY: That is the first one. Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: Thank you. That would be easier if we could try working off
the 15th draft.

MS. DILLEY: On the screen.

MS. FOREMAN: On the screen, and then \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: In such cases as we\'re accepting the facilitator\'s
draft.

MS. FOREMAN: And then \--

MS. LAYTON: She can have both up.

MS. FOREMAN: And then when we need to go back \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- we have a little \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: It takes a minute.

MS. LAYTON: Yes, it takes a minute.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Are people okay with putting the 15th up on the screen?
You can change it back? Okay.

MR. JAFFE: Although the topic sentence we just agreed to is not the
topic sentence that\'s on the 15th draft.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. We\'ll fix it. We\'ll fix it. We\'ll fix it.

MS. LAYTON: Basically, what I think I heard was take something in the
15th and move it into the 14th, replace what\'s in the 14th, because we
have to have a document that we\'re changing.

MS. DILLEY: Actually, the statement is actually on the 14th, that, the
topic statement one that we\'re taking.

MS. LAYTON: Right.

MS. FOREMAN: It seems to me, though, it would be easier if we made these
changes on the 15th document, we\'ll have fewer changes to make.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: The topic changes in number \--

MS. LAYTON: If we do that, then Cindy has to go back to number 2 \--

MS. DILLEY: That\'s okay. We\'ll get it.

MS. LAYTON: \-- and move number 2.

MS. DILLEY: We\'ll get it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: We\'ll get it. We\'ll get it. We\'ll get it.

MS. FOREMAN: And also number three because we \--

MS. DILLEY: This is what we are looking at for this topic. So we\'ll fix
it. We know we need to fix the topic statement. Okay. So Carol, Cindy
\--

MS. SULTON: I can copy this to the other one.

MS. LAYTON: Well, no, they want to work from this one.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, don\'t do that yet. Why don\'t we just do, first of
all, you need to strike "or able" in that line, are not always available
or able. Strike "or able." Yes. Right. Okay. And then, Carol, you went
down to \--

MS. FOREMAN: First of all we\'re going to drop the two words, or able.

MS. DILLEY: Right. We got that, just did that.

MS. FOREMAN: And then we\'re going to drop in the next sentence, in
embassies.

MS. DILLEY: In embassies. So just start the sentence with science
officers?

MS. FOREMAN: Science officers, because we\'ve already said embassies.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: Then it says that they are typically generalists who might
have neither the time nor the specialized training. But up above, they
talk about people with appropriate expertise.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: So I don\'t know, because I don\'t know enough about this,
but I don\'t \-- does that make sense?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I make a suggestion that might make that make sense?
How about if you say, but U.S. officials at the, with the appropriate
expertise, are not always available at embassies to answer.

MS. FOREMAN: But U.S. \--

MR. JAFFE: It says it.

MS. FOREMAN: I see what you\'re doing.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: See, but U.S. officials with the appropriate expertise
to address such questions are not always available at embassies to
answer questions about the U.S. regulatory \--

MS. FOREMAN: And science officers and agricultural, so then you leave
the next subject as it is.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes, yes, yes.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, I understand. That works.

MR. DYKES: And I think that goes to the point we were trying to make for
this section.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. DYKES: There are some people with the expertise, but they\'re not
where they need to be, not enough of them. They\'re not where they need
to be.

MS. FOREMAN: And the final thing I would suggest is that in the last
line there, you drop the word thereby.

MS. LAYTON: I\'m sorry, Carol, say that again?

MS. FOREMAN: In the last, the last line you drop the word thereby.

MS. LAYTON: So it\'s just placing increasing claims.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Red lines, the very last full sentence.

MS. DILLEY: And are we deleting the italicized language, or do people
not find that language difficult in terms of it being a recommendation?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. CRAMER: Yes, that\'s replaced by the red language.

MR. JAFFE: I thought the last sentence replaced that previous sentence?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes, there\'s a missing bracket just before the red
text.

MS. LAYTON: Right. Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: There\'s a closed bracket after "arise".

MR. JAFFE: Because I thought the red text was proposed to replace it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That was in fact it. It\'s made confusing by the fact
that there is no bracket there.

MS. FOREMAN: So we drop if modern biotechnology \--

MS. DILLEY: Correct. Okay. So delete that bracketed piece, and then that
is replaced with that new language. Okay. All right.

MS. LAYTON: So we changed the topic sentence, and now we\'re in good
shape.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. CRAMER: I can\'t change \--

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So read it one more time and just make sure.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes, everyone take a look at it to make sure it works.

MS. DILLEY: Can you move it down a little so people can see it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Beautiful. There it is. Perfect.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, everybody can see it and read it.

MS. FOREMAN: So nobody needs to stay to answer questions about safety
and U.S. regulatory systems, and it does say that.

MS. DILLEY: Well, about the safety of those \-- oh, you mean in this \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: \-- for consistency in the first statement? Yes. Okay.

MR. DYKES: And it should be the safety of those organisms, right?
Because it\'s about safety, it should be safety of those organisms.

MS. DILLEY: Safety of those organisms?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: I don\'t know that we have to cover that. Yes, that makes
it clear.

MR. DYKES: Yes, otherwise you\'ve just got safety of whatever.

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Maybe a dot before the safety, for safety.

MS. DILLEY: Is it poetry? Are we there? Good. Any other comments? Okay.
We\'ll move onto 4, and I just want to say, we\'re at a great pace. Two
in less than a half an hour. Read number 4.

MS. LAYTON: Why don\'t we, do you want to switch to the colorful \--

MR. DYKES: No, let\'s stay with this one.

MS. LAYTON: Stay with this one where we are.

MR. DYKES: Then you can see everybody\'s comments.

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So why don\'t we start with the top statement, and I think
the only change was wrestling with least or lesser. Carole?

MS. CRAMER: Since we don\'t want to make a judgment here, I vote for why
don\'t we just say some countries may, and that\'s all. It read okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Some countries may lack capacity.

MS. FOREMAN: Not developed.

MS. LAYTON: Not developed, just some countries.

MS. CRAMER: Some countries may lack capacity.

MR. GRANT: No, that seems to be too much. I mean, I thing that, you can
put Europe right in there, then, so \--

MS. CRAMER: And do you have a problem with that?

MS. FOREMAN: They don\'t lack the capacity. They lack the will.

MR. GRANT: Yes, all right. We are on the record, right? But I think the
term of art that\'s accepted now is, least. It used to be lesser. But
it\'s least now.

MR. JAFFE: Is it least developed or least developing?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Developed. I think it\'s least developed.

MR. GRANT: Yes, it\'s least developed.

MR. JAFFE: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Robert, you\'re probably the most international, or one of
the most.

MR. HERDT: Oh, least developed countries, I think, is really what you
want here, because you\'re really addressing a subset of even less
developed countries.

MS. DILLEY: Carol, is going back to that language okay with you? Yes.
And I mean, I know you were trying to kind of bypass the least/lesser,
but it sounds like that\'s important to people to keep in there. Okay.
So least developed. Mardi, more comments on the topic statement? Okay,
so can we go with the least developed countries like capacity to address
scientific and regulatory issues related to modern biotechnology. Are
you set with that? Okay? Mardi, comment on the text?

MS. MELLON: Comment on text. I would like to emphasize the important of
folks other than the U.S. playing a role in capacity building. And I
think we might do that by changing the word, there are also important
roles. I would like to change that. There are also vital roles. And
maybe in capacity building for international organizations. I think that
it\'s really vital that capacity building be done by someone other than
the U.S. \--

MS. DILLEY: Or in addition to.

MS. MELLON: \-- so as not to be too narrowly focused. So I would suggest
that we delete in the, I guess what is the sentence that begins, the
United States participates. I would suggest that we delete important and
substitute vital, and then just for the ability, I think we should
delete for and put in, roles in capacity building for international
organizations, deleting efforts.

And while I also think that we should probably delete the last sentence,
I imagine, linking up with most of the paragraphs.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Let\'s take one at a time here.

So we\'ve got, we have, I mean, to your point that other \-- I think you
are making two points in here.

MS. MELLON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m trying to structure that sentence. So it\'s "The United
States participates in capacity building efforts in those areas, but
there are also vital roles for --"

MS. MELLON: In capacity building efforts \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- in capacity building efforts \--

MS. MELLON: \-- for international organizations, nongovernmental
organizations, and the private sector.

MS. DILLEY: Or so \--

MS. FOREMAN: You don\'t really need the second capacity building
efforts. It refers back to the first.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay. So its, starting with the United States, but
it\'s also acknowledging other, the vital role of other countries as
well as not just governments, but other entities.

MS. MELLON: Right.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: So just vital roles led by international organizations?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. Yes.

MR. DYKES: I like keeping capacity building. That\'s specifically what
we\'re talking about.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, but that\'s what it says in the first part.

MS. DILLEY: It states capacity building, because it leads off the United
States. Are you looking for it to be said twice in that sentence,
Michael? That\'s just, we were just trying to eliminate some redundancy.

MR. DYKES: Okay. Yes, yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. DYKES: I thought we had a new sentence. I\'m sorry.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, so now it says, the United States participates in
capacity building efforts in this area, but there area also vital roles
for \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: International organizations.

MS. DILLEY: \-- international organizations, and then you mentioned
others.

MR. JAFFE: Well there was, she just deleted it. I\'m not sure why.

MS. MELLON: Nongovernmental \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Hold on. Give her a chance to, okay, catch up. Vital
roles in capacity building \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, vital roles for \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- for capacity building. Sorry.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Vital roles for international organizations.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s right, because you take out the second capacity
building.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Sorry. For international organizations. Mardi, you had a
list.

MS. MELLON: Nongovernmental organizations and the private sector.

MS. DILLEY: Nongovernmental organizations and the private sector. Okay.
Let\'s just make sure we\'ve got the language up there. And why don\'t
we take comments on this sentence, and try to pin this one down, and
then we will come back to your last sentence comment. Duane, was it on
this particular \--

MR. GRANT: A different sentence.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Greg, on this one?

MR. JAFFE: You mentioned other countries when you talked, Abby, but
it\'s not up there. And if you are going to talk about international
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, you should probably say
for U.S.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

MR. JAFFE: I think you also need to put in there, but there are vital
roles for other countries, international organizations \--

MS. DILLEY: United States and other countries participate in capacity
building or do you want it down below?

MR. JAFFE: No, I think down below.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: But \--

MS. DILLEY: For other countries, international organizations,
nongovernmental organizations? How do you want it to read?

MR. JAFFE: Yes, that\'s exactly right.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So roles for other countries, comma, international
organizations \-- yeah. Any other comments on this particular sentence?
Randy?

MR. GIROUX: Just if this is a document from the USDA, I\'m just, Greg,
can you help me understand why you want other countries in there?

MR. JAFFE: I mean, if you are going to acknowledge, why are we
acknowledging the private sector\'s role, and NGO\'s roles, and not
acknowledging other sectors\' roles? If you are going to say, the U.S.
participates in capacity building, but is a vital role, and I agree,
think there is a vital role for other countries. If there is a vital
role for the public, the private sector, or a vital role for NGO, I
think there\'s also a vital role for other countries. So I was just
trying to complete it. I wasn\'t, I mean \--

MS. DILLEY: So the point being, lots of entities play a role in capacity
building.

MR. JAFFE: That\'s it.

MS. DILLEY: Bob.

MR. HERDT: It seems to me that an international organization statement
here is important; that the USDA has to support international
organizations having that legitimate, vital role. If the USDA opposes
such a role of international organizations, you know, they may not, that
sanction is not there, and the international organization is going to
have a tough time doing it.

It seems to me that the point of the sentence, or the idea here is, yes,
we\'re going to do some, but we want to make sure that FAO is in this
case, because the countries trust FAO. They look to FAO for appropriate
unbiased standards.

Does USDA sanction the NGO and private sector efforts and such? You
know, that \-- and certainly not other countries. So I would think for
international \-- vital roles for international organizations.

MS. DILLEY: So you\'re comment is that expansive list is beyond what
you\'re thinking the point is.

MR. HERDT: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s really, yeah, they play an important role. But this
particular point is to international organizations.

MR. HERDT: It\'s to acknowledge that the USDA has a role in sanctioning
international organizations. I mean, the international organizations
aren\'t supposed to do anything unless the countries \-- unless the
countries say, you know, we want FAO to do this, then FAO will do it. If
the U.S. says no, we don\'t want FAO in this game, FAO\'s hands are, you
know, sat on.

MR. JAFFE: I don\'t have a problem if you just want to have
international organizations. But when you, the original text had NGO\'s
and the private sector.

MR. HERDT: Yeah.

MR. JAFFE: And it\'s incomplete. We were naming all of the parties who
were involved in capacity building, except for other countries. And so I
was trying to make it complete. If you just want to eliminate and talk
only about international organizations, then you can eliminate the four
other countries and the NGO\'s and the private sector. But I actually
think, I mean, the problem was, without the word vital or whatever, I
mean, I think mainly this is a factual statement. I mean \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. JAFFE: \-- the U.S. participates in capacity efforts. That\'s a
factual statement. And other countries organizations also do it. Those
are all factual statements. It\'s when you start saying, it\'s also
important or a vital role, that you get into sort of opinion as opposed
to factual statements.

MS. DILLEY: So, I\'m trying to understand. So one suggestion was to go
back, to take out the roster of different organizations that are
involved in capacity building, because I think what I heard you say,
Bob, is that the main point here is that you need to give, help support
international organizations to support their legitimacy in what they
need to do.

MR. DYKES: So are you saying just take out, just vital roles for
international organizations?

MS. LAYTON: Which could be nongovernmental or private sector.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi? So it\'s \--

MS. MELLON: We\'re only sanctioning, so we\'re only kind of indicating
the international organizations have a role to play, not NGO\'s?

MS. LAYTON: NGO\'s are international.

MS. MELLON: I\'m just wondering \--

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s just what we\'re emphasizing.

MS. MELLON: I guess I would, I mean, I would prefer the longer list. But
I also don\'t feel strongly about it. And I would defer to all of you.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay. So it goes to the United States participates in
capacity building efforts in these areas, but there are also vital roles
for international organizations, is the language we are working from
right now.

MR. JAFFE: It should say, there is, because you don\'t have \-- I don\'t
think it should say there are, well, I guess, organizations.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Wait, Mardi, I wanted to make sure I got your last,
your comment on the last sentence, and then we\'ll go to \--

MS. MELLON: My comment on the last one was that we should just leave it
to international organizations right here.

MS. DILLEY: So delete that, and potentially require additional training?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, no, no \--

MS. MELLON: No. The U.S. has a role to play \--

MS. DILLEY: Oh, I\'m sorry. Hello. Okay.

MS. MELLON: It just seems that a similar statement could be made that
would hand up a lot of our discussions.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So delete that last, USDA may have a role to play.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Carole, Carole.

MS. DILLEY: I mean, that\'s a suggestion, so I heard it, yes, but
disagreement with that? Carole?

MS. CRAMER: I think that\'s actually an important statement. And I
don\'t know that it\'s a recommendation. It just says that, exactly what
Bob was just saying, which is that USDA is instrumental in making things
go one way or the other, potentially, and that that should stay in
there.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. It may be that \-- I mean, I think you were trying
that, Carole, with the language you offered. The may have pulls it away
from a recommendation, I guess, per se.

MS. CRAMER: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So the question is whether, to the group, whether that
accomplishes it or \--

MS. CRAMER: Yes, I mean, the previous said, effective and appropriate
efforts need to be.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MS. CRAMER: Yes, so the idea is to soften it, but still have the point
that USDA can\'t ignore this. They have an important role, in many
people\'s opinion.

MS. DILLEY: Other comments on this particular sentence?

MS. FOREMAN: Question. Are we dropping effective and appropriate?

MS. CRAMER: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, the back of the language, the effective and
appropriate, that\'s the sentence that was originally there, and so the
statement that is in the 15th draft, March 15th, is the one with
Carole\'s initials next to it which says, USDA may have a role. So that
kind of takes it out of the recommendation language. And still makes the
statement, but it\'s, I think, a step away from recommendation for USDA
to do anything. Mardi.

MS. MELLON: Well, I think they have a role. It just is too wishy-washy.
I mean, I would hope that we could say that it has a role to play. I
mean, if we are going to put it into the recommendations, or
pseudo-recommendations, I would rather, I would rather err on the side
of saying they have a role to play, not may have a role to play. That\'s
not really what we mean.

MS. DILLEY: Any other comments on the last sentence? We need to try and
wrap this up. Greg, on this?

MR. JAFFE: I guess I\'m most uncomfortable with the word coordinating. I
think that USDA may have a role to play in encouraging appropriate
efforts. I don\'t believe they have a role in coordinating those
efforts, especially when we are talking about international efforts or
efforts by other parts of the U.S. government. I don\'t see that as a
recommendation that I\'m comfortable with. So I would want that word,
coordinating \--

MS. DILLEY: So take out, or coordinating.

MR. JAFFE: \-- or coordinating out of whatever sentence is included if
it\'s got USDA in that same sentence.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Thanks for that vote of confidence.

MR. JAFFE: No, I just don\'t think that's the role. It\'s not, I mean,
USDA is not in capacity building organization, and they should not be
coordinating different capacity building efforts. They should encourage
them \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. JAFFE: \-- appropriate efforts. I don\'t have a problem with saying
that. But I don\'t think they should be the ones coordinating those
efforts.

MS. DILLEY: So any problem with eliminating the coordinating?

MR. DYKES: So where USDA does have a role, to encourage \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Has a role.

MS. LAYTON: Has a role.

MS. DILLEY: So let\'s try out where we are right now. So it\'s USDA has
a role to play in encouraging effective and appropriate efforts.

MS. LAYTON: Has a role, not may have, Cindy.

MS. DILLEY: Duane, or sorry, Daryl?

MR. BUSS: Just to simplify the sentence, couldn\'t we say, USDA can
encourage effective appropriate efforts.

MS. DILLEY: We could say that.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No.

MS. DILLEY: No, shaking their heads. One person\'s simplification is
another person\'s no. So \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: So USDA has a role to play in encouraging effective and
appropriate efforts. Are we okay with that?

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Duane?

MS. DILLEY: Duane, is this to this sentence, or do you want to go
someplace else?

MR. GRANT: Different sentence.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so I \--

MR. JAFFE: You want to delete, and you are deleting effective and
appropriate efforts need to be encouraged and coordinated?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So let\'s get that done, and then we\'ll move onto another
portion of the document.

MS. LAYTON: So lead effective and appropriate efforts.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: The sentence right before it goes.

MS. LAYTON: Bingo.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, Duane.

MR. GRANT: Go back to Carole Cramer\'s sensitivity issue. That first
sentence says, where we state directly that they currently lack the
capacity to address the relevant scientific and regulatory issues. I
would suggest we put the word, currently may lack, or perhaps often
lack. I don\'t know if it\'s, first of all, if it\'s accurate to say
that all these developing countries lack \--

MS. DILLEY: So adding an often.

MR. GRANT: Yes. First of all, who is least developed. That\'s \--

MS. DILLEY: Right. Okay. Any problems with that? No.

MS. HUNT: I would just ask, how do we address that in the topic
sentence?

MS. DILLEY: The least developed countries often lack capacity. We\'re
consistent now. Okay. Any other comments on this topic?

MS. LAYTON: We\'ve got to deal with the training is needed, versus
Mardi\'s suggestion, countries are available.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: We\'ve got to pick one of those.

MS. DILLEY: In the March 15th one, we have the one in red.

MR. DYKES: I like Mardi\'s.

MS. DILLEY: Any disagreement with adding Mardi\'s? Okay. So let\'s, yes,
delete those.

MR. BUSS: Very simply, I would just go ahead and delete the word
available.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Where?

MS. LAYTON: Right there?

MS. DILLEY: There on. Okay. You editors, you. I obviously have no style
and I\'m not a grammarian.

MS. LAYTON: And products from Mardi? One more? Do we accept, and
products, or leave them off?

MR. DYKES: That\'s fine. Accept them.

MS. LAYTON: Accept and products. Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any other comments or changes?

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Everybody look at the whole thing.

MS. DILLEY: All right.

MR. HERDT: There\'s an extra bracket.

MS. LAYTON: There\'s an extra bracket, excuse me, where?

MR. HERDT: After the able. After able. Right there.

MS. LAYTON: All right. Okay. Moving off of 4. Social science tells us
that this is an effective way of \--

MS. DILLEY: Can I make just a process suggestion. We are finished with
4. Why don\'t we hold the reading number 5, and take a break, because
we\'re supposed to take a break at 10:30. Why don\'t you stretch your
legs and read 5, and we\'re prepare for that discussion, and come back
at 20 of.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: One second. Before folks leave, is this on 4 still?
It\'s on five. Okay.

MS. DILLEY: We\'re on five now.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: We\'ll come back to five. What I would like to do is take
the break now, read, and then we\'ll start up at 20 of.

MS. LAYTON: So you have 15 minutes to break and read.

(Recess.)

MS. DILLEY: Okay, number 5. Carol, your card\'s up. I guess going on the
topic statement. Is this to the topic statement specifically, Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, it is.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: Let me just, what did we say, change \-- changes in
domestic and global cropping patterns.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So you want to add domestic there?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, because that\'s what the paragraph is about.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: Resulting from the availability, it\'s the same, all the
way down to here.

MS. DILLEY: We actually \--

MS. FOREMAN: They increasingly influence U.S. producers.

MS. DILLEY: Have important impacts, so increasingly influence \--

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: \-- U.S. producers. So influence is replacing have important
impacts on.

MS. FOREMAN: And we add domestic, because that\'s what the paragraph
talks about.

MS. DILLEY: Right, talk about domestic and global. Michael, on the topic
statement?

MR. DYKES: Yes, I guess two questions. One is, may increase the
influence on U.S. producers what? Influencing them to go to church?
Influencing them to do what? I mean, I think we need that.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. DYKES: We need something there, whatever it is.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, I think that\'s a good point.

MR. DYKES: And then I\'d also like to ask the question, I don\'t think
it\'s the availability of the transgenic crops. I think it\'s the
adoption of the transgenic crops. The fact that they are available is
not the whole thing. It\'s the adoption of \--

MR. HERDT: That\'s not the point of the discussion, though.

MR. DYKES: Or the benefits of. I don\'t think it\'s the availability.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, I think that we start the next sentence by saying,
the adoption of something. I think that\'s a good point.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so we need to fine tune that sentence either way. So
one question is, what the influence, what is it influencing,
specifically.

MS. LAYTON: And the original sentence was adoption.

MS. DILLEY: And then is it either adoption or availability or \-- and as
people pointed out, the qualifier on that could be read into the first
sentence of the text, but \--

MR. DYKES: I think the original intent was the adoption was influencing
production patterns. Whether adoption of biotech crops and not growing
other crops is where we originally were.

MS. FOREMAN: U.S. production patterns.

MS. DILLEY: So it would be U.S. producers production patterns? That
doesn\'t sound so good.

MS. LAYTON: Increasing \--

MS. DILLEY: So maybe it\'s influencing production patterns as opposed to
producers?

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s right.

MR. DYKES: I think so.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s what she\'s got up there.

MR. BUSS: Why don\'t we just use the first sentence of the text as the
issues line.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: I think that\'s a great idea.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so you want to stick to, so, replace, basically use
the first sentence of the text as the topic statement.

MR. BUSS: Yes.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Would that leave the adoption of genetically engineered
corn, soybeans and cotton?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Has influenced cropping patterns in the United States?

MR. DYKES: Yes. That\'s the point we were raising with this topic.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so then do you talk at all about Argentina, or no? I
mean, now it\'s specific to domestic.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s still the competition from Argentina, I assume, still
has \--

MS. LAYTON: An impact on our cropping patterns.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- on what goes on in the U.S.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. I\'m sorry. I went ahead of myself. Let\'s stay with
the topic statement, and then we\'ll go into the text. So does anybody
have a problem with using, deleting the topic statement right now, and
replacing it with that first, the adoption of genetically engineered
corn, soybeans, and cotton, has influenced cropping patterns in the
United States, as the topic statement?

MR. DYKES: I think that is the topic.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So building off of that then, comments \--

MS. SULTON: Would you repeat it, please?

MS. DILLEY: Yes, sorry.

MS. SULTON: The adoption of genetically engineered corn, soybeans \--

MS. DILLEY: Corn, soybeans and cotton.

MR. DYKES: What I have says, the adoption of genetically engineered
corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, and on a smaller scale \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, okay. So we\'re going back \-- I think we eliminated
papaya, based on comments.

MS. FOREMAN: Let\'s keep the major ones.

MR. DYKES: Corn, soybeans, cotton.

MS. DILLEY: So you want to stick with corn, soybeans, cotton?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: And canola or not canola? Do you want canola? Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so corn, soybeans and cotton.

MR. DYKES: Why not canola?

MS. DILLEY: What, Brad?

MR. DYKES: Why not canola?

MR. SHURDUT: I asked the same question, why not canola?

MR. DYKES: Probably its 85, 80 percent biotech.

MR. JAFFE: No, but the issue is cropping patterns for other things in
the U.S. It\'s not how many, what percentage \-- we\'re not talking here
about the percentage of the crop that\'s biotech. The issue is, how is
growing that biotech affected cropping patterns in the U.S. And canola
is grown on such a small percentage of the acres of crops in the U.S.
that it doesn\'t change cropping patterns.

MR. DYKES: But we\'re \--

MS. DILLEY: It\'s more about, it\'s more about cropping patterns versus
adoption, so \--

MR. JAFFE: Right.

MS. DILLEY: So the question is to you who are saying canola, has that
changed cropping patterns of canola?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MR. SHURDUT: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So if you are saying yes then \--

MR. JAFFE: No, it\'s not cropping patterns of canola. It\'s other
cropping patterns, other crops, not the patterns of canola. It\'s not
the adoption of canola. It\'s not, then papaya would then fit in also.
We grow so little papaya. But the question is, growing papaya doesn\'t,
it\'s not affecting the cropping patterns in the U.S. The whole point
the USDA made was that people are changing their crops and other types
of things.

MS. DILLEY: Well, that\'s, that\'s the question.

MR. DYKES: Well, I think they just changed the crop insurance programs
for canola, so we can have winter canola grown in other areas where
they\'ve not traditionally been grown because of that reason. It just
happened.

MR. SHURDUT: Kansas. There\'s canola being grown in Kansas.

MS. DILLEY: Brad, you\'ve got to speak up, because I can\'t hear what
you are saying.

MR. SHURDUT: Yes, I was saying, for example, Kansas. We recently
increased the canola production.

MS. DILLEY: So that is changing the cropping patterns in Kansas, if you
use that example, of other crops, not just \-- okay.

MR. DYKES: I agree papaya should be dropped on there, but I think
canola, the justification \--

MS. DILLEY: Right. So I just want to make sure we\'re on the same page,
because we were talking initially, is it changing cropping patterns of
that particular crop, or is it changing cropping patterns of other crops
as well? And what I\'m hearing is, that is true for canola, corn,
soybean, and cotton. Yes?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. We want to be factually correct, and we want to make
sure we are making the same point. So, Josephine, to this?

MS. HUNT: Yes, I have a question on this sentence.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. HUNT: So we talk about the adoption of engineered, and then we list
four crops. Are we talking about adoption just within the U.S., or
adoption globally? I mean, does adoption of transgenic corn in a country
outside the U.S. impact U.S. cropping patterns?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: So do you mean something like, in the U.S. and
elsewhere? Is that what you are \--

MS. HUNT: Well, it\'s a question.

MS. DILLEY: right.

MS. HUNT: So I don\'t know the answer to it.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, we\'re still trying to bore down on what exactly are we
saying.

MS. HUNT: Is it adoption outside the U.S. impactive in the U.S. And if
so, I think we need to be clear when we\'re talking about adoption,
whether we mean just adoption in the U.S. or adoption globally. But the
impact, I understand, is on the U.S. property.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, so the question is whether to expand that, the adoption
of genetically engineered in the U.S. and other countries, or is it just
in the U.S., adoption? Where is the adoption happening that is affecting
U.S. \--

MR. DYKES: Globally.

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MS. HUNT: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So the, so is it the domestic and global adoption of
genetically engineered?

MS. HUNT: Global adoption.

MR. JAFFE: Just global adoption.

MR. DYKES: Just say global adoption.

MS. HUNT: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: That covers the U.S.

MR. JAFFE: Yes. We\'re talking about the U.S.

MS. DILLEY: Good point.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That sounds like it\'s adopted everywhere.

MS. DILLEY: Well, yes. I mean the question is whether, it sounds like
it\'s required to have it be global to affect U.S. production patterns.
And it seems like if it\'s adopted in the U.S., sometimes that changes
the production patterns as well, right?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: So is it \--

MS. DILLEY: And that is a question along the lines of being clear of
what we are saying.

MS. LAYTON: So Cindy it\'s and canola and take out the papaya, please.
And canola, and take out, and on a smaller scale, papaya.

MS. SULTON: Leon, who couldn\'t be here today, he said that, when he
called in, that papaya in Hawaii would not continue but for \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: You know, I don\'t think you can be heard.

MS. SULTON: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Abby, do you know if Leon is coming?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. I have the answer on this, actually. Can I make one
\-- I think this may go to the point that will be raised about papaya,
and that is that I think there is some ambiguity about what we mean by
cropping patterns. And it may be that if that were clarified, papaya
being in or out would be clearer.

Because I think on the one hand there\'s the case of whether changes in
how much papaya is grown really affects cropping patterns significantly
one way or the other, versus \-- because it does obviously affect
papaya. If, so that if cropping patterns means patterns of that crop
versus affecting the general use of land, it may be two different shades
of meaning.

MS. DILLEY: And I think it was the latter, from what we were talking
about. It\'s taking one crop, and now producing a different crop, is
cropping patterns.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s what it says.

MR. DYKES: Right.

MS. DILLEY: So if that\'s the case, then papaya is eliminated.

MR. DYKES: That\'s right.

MS. HUNT: Yes, but canola is in.

MS. DILLEY: Canola is in, right?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. HUNT: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we\'ve clarified that. I\'m still not sure we\'ve
clarified adoption, where we\'re adopting, the cause and effect. Because
it sounds like cropping patterns are affected if it\'s only, potentially
only adopted in the U.S., it affects cropping patterns.

If you say, only qualify it with global, it may mean that it's dependent
on global adoption to affect cropping patterns. And I\'m not sure
that\'s correct. So we need to just clarify what we mean there.

So is that the domestic and/or global adoption. I\'m sorry. That\'s
really bad grammatically, I know, but that seems to be the more, what we
are trying to say here.

MR. SLOCUM: Well, the reality is that all four of those crops are
globally, genetically engineered.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: But they haven\'t necessarily been globally adopted.

MR. SLOCUM: Those four have.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Well \--

MR. JAFFE: In very select countries, not \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: In select countries. The question, I mean, they have
affected cropping patterns in the United States and elsewhere, as
opposed to being globally adopted by everybody.

MR. SLOCUM: They\'re globally adopted by exporting countries. Is that
the issue?

MS. DILLEY: It\'s who\'s adopting \--

MR. JAFFE: No.

MS. DILLEY: \-- which, that\'s affecting U.S. production patterns,
because we\'re only talking about production patterns in the U.S. right
now, in this topic sentence. And I don\'t know if we\'re going any
further with that. I mean, part of it is just being a factual statement
in terms of global adoption for these four crops. But then are we
assuming that we\'re making a statement that it requires global adoption
to affect U.S. cropping patterns. Am I making sense, or am I just
confused?

MR. GIROUX: No, you\'re making, I think you\'re making sense. I think
the point we were trying to make in this was for the Secretary of
Agriculture to recognize that there will be shifts in the production,
acreages of crops that are being planted in the U.S. as a result of
this. That was what we were trying, the point we were trying to make.

MR. SLOCUM: But that isn\'t the point.

MS. DILLEY: We\'re not quite there yet.

MR. SLOCUM: My point would be that it doesn\'t take 100 percent global
adoption to skew the cropping patterns.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s right. I hear that, and yet, when we say the global
adoption of, it sounds like that.

MS. LAYTON: That\'s why just leaving it the adoption of \--

MS. DILLEY: So just take global out, right.

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And then put U.S. in elsewhere. You can put it at the
end.

MS. LAYTON: And is it, in the U.S. and elsewhere, at the end of that
sentence?

MR. SLOCUM: That takes of it, too.

MS. DILLEY: So U.S. and elsewhere.

MS. LAYTON: In the U.S. and elsewhere.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi, to the topic statement?

MS. MELLON: Yes, I would like just another \-- I\'m trying to figure out
what the issue is here, because lots of thing affect our cropping
patterns, and cropping patterns around the world, and price, and what
you can do with these things, and how successful other folks are. So in
terms of, I\'m trying to kind of narrow down, what is it about the
adoption of genetically engineer corn and soybeans that has a particular
effect on the cropping patterns. And what I remember was something like,
if it was, if it is kept, that the germ of it is, in the example of corn
and soy replacing wheat.

And I\'m not exactly sure why, but you know, why is wheat needed to be
placed in these places as a result of the available, the engineered
varieties of the other commodity crops? Is it that the engineering has
increased the price, or what is it about the fact that \-- I mean, it
seems to be over time you would go from corn to wheat and soy and
canola, back and forth in the country, depending on a lot of courses. So
what led to that one example? And that might help us.

MS. DILLEY: So the example that\'s later in the sentence is about corn
and soy?

MS. MELLON: Corn and soy.

MS. DILLEY: And so you are asking, was it directly linked to the
adoption genetically of corn and soy?

MS. MELLON: Right. It was an issue that maybe some of our farmers could
speak to?

MS. DILLEY: Jerry or Ron, go ahead.

MR. OLSON: Yes, I mean, what happened in the Dakotas, I mean, the shift
was occurring before biotech even arrived. And what\'s driving it a lot
now, this is one factor that helps. But where it helps is you lower your
input cost by, you know, \$10, \$12, \$15 bucks an acre on growing the
crops, especially soy and stuff like that, and a little bit on corn.

But what\'s driven it, it has gone from 120-day corn to 85-day corn,
which has nothing to do with biotech. It also has to do with price,
because you can make \$100 bucks more raising soybeans than you can
raising wheat, at least for a while. And now it\'s \-- and wheat. It\'s
disease that\'s driving the wheat and the barleys out. And we\'re going
to feed peas and canola and corn and beans.

But the corn has come because of the length of the growing season is so
dang short that you get shorter and shorter day corn. You can now grow
it farther and farther north. And that\'s what\'s driven it more than I
would say biotech. Biotech is a factor because it reduces the cost.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. OLSON: So you can\'t say it\'s not a factor.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. OLSON: But there are multiple factors that all come into play
simultaneously. And I would say disease and short season corn have had
more to do with it than biotech. It doesn\'t mean biotech didn\'t help,
but \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. OLSON: \-- it probably wasn\'t the key driver.

MS. DILLEY: So the question is, do we want to insert in the topic
statement, along with other variables? And what I thought I heard you
say, Ron, is it accelerated those changes, or no? Am I \--

MR. OLSON: I don\'t think it changed it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. OLSON: I mean, they were happening \--

MS. DILLEY: So it\'s one of multiple variables.

MR. OLSON: Yes.

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

MR. SLOCUM: Well, I think, I actually think it\'s broader than what Ron
is saying. Everything Ron says is exactly right, but now that we plant
stacked corn varieties, there\'s certain insect pressures, that has
expanded the Corn Belt that we do; that and shorter day varieties.

MR. OLSON: Yes.

MR. SLOCUM: And certainly, certainly let those varieties go into parts
of the Corn Belt that they hadn\'t been in before. With respect to
soybeans, in the realm that soybean became a commercial product, and it
greatly hastened the move toward no till farming \--

MR. OLSON: Right.

MR. SLOCUM: \-- which made those really, really dry areas of the plains
all of the sudden, without tilling, you could grow soybeans out there.
And that\'s what really kicked off the expansion of soy acres in the
Dakotas, and moved it about 100 miles further west than it had ever been
before. If you go to the Dakotas, 100 miles is a whole lot of open land.

And so it\'s, Mardi has, because of the production systems, those kinds
of crops let farmers employ, you know, less, they\'re less moisture
sensitive. They\'re more insect resistant, that sort of thing. Shorter
maturities for both soybeans and corn. It\'s opened up a bigger
production area in the U.S., in fact. And part of that, a big part of
that is because of the biotech features of those two particular crops.

MS. DILLEY: Randy and then Pat and then Carol. Randy.

MR. GIROUX: Just to add onto that, I think all of our speakers have been
very accurate in what they\'ve said. And if I remember the discussion,
it was around drought tolerant corn, which would, as Jerry indicated
now, take, let corn be planted in drier areas then it could ever be
planted before. And that will compete directly with wheat acres, and it
will have a direct impact on the cropping patterns of wheat. And so, so
I think it\'s actually, it\'s all three.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Pat.

MS. LAYTON: And mine was a question, does it also have an influence, at
least in the south, where you can change, where you have four different
crops, and you rotate them, on how you rotate and which follows what,
which I think is also an impact here, is that you can now do, you know,
I think it impacts away, for example, my cousin, when he grows corn and
when he doesn\'t grow corn on a particular acreage. He has about a
four-year rotation, because he has four main crops, and maybe five.

And how he rotates them has been changed and impacted by which ones he
uses for RoundupReady^®^. And he doesn\'t use RoundupReady^®^ corn,
because he wants to go in and kill his corn with Roundup, the year that
he\'s not planting corn. So I think it also impacts that. And that has
to do with which corn or which variety he uses of any of those crops,
and how he puts them in his rotation, from what I\'ve understood from
him.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: And that\'s a cropping pattern also. It\'s not an annual
cropping pattern. It\'s a rotation cropping pattern.

MS. DILLEY: So now we need to kind of struggle with the language of
capturing what it is we\'re trying to say here. Carol and then Russ.

MS. FOREMAN: Just on Pat\'s point for a minute. It also influences the
cropping pattern of conventional corn, as well as Roundup. If we can say
here, the availability of genetically engineered corn, soybeans, and
cotton have provided farmers with more options to respond to geography
and markets, I think we\'re going to, as to what is reality here.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Russ.

MR. KREMER: Well, I agree, too, that we need to put something of that
under variables. You know, one thing that hasn\'t been mentioned, too,
that I will add on as far as what has changed production systems and
driven our farmers in the Midwest, especially, it\'s a monocultural
system, is also government programs and market availability. For
instance, they\'re places hardly can sell red clover, or whatever, in
certain areas. So I think that variable, other variables need to be put
in there.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, but what goes in the topic sentence, and what goes in
the body? That\'s the next question.

MS. DILLEY: So Carol said, the availability of genetically engineered
soy, corn, cotton, canola, have given \-- and I think you were specific
to growers, right, options to respond to geographical, geographical and
market \--

MS. FOREMAN: The geography and market demands, is what I think I said.

MS. DILLEY: Geography and market demands. Michael, did you have a
question?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes, I guess my question had been whether that
suggestion of yours was going to be changing the topic sentence or
changing the body?

MS. FOREMAN: Well, I think it\'s the \-- because I think the
conversation so far has not supported "the adoption of genetically
engineered has driven cropping patterns." It should really say that
it\'s opened options, but that a lot of other things have been
influential here.

MS. DILLEY: All right, so what\'s your context. I think we\'re trying to
capture the broader context of what\'s driving changes in cropping
patterns. And that genetically engineered varieties are a part of that,
but there are also other variables. And I think you are trying to
capture that with geography, because it\'s expanded where you can grow
things, as well as market demands price, et cetera. Ron enumerated a few
other things. I don\'t know if market, the word market captures the
range of things that we were talking about.

MS. FOREMAN: Because, you know, it seems to me that we had a year, and
we have had in the past, where there were global shortages of wheat.
Everybody went back and planted wheat in places where they had given
wheat up to plant something else. That\'s \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so we\'re still trying to struggle with that first
sentence. Duane.

MR. GRANT: And I don\'t have an answer to that first sentence yet,
although I\'m not comfortable in dropping it yet. I think it\'s
important that we not minimize the impact that biotech has had on
shifting and shifting and shifting cropping patterns.

If you look at the actual plantings of biotech crops in the Dakotas, in
Minnesota, there is a direct inverse relationship to the increase in
planting the biotech corn and beans, and a decrease in the planting of
wheat. Now, yes, it\'s a complicated evaluation that producers go
through every year, to decide which they are going to plant. But if you
look at the longer trend, it\'s unmistakable that biotech beans and corn
are increasing, and conventional wheat is decreasing.

And looking forward, I see nothing on the horizon that will reverse that
trend. There is no research taken. There\'s very, very limited research
taking place in wheat. Because corn and beans have significant research
budgets, that\'s where the solutions are coming.

It\'s not exactly biotech driving it, but definitely you also can\'t
divorce the reality that the replacement cost of biotech products, and
the fact that they are gaining ground.

So I think if you just simply say that producers have more options,
you\'ve completely missed the point, that there\'s a relationship
between the availability of biotech traits and what producers are
choosing to plant.

MS. DILLEY: Alison and then Carol.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I\'d just like to put forth a suggestion that we go
back to the original topic for the sentence that\'s in the March 14th
version, which we kind of went off on an alternative suggestion, and
that to me captures a lot of what the discussion has been. And that\'s
the sentence that says, the extent of domestic and global adoption of
transgenic crops has had and may increasingly have important impacts on
U.S. producers and agricultural production patterns.

I don\'t think it says it's exclusively as a result of transgenics. And
that\'s actually brought out in the text that it\'s, you know other
factors, other variables that are associated with cropping patterns.

But we went through a lot of pain and agony, as I recall, getting these
topic sentences just right, and I hate to jump off on a different one
when we had one that, to me, captures what we are hearing.

MS. DILLEY: Carol.

MS. FOREMAN: You know, I think I\'d want to see it qualified some,
because I think the discussion here has, it has really shown that the
impact may be less important than the statement that is, as Ron
mentioned, a lot of these changes were in the Dakotas were already
taking place before. What this did was probably move them forward
faster.

I\'ve, you know, I\'ve had trouble with this subject all the way along
the way. And I keep asking people to bring data to the table that showed
that it\'s not just that more is being planted, but that replaced the
others, and they replaced it only with genetically engineered, instead
of with other conventional products. It\'s just, the statement is too
global and embracing to be supported by the information that we have
down with it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. I think we\'re still struggling with the language of
striking the right balance, understanding there are other considerations
that may go into production decisions, but recognizing that genetically
engineered varieties have had an impact, and it\'s just trying to find
that right language. So whether we work with the first sentence or
others that have been suggested, I don\'t think it matters, as long as
we strike that right balance in the topic statement. Michael, a
proposal?

MR. DYKES: I think Alison raises a good point. I think going back to the
original topic sentence we had, I think, encompasses much of what we\'ve
talked about. So I\'m fine with the original, the one we have in this
version. The extent that domestic and global adoption of transgenic
crops increasing has important impacts on U.S. producers and agriculture
production.

MS. FOREMAN: I actually would agree to that.

MS. DILLEY: You agree to that.

MS. FOREMAN: I would agree to that.

MS. DILLEY: So we\'re back to the original topic statement.

MS. FOREMAN: If we could say, has influenced instead of, has had
important impacts.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So has, has influenced \-- so take out had, has had
important impacts. Has influenced \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: U.S. producers.

MS. DILLEY: \-- U.S. Producers and agricultural production patterns, and
may increasingly \-- has and my increasingly influence U.S. producers
and agricultural production patterns. Is that the change you are making,
Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: No, I was going to the \--

MR. DYKES: The topic sentence.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- to the topic sentence, the original topic sentence.

MS. LAYTON: So go back to the March 14th document.

I\'m there. For the extent of domestic and global adoption of transgenic
plants has had and may increasingly have \--

MS. FOREMAN: May increasingly influence.

MS. LAYTON: \-- may increasingly influence U.S. producers and
agricultural production of products. Has.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: So that\'s has influenced, and may increasingly
influence.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: I think \--

MR. DYKES: I think that summarizes the discussion.

MS. FOREMAN: I think that is the best we can do.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s the original 14th document. I think you got rid of it.

MS. SULTON: I had it up here?

MS. LAYTON: It was originally there. No. It\'s the document 14. It\'s
the 14th document.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: You have the hardest job here, Cindy.

MS. LAYTON: And maybe it would be easier if you just type it in wherever
you want to edit, because \-- okay. Wherever you want to edit, go to it.
Alison\'s got it. Thank you, Alison.

MS. DILLEY: So just, so while Cindy is doing that, Pat, why don\'t you
read it again, and then we can \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay. The way I think it is, is "The extent of domestic and
global adoption of transgenic crops has influenced and may increasingly
influence important -- no\-- influence U.S. producers in agricultural
production patterns." Right? And I\'m not sure that it can\'t be has and
may increasingly, but has increasing, has influenced, and my
increasingly influence \--

MR. DYKES: U.S. producers in agriculture production patterns.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Jo.

MS. HUNT: In that original version, I\'ve added the word crop after
agricultural \--

MS. DILLEY: Crop production patterns.

MS. HUNT: Agricultural crop production patterns.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Then you could leave off agricultural.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, but you already have crop up above, so that would be
better.

MS. LAYTON: So if you would agree not to have crop, it\'s transgenic
crops and agricultural production patterns.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Good.

MS. LAYTON: So we don\'t want that sentence.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so we\'re trying to capture that. Any other comments
on that sentence?

MS. LAYTON: Mardi, are you okay? And take the crop out of the last full
green line. Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: All right. Can we move onto any comments on the rest of the
text in topic five?

MR. BUSS: So Abby, are we working from the 15th now on the text for
this?

MS. DILLEY: The committee\'s pleasure. Mardi, Carol and then Russell.

MS. MELLON: I\'m really \--

MS. DILLEY: Can you speak up?

MS. MELLON: \-- I think we\'re beginning to get to where we need to be
on the change in the domestic cropping pattern. I\'m not, I\'m not sure
what we had by discussing what\'s happening in Argentina to this, you
know, to this discussion. In a way, I think that really squeezes people.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. MELLON: Again, there are lots of things that might be happening in
Argentina, decisions that might be being made by folks, but I\'m just
not sure that it adds much to the point here. And if we do do it, I
think Carol\'s correct. We need to give a little more information on,
you know, supporting, supporting that stand.

MS. DILLEY: So just so I\'m clear, because I think your point is the
topic standing goes specifically to cropping patterns in the U.S., not
globally, and so why are we having the Argentina example, when that\'s
talking about cropping pattern changes in Argentina.

MS. MELLON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: But what we\'re really saying is, when it\'s adopted
elsewhere, what, however, that that\'s changing U.S. domestic cropping,
U.S. cropping patterns. Any comments? I mean, that does seem to make
sense, unless we\'re trying to make a particular point with Argentina on
cropping patterns.

MS. LAYTON: What I remember about the flavor of the discussion before
this was that if Argentina, and forgive, but I think you all said at one
time, Brazil, became a major exporter of soybeans, that it may have an
impact on the \-- because they were using quote, easier to grow, cheaper
to grow, RoundupReady^®^ soybeans, that it would have an impact, could
have an impact on how many acres of soybeans we eventually end up
growing here in the United States.

And that therefore the ability of having increased production of soy in
the Latin American countries could influence, that is a roundabout way
of influencing a domestic crop. So I think that was the point of the
Argentina discussion, not that it\'s \-- so that\'s where I\'m going.
And I don\'t want to lose that flavor of, we\'re not going to grow as
many soybeans.

MS. DILLEY: And that\'s not what it says here.

MS. LAYTON: And that\'s not what it says here.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MS. LAYTON: So \--

MS. MELLON: I would say opening up more than 300 million acres of land
in Brazil to soybean production, and I don\'t know how many acres in
Argentina, is going to have a limited effect on the U.S. on soybean
prices, uses, and you know, the U.S. competitive positions. But I think
that it\'s not, I mean, that\'s that. It doesn\'t matter whether it's
genetically engineered or not, if you add that kind of acreage.

So I would, I mean, if we wanted to make, if we wanted to make Pat\'s
point, then I think we do need to change the language considerably, and
we need to say that somehow the fact that this is genetically engineered
is going to have a special impact above and beyond this, you know, this
enormous expansion of soybean production globally.

MS. DILLEY: The sentence that is there right now is talking about
cropping patterns in Argentina, not adoption. I think we covered that in
the topic sentence. So the question to people who would like \-- does
anybody want to see the sentence stay there, and if they do, what does
it add? And to me it just makes it more confusing, I think, along
Mardi\'s lines. It\'s to a different point, not the point we just made
in the topic sentence.

MR. SLOCUM: The global, it is a global example is what it was.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, and it\'s not \--

MR. SLOCUM: We had a domestic example and \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- cropping changes that we\'re really talking about. It\'s
really global, the global adoption, which I think we\'ve made. Is that
right, Jerry, or am I missing it?

MR. SLOCUM: I mean, what\'s happened in Argentina since 1996-97 when the
rounds of GE soybeans were first planted in the U.S., is that the
Argentine soybean production now is largely from saved seed, right,
Michael?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MR. SLOCUM: And it\'s about 95 percent biotech. And they grow, you know,
the Argentines are raising about a 40 million ton crop, which is about
15 million tons larger than it was in 1995-96, before they started
growing GE soybeans. They export more soybean meal than anybody else in
the world.

MS. DILLEY: But it\'s really their widespread adoption and cultivation
of transgenic soybeans. It\'s not really the cropping patterns that have
changed so much \--

MR. SLOCUM: Yes, exactly.

MS. DILLEY: \-- except for they\'ve gotten a lot bigger.

MR. SLOCUM: Except it is at the expense, that acreage is at the expense
of sunflower acreage and cattle acreage in Argentina. Argentina really
hadn\'t expanded its agricultural productive area. What it has done,
it\'s shifted from sunflowers, which were a long time Argentine staple,
to soybeans. And it has taken cattle land and planted soybeans on it.

MS. DILLEY: And grass land.

MR. SLOCUM: Raising cattle is part of the rotation in Argentine
agriculture.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, but that \-- okay.

MR. SLOCUM: Now, I don\'t know how, I don\'t know how you verbalize
that. But that\'s what\'s happened down there. They don\'t pay any
royalty fees to Monsanto or anybody else for biotech soybeans. They buy
generic Roundup, and it\'s a cheap, cheap, cheap inexpensive production
system.

MS. DILLEY: So is it critical to support the topic statement that we\'ve
landed on.

MR. SLOCUM: Yes it is because \--

MS. DILLEY: Do we need to, so do we need to finesse the language a
little bit. Can you help us?

MR. SLOCUM: Okay. But I mean, that\'s why Argentina is in there.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. But it\'s not saying that in the sense we\'ve got, so
we need \--

MR. SLOCUM: No, it\'s not.

MS. DILLEY: \-- we need to change it so it does.

MS. LAYTON: Can we start at the top of this sentence, and get the first
couple of sentences, because Argentina is at the bottom. And there\'s a
lot of red in there, and it\'s hard for me to figure out what we\'re
doing. So if we start at the top \--

MS. FOREMAN: Can we go back to the language \--

MS. LAYTON: March 15th, and the first sentence says, the adoption of
genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has influenced cropping
patterns in the United States.

So you want to say that adoption of genetically engineered corn,
soybeans, cotton and canola \--

MS. DILLEY: We kept canola.

MS. LAYTON: So you can either put canola before cotton, or you can put
it after cotton, but I think after cotton in terms of amount, and canola
has influenced cropping patterns in the United States. Okay. These
changes also appear to be affecting production of other crops for which
transgenic varieties are not commercially available.

For example, availability of genetic engineered, genetically engineered
corn and soy, along with other variables, has corresponded with an
increase in acres planted to these crops in the Dakotas and Minnesota,
replacing acres planted to wheat. Okay. Are we okay with that so far?

MS. FOREMAN: No.

MS. LAYTON: No. Carol is not. Which one do you not like?

MS. FOREMAN: I was going to, the whole first sentence.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: Let me suggest that these changes are one of the variables
affecting production for the other crops for which transgenic varieties
are not currently commercially available.

MS. DILLEY: So you want to take the clause along with other variables
and insert it up one sentence?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: So these changes are, along with other variables \--

MS. DILLEY: It\'s basically taking that clause that\'s in blue on the
sentence \-- let\'s see.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s not blue.

MS. DILLEY: Along with other variables, and taking that to, bumping it
up one sentence.

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. LAYTON: Okay, wait a minute. The first sentence is right. The
adoption of genetically engineered \-- well, you went back there. That
sentence, the first sentence, we\'re okay with. Okay. The next sentence

starts \--

MS. DILLEY: There you go.

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: You want that one.

MS. LAYTON: These changes along with \--

MS. FOREMAN: No, no, are among the variables, or among the factors.

MS. LAYTON: \-- are among the factors affecting production of other
crops for which transgenic varieties are not commercially available.

MR. HERDT: So instead of these changes, you need the availability of
genetically engineered varieties.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s a good point, these changes.

MS. LAYTON: The availability of genetically engineered varieties \--

MR. HERDT: Crops.

MS. LAYTON: Crops, of genetically engineered crops?

MR. HERDT: Crops is okay.

MS. LAYTON: Are among the factors affecting production for other, of
other crops, for which transgenic varieties are not currently
commercially available. The availability of genetically engineered crops
is among the factors affecting production of other crops when transgenic
varieties are not currently commercially available.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: How about, is one factor among other factors.

MS. FOREMAN: Why do you want to say that?

MS. LAYTON: It\'s just more words.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: One of the factors, is one of the factors.

MS. LAYTON: One among the factors.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Is one of.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, it\'s among multiple factors would be okay.

MS. LAYTON: Is among multiple \--

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s just more words. It\'s just more words.

MR. GRANT: You can talk \-- this is a major driver and irrespective of
what we\'ve talked about, this is a major driver. When we talk to
producers, it is a major driver. It\'s not, it\'s not just amongst the
factors. Yes, there are other factors, but this is a major driver.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Would you be comfortable, Carol, with, is one of the
factors?

MS. FOREMAN: I\'d be comfortable with, may be one of the factors.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: That\'s not what \--

MS. LAYTON: Well, it\'s not \--

MS. FOREMAN: I know that, I know that anecdotally this is the case. But
nobody has come with numbers showing it. Ron talks about other factors.
We all know that there are a lot of things happening in the upper middle
west that\'s influencing a lot of things that are going on there.

MS. DILLEY: So let\'s try and work on the sentence. So the availability
of genetically engineered crops is among, I kind of lost where we were
trying to, we were trying to say it\'s one of many factors, or it\'s one
important factor, or it\'s one \-- let\'s try and find a language that
strikes the balance here.

MS. FOREMAN: If you can say, if you want to say that it may be an
important factor, I\'d be okay with that.

MS. DILLEY: Is an important factor affecting production?

MS. LAYTON: No, she wants to say may be an important factor, and I
don\'t think that that\'s what Duane and them are going to agree to.

MR. GRANT: Well, so Adrian just pointed out, and I appreciate seeing it
from his perspective as the Ag Commissioner of Kansas, they\'ve lost two
to three million acres in Kansas, and it\'s gone directly to genetically
modified crops. So it\'s not just the Midwest.

You see it playing out \-- we\'re seeing it in Idaho, which is not a
bastion of genetically engineered crops. But our producers are dropping
malt, they\'re dropping wheat, and shifting to gen corn. Price has
something to do with it, but I can tell you \--

MS. DILLEY: It\'s one of the major factors \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Excuse me. Can we have one conversation?

MS. DILLEY: And we go with one of the major factors? I mean, I think
we\'re talking around that, and it seems to go in both directions. It\'s
a major factor, and it\'s one of many factors.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, is one of the major factors.

MS. FOREMAN: But I just want to say that nobody has come to this
meeting, and every time I say something that people don\'t like, we want
to know the data. Show me where. Well up to now, nobody, and I\'ve asked
for it every time we\'ve discussed this, would you please bring me some
studies that say this is the case. All we\'ve ever gone on is, that\'s
what the farmers say.

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, you know \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay, so \--

MS. FOREMAN: \-- that\'s not enough for us here. It shouldn\'t be enough
for us here.

MS. DILLEY: All right. So we\'ve got one of the major factors, and then
we drop down to the next sentence. And we\'ve got some cards up, and I
honestly don\'t know whose went up, so Russell, your card\'s been up for
a long time. So let\'s go to Russell and then Daryl and then Ron.

MR. KREMER: Are we done with that part?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. KREMER: We\'re into the text.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. No, no, that is the text, believe it or not.

MR. KREMER: Okay. Yes, okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. KREMER: Another change I would like to ask, request the committee to
consider in addition, we\'re admitting here that we\'re, you know,
because of this change to the production practices, we\'ve got less
practices of variable across, or diversity across, less crop rotation,
or these differences in crop rotation. So I would like to add in the
last sentence, somewhere in there, I think, an implication being
biodiversity.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So on that list \--

MR. KREMER: So right below.

MS. DILLEY: \-- down below you would like to see some \--

MR. KREMER: In maybe the last sentence.

MS. DILLEY: \-- an insertion of biodiversity, et cetera.

MS. SULTON: Here?

MS. DILLEY: Somewhere in there, in that list of things that have had
implications. And you would like to see biodiversity added to that list.
I mean, before \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: We\'re not there yet.

MS. DILLEY: Can we put that in there, and then hold until we get to
that, because we are trying to go through it line by line. So Daryl, of
you are next, I think you are next, and then can you, are you going to
the for example sentence, or no?

MR. BUSS: No.

MS. DILLEY: The first sentence?

MR. BUSS: I\'m actually questioning whether we need the second sentence.
It starts like redundant to the third.

MS. FOREMAN: I would be happier if we dropped the third and kept the
second, because it\'s the specificity in the third where nobody has
brought any numbers to the table.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So the question is, is the second and third sentence
redundant? Any thoughts on that, Ron?

MR. OLSON: Yes, I will just add, there is a study. North Dakota put it
out. It\'s like \-- I can\'t remember the number in my head, but it\'s
like 15, right down to the dollar. In fact, there was a meeting on April
5th with the wheat growers to go over this in detail. But NDSU did put
out a study where RoundupReady^®^ beans lowered the cost of raising
soybeans in relation to wheat. It varied, but like \$15 to \$22 an acre.
And that is a major affect. And it was an exact study done, all that
stuff. So there is data in that particular area of the country that does
show that. I don\'t have it with me, so I thought I had it in my
briefcase. I was looking, but I don\'t.

MS. FOREMAN: You know, if we can be more specific and say, for example
\--

MS. LAYTON: A recent NDSU study showed \--

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, it shows.

MR. OLSON: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: I think that would be good for me. I would like that.

MR. OLSON: Yes, that would satisfy the specificity. And it\'s a public
study. Bill Wilson did it,

Dr. Wilson.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so are we keeping both sentences, but we\'re specific
to that study on, to bolster that example? Is that where, is that the
proposal? And Ron, is there any way to get a hold of that study at a
break?

MS. LAYTON: Somebody fax it to you?

MR. OLSON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, because it would be nice to just finish off the cite
with the document. Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. So what I heard Ron say was, and he will get the
citation for us, for example, a recent North Dakota State University
study \--

MS. DILLEY: Suggests, or whatever

MS. LAYTON: \-- suggests \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: XYZ.

MS. LAYTON: \-- XYZ, and Ron\'s going to come back with that statement
for us. He\'s going to have it faxed to us today, and we can double
check it tomorrow.

MR. OLSON: I don\'t know if I will get it faxed today or not.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, it states, or whatever \--

MS. LAYTON: I don\'t care.

MS. FOREMAN: That isn\'t comforting to those of us who \--

MS. DILLEY: Like I said, Jerry, I\'m not good with the editing. So if
that\'s the wrong one \-- documents, okay, whatever. Right.

MS. LAYTON: We\'re going to grade that statement, and we\'re going to
come out with that statement letter, but that\'s going to be the for
example. And it will be a study that\'s concise.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So even if those two sentences are redundant, we like
that, right? So with the changes, and we are going to keep them, is that
what we\'re suggesting?

MS. LAYTON: Yes. So put that in brackets. Put the for example in
brackets, and a note that we\'re going to come back to that.

MR. BUSS: I would \--

MS. LAYTON: Yes, Daryl.

MS. DILLEY: Daryl.

MR. BUSS: I don\'t see it as an all or nothing, because that sentence,
wouldn\'t it be less redundant if it said, for example, findings for the
study suggest that an increase in acres planted to whatever \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we\'ve got \--

MR. BUSS: The availability of corn and \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I suggest that exactly figuring out how that
statement is going to look is going to have to wait until we get the
study.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, but we can go to the last two.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Right. Now.

MS. DILLEY: So comments on the last two sentences, we\'ve had, if we can
go to the next one. There have been even greater cropping changes. What
are we going to do with this Argentina sentence, Jerry? Have you come up
with the right sentence, or anybody else? Take it out, delete it, or do
we have proposed language changes that \--

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s too long.

MS. DILLEY: Daryl.

MR. BUSS: Well, I was going to suggest \--

MS. DILLEY: It\'s okay. Go ahead, suggest.

MR. BUSS: \-- a sentence saying something to the effect of changes in
cropping patterns in other countries may further accentuate changes in
the U.S. Is that the intent?

MS. DILLEY: I think that\'s the point Jerry was making, right, is that
\--

MR. BUSS: Right.

MS. DILLEY: \-- changes, I don\'t know if it is cropping patterns or
adoption or both or what.

MR. BUSS: It\'s cropping patterns.

MS. DILLEY: It is cropping patterns.

MR. BUSS: And the cropping patterns were enabled, in part, by the
availability of a genetically engineered crop.

MR. SLOCUM: And they\'re communicated by price.

MR. BUSS: Yes.

MR. SLOCUM: Which drives the change.

MS. DILLEY: But isn\'t, well, cropping \-- okay.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Bear with me again. You\'re saying the sentence, as it
stands right now, there have been even greater cropping changes observed
in Argentina that have coincided with the widespread adoption and
cultivation of transgenic soybeans.

MS. DILLEY: I thought the point was that Argentina is basically growing
more soybeans and that\'s affecting cropping patterns in the U.S.

MR. SLOCUM: It\'s been affecting the U.S. and the rest of the world.

MS. DILLEY: Isn\'t that what it\'s saying? We don\'t care if they are
changing their cropping patterns. It\'s the fact that they are growing
more.

MR. SLOCUM: Right. Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: So it \--

MR. SLOCUM: And it has an impact on cropping patterns in the U.S.

MS. DILLEY: Which is affecting price, which is \-- in the U.S. Right. So
can we just say that?

MR. SLOCUM: Yes. But with respect to the topic that Schechtman has us
looking at, that part of that adoption, part of that cropping change in
Argentina, is a result of availability and adoption, in that case,
availability and adoption of transgenic soybeans.

MS. DILLEY: Right, but I don\'t think we care about cropping patterns in
Argentina. We\'re using that in a different way than we are in the topic
sentence. It\'s really that they\'re growing more, adoption of \--

MR. SLOCUM: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, so adoption and cultivation of transgenic soybeans in
Argentina have impacted the production of soybeans globally.

MS. DILLEY: There have been even greater cropping changes in the U.S.
brought about by Argentina\'s widespread adoption of transgenic
soybeans, isn\'t it, because they are growing more of them.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I make a suggestion, see if this does it. Adoption
of transgenic crops in other countries may not only impact cropping
patterns in those countries, but may also affect U.S. \--

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t think you want to get into cropping patterns in
other countries. Why don\'t you keep it straight to the point of the
topic sentence, that it\'s really, it\'s the U.S. cropping patterns that
we\'re talking about. I\'m sorry. If people like that, that\'s great.
I\'m sorry. It just gets me.

MR. SLOCUM: A changing crop, you know, agriculture is global. As painful
as it is some days, agriculture is global. An Argentine soybean and a
U.S. soybean are relatively similar. Ours is much better, of course. But
at a price, theirs will do.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m not arguing that. I just think we are using cropping
patterns then in two different ways. If we just say the adoption, global
adoption point is changing domestic cropping patterns \--

MR. SLOCUM: Yes, that\'s correct.

MR. DYKES: That\'s fine.

MS. LAYTON: So here\'s what Cindy has. There have been even greater
cropping changes in the U.S. brought about by Argentina\'s \--

MS. DILLEY: Cropping patterns.

MS. LAYTON: \-- widespread adoption and cultivation of transgenic
soybeans.

MS. FOREMAN: We don\'t know that there have been even greater cropping
changes in the U.S. There have, the changes in Argentina, changes in
other countries like Argentina, have contributed to changes in
production or cropping patterns in the United States, have also
contributed.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Okay. Everybody likes that one, so say it again.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, good.

MS. FOREMAN: Changes, you don\'t need the top of it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, the changes in other countries. Wait, we\'ve got two
changes in there.

MR. DYKES: Like Argentina.

MS. LAYTON: Changes in other countries, like Argentina, have contributed
to changes in cropping patterns in the U.S.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Is it changes that you want the adoption of transgenic
crops in other countries like \--

MR. SLOCUM: At least it needs to be changed to cropping patterns in
other countries.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MR. DYKES: I think it should be adoption.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s adoption.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s adoption and cultivation.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s adoption in other countries.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay. Adoption in other countries, like Argentina, has
contributed \--

MR. DYKES: To the changes in the cropping patterns in the U.S.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi, sorry, go ahead.

MS. MELLON: I mean, it seems to me, though, the reason Argentina was in
here to begin with, was to provide another example of a place where
transgenic crops were adopted because they provided some sort of
advantage? It was to kind of reinforce the point of this, which is that
the advantages of transgenic crops, and driving people to accept them,
and by implication, if we had transgenic wheat, there would be more
wheat grown in the U.S. I don\'t know if I \--

MR. BUSS: That\'s correct. That\'s correct.

MS. MELLON: That\'s what I see as the point of this. So, so if you want
to make that, we need to get that out on the table. If we want to make
that point, I think we need to say something like, similar changes have
been observed in Argentina.

If, on the other hand, we\'re going to make the point about changes in
other countries affecting our cropping patterns, I think we cannot, we
can\'t say what\'s happened in Argentina has affected our cropping
patterns. Certainly, we have to say, Argentina and Brazil. Brazil is far
more important, only some of it has been \--

MS. LAYTON: And that\'s why they say, adoption of transgenic crops in
other countries like Argentina and Brazil. Do you want to add both?

MS. MELLON: Like Argentina and Brazil.

MS. FOREMAN: Or just say including Argentina and Brazil, including
Argentina and Brazil.

MS. MELLON: I still think that\'s the point of the argument.

MS. DILLEY: Does that get us there, then? Adoption of transgenic crops
in other countries, including Argentina and Brazil, contributed to
changes in cropping patterns in the U.S. and \--

MS. FOREMAN: Also have contributed because when you say \--

MS. DILLEY: Also have, okay. Does that get us there?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right. So if there are no other comments on that
sentence, then that leaves us the last sentence, which is \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No.

MS. DILLEY: Sorry, Alison.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I have a comment. So because of that we\'re growing
less soybeans in America? I just want to clarify that\'s true? Or
what\'s happening in Brazil and Argentina, what changed in our cropping
patterns here as a result of \-- I know it got cheaper, but did it
change the amount of soybeans?

MR. SLOCUM: We\'re growing more soybeans in the U.S. at the expense of
wheat, largely.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Right. What\'s that got to do with Brazil and
Argentina?

MR. SLOCUM: We would grow more soybeans in the U.S. probably, were it
not for the expanded production in Brazil and Argentina.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, that sounds like it\'s a counter, then. That sounds
like we\'re in \-- if Argentina and Brazil weren\'t raising soybeans,
and raising soybeans, we would raise more of them in the U.S. So it
sounds like the adoption of the transgenic soybeans there has actually
slowed the increase in production of soybeans in the U.S.

MR. GRANT: I think that\'s true. I think that\'s an accurate statement,
Carol. That is the impact.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: If we were on one trajectory with soybeans before, it\'s
brought that trajectory down a little bit, even though we are still
expanding into areas that we weren\'t expanding into before. But we\'re
not growing, for example, in South Carolina, you\'re not seeing the same
field growing soybean year after year. So it\'s not as rapid an expanse
if we were exporting soybeans, right?

MS. FOREMAN: Well, why don\'t we say that.

MS. DILLEY: Randy.

MS. FOREMAN: Because I, when I heard it, it was something that somehow
they were driving more soybean production in the U.S. This was a factor
in the further increase of production, but I see the percentage \--

MS. LAYTON: Changes, yes. Yes, we\'re changing cropping patterns, so at
the end of that sentence, Randy, did you want to add to that sentence at
all, or no? I think we\'re there with that one.

MR. GIROUX: I\'m fine.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Duane?

MS. DILLEY: Duane, on this one? So can we move to the last sentence?

MR. SLOCUM: Which is starting with such?

MS. LAYTON: Changes.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi?

MS. MELLON: I would like to add, after food security, I guess, the
research agendas. And to me, the underside of this issue, from my point
of view, is that people who are growing, who want to grow
non-genetically engineered crops have fewer and fewer options. Even if
they want to grow it, they can\'t get it. There is not sufficient
research going into improved crops like, other than what might become
adoption of the existence of the tall wheat that\'s currently employed
in \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so the \--

MS. MELLON: So I don\'t want to go into a whole thing, but I do want to,
I do want to highlight that this is a recent part of a research agenda.
We\'re the one that\'s coming to improve a commodity cost. What that
research is, determines what the options are that farmers have, and
there are lots of farmers who are not that thrilled that the only
options they have are GM.

MS. DILLEY: So the fundamental change here is you are expanding the
number of implications caused by cropping pattern changes. And we\'ve
added a couple more facts or implications to this list. Alison and then
Carole.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I just, I wonder if recent agendas might be variety
development, to specify what it is that, research is a broad term, I
guess.

MS. MELLON: Well, it\'s \--

MR. SLOCUM: Plus conventional herbicides, variety, it\'s a lot of
things.

MS. DILLEY: So it\'s beyond variety development, but you are thinking
that research agenda is too broad, or does that capture it? Duane, you
like it. Okay. We\'re going to stick with it. Carole.

MS. CRAMER: I would say that among the people that are doing research
here \--

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. CRAMER: \-- who is all the people whose cards are up \-- but the
fact of cropping \-- well no, Alison as well, the fact that cropping
patterns are changing globally is not driving what we write grants
about. I would say that on the list of things we\'ve handled, I would
never consider research agendas being driven by this. So the research
agenda is not the right word.

MR. SLOCUM: It\'s driving the research agenda\'s agenda, Monsanto, and
now the sciences.

MS. MELLON: And I think it has implications for the public research
agenda, which in my view should step in to balance this, not accept it,
but balance it.

MS. LAYTON: Which goes back to one that we\'ve already corrected, and
supports what Mardi was saying, which was about research.

MS. DILLEY: Bob.

MR. HERDT: Yes, I mean, clearly the research agenda is affected by the
whole biotech development, but I\'m not sure that this is, that in this
particular point you want to add that in. It just, it seems like it\'s
not \-- I don\'t know, it\'s like putting everything into one point,
Mardi, to me.

MS. MELLON: I take your point, but still, I have so few opportunities
\--

MS. DILLEY: I mean, we\'re not saying it drives those things. It has
implications, and this is a compromise, you know, to list some things
that are important to people. So we\'ve got implications on, again,
it\'s not, we\'re not saying they drive them, et cetera. We\'re trying
to be expansive in this last list, and just talk about, there are
considerations in a wide variety of things.

So right now we have implications on market access, food security,
research agendas, biodiversity, and competitiveness. It\'s a pretty
broad ranging list, but it obviously is one made by committee, and
that\'s what you are so \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Mardi, would you object to having research programs
instead of agendas?

MS. MELLON: I would not.

MS. LAYTON: Agendas is a little \--

MS. MELLON: But I \--

MS. DILLEY: Research programs, okay.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Anything else on this last one? So the only thing that\'s in
play or subject to change is that one cite, and how to phrase that, for
example sentence more specifically to the study. And we\'ll do that
after lunch. Are you all okay with that? Okay. All right. Since there
are lots of side conversations going on, people must be ready to move
on.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Number six has been done, number seven has been done.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Number eight.

MS. LAYTON: So we\'re at number eight.

MS. DILLEY: So if we can at least get started on this before we \-- so
if we could get started on this, and if we could finish it, even better,
by the lunch break. So take a couple of minutes. This is on energy
grants and government policies, et cetera.

MS. LAYTON: We\'re moving to eight.

MS. DILLEY: Number eight.

MS. LAYTON: Four of 11 are done?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Almost. That one is not quite done.

MS. LAYTON: Almost.

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. DILLEY: Are we ready to start?

MR. DYKES: Abby, the March 15th version, where I think you accepted most
of the, or some of the changes, or whatever, I would just make a
suggestion that the March 15th version reads pretty well. Now, I don\'t
know if that\'s acceptable to everybody else or not, but \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, let\'s start with the topic sentence. And obviously
that wasn\'t changed from the 14th to the 15th. So Duane, you want to
comment on the topic sentence?

MR. GRANT: I will, but I\'ll kind of couch my remarks, I guess. It seems
like this entire topic, entire issue, is struggling with whether the
crops will be used or be designed specifically for energy production, or
whether the crops that will be used for energy production will also be
used for other uses.

And unless we decide which it is of the two we\'re going to focus on,
this doesn\'t do it. This gives more \-- so I guess I would suggest that
the crops will be for dual purpose, and would suggest inserting the word
further, so it would read, energy, government policies, and increased
use of crop-based fuel that may lead to the further development and use
of genetically engineered crops provide alternative sources of energy.
Then if I could work on the text farther down \--

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. GRANT: But the premise would be that the crops will be dual-purpose,
and not \--

MS. FOREMAN: This is, it will be corn and beans.

MS. LAYTON: Right.

MR. SLOCUM: Not only that, but it will be corn and beans that \--

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: You eat.

MR. SLOCUM: \-- are not industrial corn and beans.

MS. LAYTON: Right.

MR. DYKES: Yes. You will be able to use the bean by-products.

MS. DILLEY: Right. So \--

MR. SLOCUM: And they won\'t have to be segregated.

MS. DILLEY: So to Duane\'s point, I think the change that he made, was
the further development and use genetically, and then the rest of the
paragraph needs to flow from that, if that\'s the direction that we\'re
going. Mardi.

MS. MELLON: Well, I think this is just the key, key point. If we think
we have problems with pharmaceutical food products, the notion of
planting half of our corn acreage or three-quarters of it in energy
crops that are specifically genetically engineered to make them more
amenable to, say, the extraction of cellulose or something, is really a
nightmare.

And for us to identify that issue here, and basically say that we\'re,
that energy development should be done, you know, in such a way that
things are a dual use, or I don\'t know, conventional eating only, I
don\'t know how \-- if this is a real tough thing, from a regulatory
point of view, I think it would make a big contribution, because I think
a lot of us, certainly I have only recently had the \--

And UCS has, you know, has these lovely charts that indicate that
biomass, you could plant biomass, from ocean to ocean and still not have
enough to really produce independence from fossil fuel.

But the potential reach of energy costs is really huge. And thinking
through some of this in the early phases, I think would be a great
contribution. So I really, really think \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so add a phrase.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Mardi, can you use, do you have your own data?

MS. DILLEY: Randy, and then Greg, Pat and then Carol. Randy.

MR. GIROUX: So I\'m just trying, I\'m just trying to understand what our
definition of an energy crop is. Are we talking about corn that\'s
approved for food and feed use that\'s also used for energy? Or are we
talking about energy use crops which don\'t have food and feed approval?
And I think that it has a big impact on what\'s in the rest of that
paragraph. Because if it\'s fully approved for food and feed use, like
we use corn today, there is no impact \-- energy crops, and the status
of biotech.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, where it says, change the composition of crops for
optimal energy production, you certainly open the door to having crops
that are specific

for \--

MS. DILLEY: We\'re letting a lot of different points in here. We need to
disaggregate them a little bit.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Greg.

MR. JAFFE: Yes, now, to me it\'s not, the issue isn\'t whether approved
for food and feed. You can approve one for food and feed. The issue is
the trait specific of energy production, as opposed to another term.
When you use that term using engineered corn now as an alternative
source of energy, but this paragraph, when I read it, is talking about
specifically engineering traits for optimal energy production.

So they, to me, those could still get food and feed approval, but the
point of the trait, I thought what we were, I thought the whole point of
this paragraph, and that\'s why, when it talks about, when Duane talks
about further development, well I don\'t think we have any currently
engineered traits on the market that are opt for specifically for energy
development.

And I thought the whole point of this was to talk about for the
Secretary that one of the things that we may have is crops that are
specifically engineered for energy production, as opposed to crops that
are engineered that also are used for energy production.

And so to me, we have to, it\'s sort of what Randy is saying, but I am
not looking at in terms of whether it\'s approved for that. But I\'m
looking at it in terms of the trait. To me, we have to come to grips as
to whether this is a question about using genetically engineered crops
for energy, or are there traits, are we engineering them for energy,
specifically, engineering them for energy production. Because that to me
was what the body of it talks about. And to me, if we do that, then I\'m
not sure, and the word further there really is accurate.

MR. GRANT: Right. May I respond?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. GRANT: I would agree with you, Greg, and if that\'s the direction we
want to go, then I have some language to put in a different place in
this statement, because I agree. We have to be clear, or else we have to
add some text to the body that breaks it out into the two points.

MS. DILLEY: So we are trying to make both points, is a question to the
committee.

MS. MELLON: Such a crop has already been submitted to the USDA. It is a
corn, a corn variety that has been genetically engineered to make it
more adaptable for production of \-- and it will not be the first. So,
but, as I said, the acreage implications for these things are enormous
compared to pharmaceutical and most of the other industrial
implications, so that\'s what we\'re kind of grappling with.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So the question is, then, are we trying to make both
of those points, and as our top sentence is starting to get us there, I
know we\'ve got to look at both text and topic sentence, but we just
don\'t want to make it a confusing topic sentence. Pat, did you have a
comment?

MS. LAYTON: Yes. I\'m uncomfortable just talking about traditional
crops. It\'s one of, and early on, some of the early on interest in
genetic engineering was actually putting RoundupReady^®^ genes in a
poplar so it could be the ligno-cellulosic ethanol/methanol kinds of
production. And those have been tested already. And the use of lignin,

either lower lignin or higher lignin in trees is being worked on and may
be planted. I don\'t know if it\'s planted or not. But I think it may be
tested.

So I\'m uncomfortable with \-- we may want to go with bio-based fuels
as, because I am extremely uncomfortable \--

MS. DILLEY: You said crop-based \--

MS. LAYTON: \-- with taking acreage out of forest and putting it into
other kinds of production systems that are annual production systems
instead of multi-year production systems, from a biodiversity, from a
wildlife habitat, from you name it. I\'m uncomfortable with it.

So I do not want to see the world, you know, I don\'t want to see 400
million acres added to produce corn. No. I want them to have to be able
to be diverse.

MS. DILLEY: Speaking as a forester.

MS. LAYTON: Speaking as a forester and on behalf of all wildlife living
in forests everywhere in the world, even the red wolf, you know. I
don\'t care.

MS. DILLEY: Carol.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. We\'ve come up on one, that may be more at issue than
anything else that we say is really important. I think that we know
it\'s not very productive to try to write it in this group. And I think
we ought to create a subcommittee that will, at the end of the day,
today, go and try to write this, and bring it back tomorrow morning,
because I don\'t think that we can break it. It\'s just not, it\'s going
to take us two hours to do it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. I agree with the basic premise. I would be, I would
like to be a little more ambitious and have somebody do that over lunch,
if we could, because I don\'t want to \-- if we start putting things off
until tomorrow, I\'d rather do them today. There is some famous saying
about that.

But if we could get people to be willing to do it, I think you are
right, and that it would be great to come back and work with a sentence,
a proposed sentence, a topic statement, at least. And then if people can
push it through to additional modifications to stay in sync with the
topic sentence, that would be great.

MS. FOREMAN: If the people could at least come up with a topic sentence
and the four points that we have to include, that would tease out the
different aspects.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. I think that would be great. Do we have people who
would be willing to dedicate a portion of your lunch hour to wrestling
with a topic sentence, and trying to capture the four key points that we
need to cover?

MS. FOREMAN: I\'m nominating Greg.

MR. JAFFE: No, no, not me.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi, would you be willing to assist? Duane, the two of
you? You\'re over there, you can just don\'t have lunch.

MS. LAYTON: Don\'t worry, we\'ll bring lunch to you.

MS. FOREMAN: Just bring your lunch over.

MS. DILLEY: Anybody else want to join them in trying to sketch out, take
another run at this topic? Okay. It\'s in your hands you two.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And Alison, you\'re going to join them?

MS. DILLEY: You will? Great. Thanks, Alison.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Excellent.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we\'ll come back and pick up where we left off with
this one, and have another proposal.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I just check on a couple of points about this to
make sure we know where we\'re going. Were there, was it actually the
case that there were problems with the topic sentence, or that the text
is going to need to do a lot more clarifying?

MS. LAYTON: I think crop, bio instead of crop.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. I heard the bio-based fuels.

MS. DILLEY: We told them to work on the topic sentence.

MS. MELLON: Yes, I think the topic sentence should be, you know, will
increase or may increase the use of bio-based fuels, and lead to the
development of, and use of genetically engineered. I think we ought to
talk about \--

MS. LAYTON: Plants.

MS. MELLON: \-- nonfood crops, nonfood crops, like switchgrass and
trees, so that they are all \--

MS. LAYTON: Specifically stated.

MS. MELLON: \-- out there.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, okay.

MS. MELLON: You know, to provide alternatives.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. So the basic, the basic point is, that you are
seeing some changes in that, and also in your work you will be teasing
out the difference between using crops that may be genetically
engineered, but not specifically for the particular trait, as well as
those that may be specifically engineered. Okay.

MR. DYKES: But we\'re not eliminating corn and beans from \--

MS. LAYTON: No, no, no.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, no.

MS. DILLEY: Alison.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Can I ask a question of the crop boys. Is anyone
honestly planning to do a genetically engineered energy corn or soy that
is not going to have food or feed approval?

MR. DYKES: That\'s an important question. I like that. That\'s not going
to have food or feed approval?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Right.

MR. DYKES: I don\'t think we have.

MR. JAFFE: We don\'t know the answer to that. We can\'t know the future.

MR. KREMER: I have heard of such proposals coming out of biotechnology,
not necessarily the source of agriculture, per se. But there are things
going on \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: For energy?

MR. KREMER: In the biotechnology. Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. DYKES: We have corn varieties today that are not engineered, but
they have been selected because they have a higher starch content than
others. They aren\'t engineered, but we do have those varieties
identified today that we sell as crops that are preferred for the
ethanol industry.

MS. ZANNONI: And we have one submitted that is transgenically
engineered, but it\'s also submitted for food and feed approval.

MR. DYKES: I would think most anything we do is going to have food and
feed approvals. I don\'t envision that we are going to market something
without food and feed approvals.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I ask \-- yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, you guys. We said we weren\'t going to have the
conversation, so let\'s just hold off. We\'ve got just a couple more
things that we need to say before we break for lunch.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, can I ask whether it makes sense to exclude the
possibility that that might happen, though, at some point?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: To write it in there, you mean?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we have until 1:15 for lunch, and there are several
places around here to go for lunch. If you can do a quicker restaurant
than a slower one, that would be a good idea.

And just, that group is going to out on it, but what I would highly
suggest is that if you have not read the document, we really need to
have everything on the table by the end of today. So if you haven\'t
read the introductory section, if you haven\'t looked at all the topics,
and I think to the point that has been made before, nothing is finished
until it\'s finished, we want you to look at things and say, for those
that have been set aside, set a high bar for opening those up.

But having said that, you just need to wait it out. We need to get all
those issues on the table so that we can make our plans accordingly to
wrap up by lunch tomorrow. So please do your homework, and we\'ll start
back up at 1:15.

MS. LAYTON: And I\'ll just remind you, for those of you who are not
familiar with it, on 19th Street, which is the next street over, there
are several restaurants in addition to the ones that you will see on M
Street. There\'s not a lot on this 18th Street block, but there are a
couple if you go to the next block up. California Pizza Kitchen, and
Daily Grill, and things like that.

(Luncheon Recess.)

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I am happy to report to the committee that our other new
member has successfully made it here from China, so I am very happy to
introduce to the committee Nicholas Kalazitzandonakes. Perhaps as we did
with the other new members, you could just say a word or two about who
you are and your interest in the committee?

We went around earlier with everyone introducing themselves and their
affiliations. I don\'t think we can do that a second time just now, but
Nick.

MR. KALAZITZANDONAKES: I\'m Nicholas Kalazitzandonakes. I\'m an
economist by training. I\'m a professor at the University of Missouri in
Columbia, and have worked for the last 10-12 years on issues of biotech
from economic impact to supply chain management, preservation,
versatility, to consumer issues, to even media impact on biotech. So
I\'m looking forward to the discussions here.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Thank you. And everyone will be happy to all you Nick.

MR. KALAZITZANDONAKES: Yes. Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So we had a productive group that had a task over the lunch
hour, and it looks like they have something to propose to the committee,
and so Mardi, Alison, and Duane, I don\'t know who among you wants to
give any kind of intro to the new topic and text?

MS. MELLON: Well, I have it.

MS. DILLEY: Who drew the short straw.

MS. MELLON: Okay. Well, I would just encourage everybody to read it.
What we did was try to state things generally. We took out all the
language about the locations for exceptions, because we just, that was
far more kind of problematic and not as important as these issues.

We tried to indicate that there are three major categories of crops, the
food, food crops, nonfood crops, and trees. That interest is increasing
dramatically. We wanted to, you know, heighten the importance of this
issue. And I guess a major factual point we wanted to include was that
acreages for energy use are going to be very, very large. And that\'s
one of the features. Whatever is used for energy is going to be using
enormous acreages.

And I, oh, and I think Duane made a good point that not only would we be
engineering trees and nonfood crops, but some engineers might want to
try to engineer the nonfood components of food products, like corn.

MS. LAYTON: And not, there\'s a stray comma there where you are
blinking.

MS. MELLON: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: And the last line between should be among. That\'s a
statistician talking. You can only be between two things, and you can be
among three things. I know.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, let\'s start with the topic sentence. Energy demands
and government policies have greatly increased the use of bio-based fuel
and feed stocks, and may lead to the development of food and nonfood
crops genetically engineered specifically for energy production. So we
are being, I think, more specific about what points we\'re trying to
make. So any comments on the topic statement? No? Carol, go ahead.

MS. FOREMAN: I know that the \-- increased already, but it\'s like
organic, they greatly increase from a very small number. Is there any
way that could be a little more precise? There was no use of the \-- I
guess it\'s only been around four or five years now, but it would be
nice if we could find a way just to hone that point.

MS. MELLON: You mean how much corn is used for ethanol production?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MR. DYKES: About one row in seven in the U.S. today.

MR. SLOCUM: It\'s a billion bushels. More than we export.

MS. LAYTON: And two and a half percent of the energy production in the
U.S. was already in wood.

MS. FOREMAN: How much of the energy production is now in corn?

MS. LAYTON: Two billion bushels.

MR. SLOCUM: Yes, but it\'s still a fraction, a fraction of the total
volume.

MR. JAFFE: About 3 percent, I think.

MR. SLOCUM: You know what it\'s really done is \--

MS. FOREMAN: No, I\'ll go with 3 percent. If it\'s up to 3 percent
already, that\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: Any other comments? Jerry, did you have another comment on
the topic sentence? Are people comfortable, then, with the topic
statement?

MR. SLOCUM: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Can we move on, then, to the next sentence. Interest
in alternative and renewable fuel sources is increasing dramatically.

MS. FOREMAN: Has increased.

MS. DILLEY: Has increased.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s already happened.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, has increased. Okay.

MR. GRANT: Rather than take out is and substitute has, I would suggest,
continues to increase.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Continues to increase.

MR. GRANT: Then you correct it grammatically.

MS. FINE: That\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: Continues to increase. Okay. You know what you are doing.
Okay. Are you good with that sentence? Okay. The next one is the tools
of modern biotechnology could be employed to change the composition of
crops for optimal energy production.

MR. JAFFE: I guess I would just, personally, optimal energy production.
I mean, I don\'t know what that is. I mean, that means for better energy
production \--

MS. DILLEY: More enhanced.

MR. JAFFE: \-- or just for energy production, but to say optimal,
that\'s a high \--

MS. DILLEY: Enhanced.

MS. MELLON: Enhanced.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Enhanced.

MS. LAYTON: Cindy, continues is misspelled.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, we\'ll move onto the next sentence. These changes
could be effected in both food and nonfood products.

MS. LAYTON: Is that an A?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, that\'s an E, that\'s an E.

MS. MELLON: We thought about that and put the E correctly.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any comments on that one. All right. Okay. Acreages
involved in energy producing crops are likely to be extensive.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Great.

MR. JAFFE: Shouldn\'t that be genetically engineered energy producing
crops? I mean, isn\'t that what we\'re talking about here. I mean, we
already said there are three million acres. They\'re already extensive
for not engineered. I mean, it\'s likely, you\'re telling us something
in the future. We\'re talking about genetic engineering here in the
future.

MS. DILLEY: Wow, that\'s a qualifier, and perhaps genetically engineered
energy producing crops.

MS. LAYTON: Are likely to be extensive.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Is that what we mean to say?

MS. HUNT: But in the previous sentence, it talks about biotechnology
could be. So now we\'re just saying genetically engineered.

MS. DILLEY: Well, you\'re talking about two different categories. One is
food and nonfood crops, and the second one is energy producing crops, I
guess. But you are talking about both crops, correct?

MR. SLOCUM: No, I think she\'s referring to the earlier sentence \--

MS. HUNT: Yes, the \--

MS. DILLEY: Oh, okay. Okay. So what\'s the suggestion?

MS. HUNT: Well, I\'m just making the point that now we\'ve gone from
saying generally could be employed, to just saying, specifically,
genetically engineered. I\'m just pointing that out, because we\'ve now
focused that.

MR. JAFFE: You could say, in those energy producing crops. Just, when
you just had it alone, when you said, and energy producing crops \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So in those genetically engineered crops?

MR. JAFFE: \-- it\'s already extensive. I don\'t know what, you know,
that it would be extensive. It was just a general sentence stuck in
there. It didn\'t seem to make \--

MS. MELLON: Well, see, I want to make that very, I think that\'s a very
important point that we\'re talking about, a third or a half of our corn
acreage, or a third or a half of our soybean acreage, so \--

MS. DILLEY: So you\'re going with those genetically engineered crops?

MR. JAFFE: Are going to be genetically engineered energy crops?

MS. MELLON: If they are engineered for energy purposes, those are the
acreage, the kinds of acreages that energy crops are going to become.

MR. JAFFE: Well, that doesn\'t come across in that sentence.

MS. MELLON: Well, then that\'s why we need to \--

MS. CRAMER: Why don\'t we \--

MS. DILLEY: Carole.

MS. CRAMER: \-- just say, combine it with the previous sentence, so
you\'re talking genetically engineered.

MS. MELLON: Right.

MR. JAFFE: Right.

MS. CRAMER: And these changes could be effected in both food and nonfood
crops, and potentially may involve extensive acreages.

MR. JAFFE: Yes, that would it. Right, something like that.

MS. MELLON: Okay. Good.

MS. DILLEY: Involve extensive acreage. Is that \--

MS. MELLON: You could say planted on extensive acreage.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MR. JAFFE: Well, it could be planted on \--

MR. SLOCUM: Just say extensive acreage.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So that captures, Mardi, that captures that?

MS. MELLON: Fine.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And then that goes, and then drop down to the next
sentence. Use of food crops genetically engineered for energy pose \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Poses.

MS. LAYTON: Poses.

MS. DILLEY: \-- poses coexistence and marketing challenges and may raise
new regulatory issues, particularly \-- this looks like one of my
sentences \-- particularly if the crops are not approved for food and
feed use.

MR. SLOCUM: It\'s pose.

MS. DILLEY: It should be pose?

MS. LAYTON: Yes, because it\'s multiple things \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, it\'s the use poses. The use poses.

MS. DILLEY: Use poses. Greg and then Randy.

MR. JAFFE: I mean, I think it should be, say pose safety, coexistence
and marketing challenges.

MS. DILLEY: So you\'re, it\'s poses safety coexistence and marketing
challenges and may raise new regulatory issues? Randy.

MR. GIROUX: It\'s declaring that that is going to be the state of
affairs, and I don\'t think it\'s fair to say that any of those things
would ever materialize for sure. I think it should say may.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, I agree.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: May pose.

MS. LAYTON: May pose.

MS. MELLON: And why do you think it would pose a safety issue?

MR. JAFFE: If they are not approved for feed use.

MS. MELLON: Why would pose a safety issue? Why wouldn\'t it? I mean, you
are going to be putting gene and gene products that were never intended
for food purposes into food products.

MS. ZANNONI: But some are, will have food and feed use on them. So
safety should have been taken into consideration by the agency when they
reviewed it.

MS. MELLON: Well, to me, that is just a safety issue that you\'ve got to
take into account, and it will be, just because of the acreage of these
things \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay. I guess the issue is, are we talking a good safety
issue or an environmental safety issue? And safety is a broad thing, and
I guess that\'s why I was asking Mardi. I\'m sorry.

MR. GRANT: So one word that we had in their earlier and took out was
regulatory, which kind of

captures \--

MS. DILLEY: They have regulatory in there.

MR. GRANT: Is it back in there? Is it in there?

MS. LAYTON: And may raise new regulatory issues.

MR. GRANT: Okay. That\'s where we tried to capture the safety issue. I
mean, I thought it was the point.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, you\'ve already got a may qualifying that
sentence.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So one other question's on the table is safety issues,
but I want to get Randy, your card\'s been up for a while, and it\'s on
this sentence, right?

MR. GIROUX: Yes. We don\'t know how this market's going to evolve, but I
think we need to be realistic here. And I can\'t imagine that in our, in
my lifetime there will ever be one-third of the U.S. acres dedicated to
a corn crop that hasn\'t got full food and feed safety, and
environmental safety approval.

I just, it\'s unrealistic, I think, to even imagine that someone would
come forward and try to plant large volumes of acres of something that
hasn\'t received feed, food, and environmental regulatory approval, even
if it\'s meant for ethanol production. So I\'m struggling with that
sentence.

MS. MELLON: Well, unfortunately, I don\'t share your \-- I have two
points. One is, I haven\'t talked with the folks who are the energy, who
come at this issue from the point of view of energy, that see biomass as
the way out of our dependence on fossil fuels, and see very little else
but that. They would, they could envision our entire corn crop being
used for biomass purposes.

Whether or not, you know, it has a food or feed approval, I mean, right
now there is no regulation requiring that energy crops would have to
have food and feed approvals. You\'re saying that no one, and Cargill
certainly is not going to introduce such a crop. But I don\'t think we
can, that we \-- I mean, I don\'t think it\'s unreasonable for people to
raise these issues and to look forward to something more official than
just the kind of good sense of the good companies.

MS. DILLEY: Ron and then Greg.

MR. OLSON: I tag onto what Randy said. I think the particularly approved
for feed and food use, it implies that there are safety and regulatory
issues for the stuff, and then particularly if it\'s food and feed. I
think the food and feed is the issue. If it\'s not approved for food and
feed, then you might have safety issues.

It implies that there are safety issues on all these crops.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. OLSON: And I\'m kind of where Randy is. I don\'t know of a tech
provider that is going to release a variety of corn unless it has food
and feed approval. They can\'t stand the risk.

MS. MELLON: Well, I just \--

MR. OLSON: Yes, I know what you are saying, Mardi, and I understand
that. I just \--

MS. MELLON: I understand that you all wouldn\'t.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Greg.

MR. JAFFE: Two comments on this. First of all, none of these crops are
approved, so to use the word approved is incorrect.

MR. OLSON: That\'s correct.

MR. JAFFE: Second of all, FDA\'s regulatory process, which is the
voluntary consultation process, is based on the premise of the food and
drug guide, which talks about things that are intended for food use. And
if a developer is developing something is not intended for food use, it
is unclear whether FDA will even allow something to go through its
voluntary consultation process.

For the pharmaceutical stuff, they said, you know, it\'s not intended
for food, so we\'re not going to look at it, even in the voluntary
process. So I think there\'s a much bigger issue here of what even
companies and people will do when there is something specifically
intended not for food use, whether FDA will even look at it, even if
they wanted them to look at it. Not all evidence is clearly not
approved.

So if we\'re using the word approved here, almost all the stuff doesn\'t
get approved unless it\'s a food additive. People need to be clear about
that.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Right. So we need to modify the language on it.

MR. JAFFE: So approved as a food additive, because there is no use in
saying approved for food and feed use.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Randy and then Lisa.

MR. GIROUX: We know very well that if we are making ethanol or buying
diesel that byproducts of that, it\'s going to be feed. And so, I mean,
this is intended, these will be intended for feed use. Their byproducts
will be intended for feed use, so I don\'t think it\'s a question of
whether or not the FDA will take a look at it.

We\'re not just making ethanol. We\'re making ethanol and DDG\'s. And so
I think that we have to be realistic that they will look at them, and
there will be a requirement to get their food and feed and environmental
approval for these.

MS. LAYTON: Only if they are currently food and feed products.

MS. DILLEY: So is it evaluated by food and feed use?

MS. LAYTON: But if I do it in trees, what does it do? I\'ll ask that
question for you. If I put something in poplars, it\'s not used for food
and feed now.

MR. OLSON: Yes. But this is talking about food crops, then.

MS. DILLEY: Right. This is specific to food crops, and it needs to be
evaluated for food and feed use, which goes to the \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay. I\'m sorry. You\'re right.

MS. DILLEY: \-- safety question.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s not approved, but their evaluated intended use is most
likely, at least for feed, right. So that we just have to be more
explicit in what we are saying, and technically correct. So it\'s not,
they\'re not approved. They\'re evaluated for food and feed safety.

MS. LAYTON: Does safety need to move down?

MS. MELLON: What if we just \-- particularly if they are not evaluated,
and just say that they are going to pose safety, coexistence in,
marketing challenge, and raise new regulatory issues. Period.

MR. GRANT: But, I\'m sorry, I didn\'t raise my hand. I wouldn\'t support
that, because it \-- for a number of different reasons.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GRANT: If they are not evaluated for food and feed use, anyway, no,
I would support it. I\'ll stop there.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. I\'ve got Michael Dykes, Randy, and then Carol.

MR. DYKES: I think we need to say something to the fact that if food, it
would be important that the regulatory commercial issues are addressed
if food crops are genetically engineered for energy purposes. I think
that\'s what we\'re really arguing about.

MS. LAYTON: Say that again, Michael.

MR. DYKES: It will be important that the regulatory and commercial
issues are addressed if food crops are genetically engineered for energy
purposes.

MR. GIROUX: And strike the sentence before.

MR. DYKES: Yes, skip the sentence before.

MS. DILLEY: So this is a substitute for that sentence.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: It would be important that regulatory and \--

MS. LAYTON: And commercial.

MS. DILLEY: \-- commercial \--

MR. DYKES: Issued are addressed to genetic, if food crops are
genetically engineered for energy purposes.

MS. FOREMAN: I\'d buy that if we could say it will be important if
genetically, if these crops are used, whatever that is, and they are to
address food safety, regulatory, or to address commercial and food
safety regulatory issues.

MS. DILLEY: Say that again, Carol. It will be important that \--

MS. FOREMAN: It will be important, I\'d put commercial first, because,
you know, and then commercial and food safety regulatory issues.

MS. DILLEY: So you\'re saying it will be important to address commercial
\--

MS. FOREMAN: I\'d put commercial before food safety, just because I
think it works better.

MR. DYKES: So you are saying, it will be important that commercial and
food safety regulatory issues \--

MS. FOREMAN: Be addressed. And I would say, I\'d turn the sentence
around and say, if genetically engineered food, or whatever that is in
there, if the genetically engineered food crops \--

MS. LAYTON: Food crops are used for energy purposes \--

MS. FOREMAN: \-- are used \--

MS. LAYTON: \-- it would be important \--

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: \-- to address commercial and food safety regulatory issues?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. Does that work for you folks?

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Let\'s wait until \-- let\'s make sure we\'ve got the
sentence that we are accepting.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so if genetically engineered food crops are used for
energy purposes, it will be important that commercial \--

MS. LAYTON: To address. It will be important to address \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- to address \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That\'s the way it is. It\'s okay.

MS. FOREMAN: No, that\'s okay the way it is now, will be important to
\--

MS. LAYTON: Commercial and food safety.

MS. FOREMAN: To address is better.

MS. LAYTON: To address is better. It will be important to address \--

MS. DILLEY: Commercial and food safety regulatory issues.

MS. FOREMAN: We need a little finagling right there. It will be
important. We could say, before they are used. Food safety, commercial
and food safety regulatory issues will have to be addressed, use that,
that they will have to be address.

MS. DILLEY: Randy.

MR. GIROUX: So I can take that statement we just read and apply it to
the crops we have today. I\'m just trying to \-- I can take that
sentence and apply it today so there are no commercial, you wouldn\'t
agree on the regulatory side, but I would \-- we have biotech crops
today, genetically engineered food crops today. We use them for energy
purposes. We\'re dealing with commercial issues.

MS. FOREMAN: Let me get it more specific. I think you are absolutely
right. It follows the sentence.

MS. MELLON: We need to say such, because earlier we referred to those
genetically engineered crops that are genetically engineered
specifically for energy.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. I think that you have to get it, make the effort. I\'m
just trying to figure out how to do it. These changes could be effective
in both food and nonfood uses.

MS. DILLEY: No, take out the use one because \--

MS. LAYTON: That\'s what you\'re replacing.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s what you\'re replacing.

MR. FOREMAN: Right here?

MR. DYKES: That whole sentence.

MS. LAYTON: That whole sentence goes. To the first use, delete.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so we are trying to get more specific. I\'m not sure
we\'re there. So right now it reads, before such genetically engineered
food crops are used for energy purposes, it will be important to address
commercial and food safety regulatory issues. Take out the and.

MS. FOREMAN: Really, before you have genetically engineered food crops
that are developed specifically for use in energy, or specifically
developed for use, energy purposes use \--

MS. LAYTON: It\'s the crops that have changed their composition for
enhanced energy production that we\'re talking about.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Bob\'s got a suggestion.

MR. HERDT: What I think Carol is saying is, I think Carol\'s saying, is
take out the "before", and leave the "such", and then say, before
genetic \-- yes, leave out such. Before genetically engineered food
crops are developed specifically \--

MS. LAYTON: For energy purposes.

MR. HERDT: At specifically, developed specifically.

MS. LAYTON: Is that on the same thing you\'re on, Bob?

MR. HERDT: How is that, Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, that\'s on my train, but \--

MR. DYKES: I think it could be a little \-- how about if you say before
food crops are genetically engineered specifically for energy purposes.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MR. DYKES: Before food crops are genetically engineered to enhance
energy production.

MS. FOREMAN: Specifically \--

MR. DYKES: Specifically to, for the purpose of enhanced energy.

MS. CRAMER: But you have to separate commercialization.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes, I mean, it\'s before these crops specifically
engineered for this purpose are used.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Well, there was a lot of shifting there. So before \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Food crops genetically engineered specifically for
energy production are used \--

MS. CRAMER: Are commercialized.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: \-- are commercialized.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, so before food crops are \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Genetically engineered specifically \-- genetically
engineered specifically \--

MS. LAYTON: \-- for energy purposes.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: \-- purposes, are commercialized. Take out the previous
are. Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. So before food crops genetically engineered
specifically for energy purposes \--

MR. DYKES: \-- are commercialized.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- are commercialized.

MR. DYKES: There you go.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s better.

MS. LAYTON: It will be important to address \--

MR. DYKES: It will be important to address \--

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s more than important. We all accept that Randy says it
will be done.

MS. LAYTON: For energy is it purposes or production, energy production?
Randy go ahead. You\'ve got a comment on this.

MS. DILLEY: Purposes.

MS. LAYTON: It is purposes.

MR. HERDT: So I\'m still trying to understand how that statement is any
different than what we expect for any other transgenic product we
produce today. I don\'t understand that what is the issue around energy
specific transgenics. All of that is a given for every transgenic we
produce and commercialize in the United States is that it, commercial
and the regulatory issues are addressed before commercialization.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: I guess, Randy, is it setting up the next sentence which
says, if it\'s not, does it then \-- if there\'s an issue or there\'s a
concern about food crops being genetically engineered for energy, is
there, even if they are okay and safe and well done, does it push
interest to nonfood crops for energy?

MR. GIROUX: Okay, you just lost me.

MS. HUNT: Maybe I have a suggestion that we\'ll compromise and we will
just say something like, in the second part of that sentence, continue
to, so it gets into the part that\'s being covered today, and into the
future as well.

MS. FOREMAN: I think the hook is here, need to be engineered for a new
purpose, and actually I thought I understood you to say, maybe it was
Brad, that a lot of these will probably, some of them, remember, require
food additive petitions because the nature of the product will be
sufficiently changed that it is not going to be \--

MS. LAYTON: But that doesn\'t conflict with this point, which is, is
there anything specifically about energy production purposes that make
it unique to anything else. Is that what\'s your point is?

MR. HERDT: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s a problem we run into.

MS. LAYTON: Right, so whether to add it here, in terms of it\'s not
raising a new issue \--

MR. DYKES: There\'s a term for everything.

MS. MELLON: But it is new that we would, or at least it strikes me as
new. It kind of hit me like a thunderbolt, that we might be genetically
engineering food crops for nonfood purposes, and in contemplating using
them in fuel. And I agree that it\'s not, in some ways, we could say
we\'ve always thought about it, but I think it is new that we do want to
signal that it\'s \--

MS. DILLEY: But then it\'s not for energy purposes then. It\'s really
the volume then that you\'re talking about.

MS. MELLON: It\'s for nonfood purposes.

MS. DILLEY: The volume of food crops used for nonfood uses is the
uniqueness, perhaps. That\'s what I hear you saying, Mardi, because
it\'s not just that it\'s for energy production. It\'s that it\'s for a
nonfood use.

MS. MELLON: Right.

MS. DILLEY: And in big volumes, potentially.

MS. MELLON: Big volume nonfood use, and maybe, you know, people \--

MS. DILLEY: Randy, does that make sense to you? I mean, in terms of the
amount of volume, then maybe that is unique. But it\'s not because it\'s
energy purposes. It\'s because it\'s the potential volume of nonfood
uses in a food crop.

MR. GIROUX: So what\'s the issue?

MS. LAYTON: Yes, you still have your approvals.

MR. GIROUX: What\'s the issue?

MS. DILLEY: You are right about the food safety issues. I don\'t know if
there are other regulatory issues in terms of like confinement
regulatory issues, or other kinds of things like that, which is not a
safety issue. It\'s more of a regulatory issue and not a food safety
issue. But maybe there is still the issue of, is it unique. I don\'t
know.

MR. GIROUX: So I would look at it today and I would say that we have a
hard \-- corn program or a high \-- corn program, which isn\'t a food
use, right. It\'s used for putting on paper. And it\'s got, it\'s corn.
It\'s not genetically engineered, but it is, it has an industrial use.
It\'s not intended for food. Contractually, you know, we would try to
exclude that from a yellow corn shipment, because it doesn\'t have the
right functional properties. And so commercially we can manage corn with
different functional properties in the marketplace.

So I\'m just trying to get, I\'m just trying to get at it. I seriously
don\'t understand what\'s the issue.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I make a possible suggestion, replacement to the
sentence to say something like, the scale of this potential
commercialization underscores the importance of addressing, of
addressing commercial and food safety issues for these? I mean \--

MR. GIROUX: 55 percent of the corn acreage today is biotech.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes \--

MS. LAYTON: It\'s just a different gene you are sticking in, is what I
think Randy is saying.

MS. MELLON: It is a different, it is a different purpose. I mean, I
understand what you are saying. I think that there are ways of thinking,
conceptualizing the issue that make it seem like not a big deal. But I
think for the rest of the world outside of this room, it is a big deal.
We\'re going to be genetically engineering, not conventionally breeding,
people are comfortable with that. We\'re genetically engineering new
proteins into food for a use that involves enormous acreage.

Just the fact that you responded to me with the assurance, oh, don\'t
worry. They\'re not going to do that unless they get food and feed
safety approval, shows that, I guess that\'s what I\'m talking about.
That fact that you need to assure me that that is the case, shows that
there is something different about it. In most people\'s minds, you
know, they are not going to know that until you tell them. So I think at
least raising the issue, I think it makes sense, that it is different.
And it\'s different because of genetic engineering.

MS. DILLEY: So is it, the scale of this potentially commercialization
may raise or underscore marketing \--

MR. DYKES: So just because \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- commercial and \-- okay.

MR. DYKES: Just so we change, let\'s say, Mardi, we change the starch
content, which I think is where most of this is going to be, or even the
structural components of the stem cell, of the stems of the plants, not
stem cells, stems of the plants. If we just change the starch content
for energy, that has some special something.

MS. MELLON: You bet, allergenicity comes screaming to mind.

MR. DYKES: But doesn\'t allergenicity come screaming to mind on any of
the other applications we do?

MS. MELLON: Of course it does. Of course it does. I understand there are
issues connected with it. You are now going to be putting it into food
\--

MS. CRAMER: But if you change that by conventional breeding, why don\'t
you have the exact same issues? If you doubled the starch content by
conventional breeding, why is that somehow safer that if you did it by
inserting a gene?

MS. MELLON: Well, I think, I don\'t want to go through that, through
those issues again. There are variations. We operate in conventional
breeding within variations, within limits that we\'re pretty comfortable
with. Genetic engineering takes us outside those limits, in some cases,
so people are more concerned. I don\'t want to go through all that
again.

All I am saying is, people are, it\'s going to hit them like a lightning
bolt, and you\'re going to have a lot of, you could have a lot of new
genetically engineered food crops that have been engineered for nonfood
purposes, and that they, considering the acreages, and the fact that you
absolutely cannot, you know that anything you put into corn is going to
get into food and feed corn, that people are going to look on that as an
issue that they are going to have concern about, and they are going to
need to have, they\'re going to need for somebody to respond on it.

It doesn\'t mean there aren\'t responses, but it is an issue that people
are, I think are going to be concerned about. I think Greg\'s point
about the uncertainty of whether the FDA is actually going to take these
things on and do food and feed, food safety reviews on them, is one \--
I mean, other people may not think that that\'s an issue. From my side
of the fence, it\'s a big issue.

So I don\'t see that there\'s a question that it\'s an issue that can\'t
just be swept under the rug.

MS. DILLEY: So let\'s try and find language that tries to capture it,
because I\'m not sure, I don\'t think we\'re talking about process
versus product stuff. I do think that we\'re trying to raise kind of the
vast amounts. You\'re changing, it\'s not because it\'s genetically
engineered. It\'s because you\'re using a use that\'s a nonfood use in a
food crop on large scale. It\'s somehow, it sounds like it\'s somehow
different, on regulatory issues.

And Greg, you\'ve put up your card, and I want to go to you and then
Alison and then Carol.

MR. JAFFE: I was just trying to say, I think we have to go back to
thinking, what are we trying to tell the Secretary?

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. JAFFE: What's the sort of issue here?

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. JAFFE: I mean, if we are trying to say, there is energy issues,
there\'s an energy demands, crops are being used for that. Genetic
engineering could be used for that. I don\'t know. Can we all sit around
the room and say, there is absolutely no risk or other issues associated
with that, and we could just tomorrow go to genetically engineered corn
to solve all of our energy needs?

I think we wouldn\'t be talking about this if we didn\'t, if some people
in the food chain and others think that some checks have to be brought
up, be done on that system, regulatorily, or commercially, or otherwise.
So I don\'t know what the language is, but I think we have to get back
to what is the, why are we \-- if this is all the same as all these
other crops, then we wouldn\'t need it at all. The whole point of it is
that there is something different about energy. And so we need to do it
for energy, so \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, that goes back to Randy\'s point. I don\'t think it is
genetic engineered for energy. I think it\'s a nonfood use in food crop
that could be a large scale. And I just don\'t think we\'re finding the
language there, or elaborating on that sufficiently to capture it.
Alison and then Carol and then Michael.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I think I hear what you are saying, Abby. How about
this for a compromise. The scale of this potential commercialization of
a nonfood crop underscores the importance, blah, blah, blah, of having
strong, exactly what\'s being done with the regular crops now. But it\'s
a nonfood crop that\'s not substantially \--

MS. DYKES: It\'s a nonfood use.

MS. DILLEY: Nonfood \--

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Nonfood use, sorry, nonfood use of a food crop
that\'s not substantially equivalent to current varieties. That is, I
think, where the unique issue is.

MR. DYKES: But most of the uses of the 89 agri-corn today are nonfood
uses. They\'re feed.

MR. JAFFE: Well, food or feed use.

MS. LAYTON: Food or feed uses.

MS. DILLEY: Food or feed use.

MR. DYKES: So now we\'re worried about food and feed uses.

MS. LAYTON: Of a nonfeed, food use of a food or feed crop. Right before
where you are. Okay.

MS. DILLEY: I understand your point, Michael. I guess my question is, if
people are already sourcing for nongenetically engineered. So if you
have food/feed issues specifically with genetically engineered, maybe it
does go back to Mardi\'s point of you\'re trying to source. And I guess
that\'s a food company or processor issue, if that\'s any different, if
it\'s genetically engineered, or not genetically engineered.

Sorry I stepped in with cards already up, and that\'s Carol, Michael,
and then Robert.

MS. FOREMAN: Let me try one. The potential scale of food-based bio-fuel
is likely to spur changes in regulatory policy to assure continued
public confidence in the food safety system. Because we are really
talking here about, about a new use of food that people aren\'t used to.
And I think that that probably is what makes it different from what\'s
already out there.

Two things. One, that it\'s new, and two that it\'s going to get to be
very big. Those are things that are likely to raise public concerns, and
there will be some need to address those public concerns.

MS. DILLEY: I can see this is coming out of, I don\'t know, maybe you
are right. I don\'t see this as a public issue. I thought it was more of
a commercial market regulatory challenge issue. But I could be wrong.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, but you deal, when you use regulatory, it says just
for changes in regulatory policy to assure continued public confidence.
People will go to FDA and say, no, no, you treat all these genetically
engineered foods as grass, but now we\'re talking about something where
the scale is entirely different, and we\'re using it for a purpose that
we hadn\'t used it for before. And I think it\'s very likely to be a
public demand that you make those adjustments.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we\'ve got lots of different possibilities on the
table. What I would suggest, we\'ve got Michael, Robert, Duane, we\'ve
spent about 45 minutes on this topic. I think we\'ve got about 10 more
minutes on this, and then we need to maybe have a group go back and work
on it this evening. I think we\'ve got to move on to some of the other
topics. So let\'s see if we can get a little bit more crystallization of
what we are trying to say here, and how we can maybe say it in the next
10 minutes, then we\'ve got to go, move on. Michael.

MR. DYKES: Yes, I guess I\'m troubled by why the great use, when we\'re
talking about 55 percent of today\'s corn already in biotech, and we\'re
talking about nearly 90 percent of our soybeans. And now we\'re worried
about wide scale use.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s for biofuel.

MR. DYKES: But I don\'t know what that has to do with any \-- I mean, it
sounds to me like we\'re getting back to a debate about whether our
regulatory system is sufficient today for public confidence in
biotechnology, generally speaking, whether it has to do with energy or
whatever. And I think we\'ve got another topic in here on that issue.

For me, I thought this topic started off by being there was going to be
increased needs for energy. Bio-based fuels could be a solution.
Biotechnology might play a role in that. And the Secretary needs to be
aware of what some of those, that those issues are out there, and they
are going to be in play.

MS. FOREMAN: But he ought to be real aware of the fact that if there is
a public backlash against doing this, I don\'t want gasoline in my
cornflakes, then \--

MR. DYKES: But this isn\'t about putting gasoline in your cornflakes.

MS. FOREMAN: No, but I\'m telling you what I think it\'s likely to be,
the obvious public reaction. I think that\'s what we\'re talking about.

MR. DYKES: We even had, I thought we had comments in here earlier where
this was going to be a positive thing that may even change people\'s
notion about biotechnology to the positive.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, if you get down to the bottom where I put in
comments, I said, there is also where the compilation document, I say
there is a potential for serious problems if these products get into the
food supply.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Let\'s get some additional comments in here. No? Okay.
So I think to your original point, I mean, I think we are still
struggling with what, exactly, are we trying to say here, and how do we
best say it.

MS. LAYTON: Can we at least look at the next sentence and see if anybody
has a problem with that one?

MS. DILLEY: Okay, Duane.

MR. GRANT: I think we\'ve kind of missed what the distinction is, and
correct me if I am wrong, but I think you guys would have this
distinction as well. The issue is a nonfood use, all right, so it\'s a
protein that\'s not approved \-- I don\'t know if it\'s a protein.
Whatever it is. It\'s a trait not intended, not approved for human
consumption in a crop that\'s traditionally used for food for human
consumption. That\'s the issue.

It\'s not the, it\'s not, in effect, that could potentially be planted
over a large number of acres. That amplifies the issue. But it\'s the
issue of a trait that\'s not approved for food use being in a food crop
that traditionally is a food use. It\'s essentially a farm issue, is
what it is.

MS. DILLEY: And that\'s not the focus of the topic. It\'s just the whole
context.

MR. DYKES: Yes, I understand the PM, PMP issue.

MR. GIROUX: I think we\'re getting exactly to the point where we had a
comment about, you know, gasoline in my cornflakes, and this is a PMP
issue.

MR. DYKES: It\'s a PMP issue.

MR. GIROUX: If it\'s a PMP issue, then I think the environment, the food
and feed supply chain is clearly signaled, what the expectation is
around proteins that don\'t have food and feed approval. And if that\'s
the case, I think it\'s completely unrealistic to be talking in the same
paragraph of having a third of the U.S. acreage be that product. And
then on the other side of it saying, it\'s like a PMP. It\'s just a
total reality disconnect for me.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. GIROUX: If we start talking about, these may be PMP-like substances,
and yet we\'re talking about putting them on a third of the acreage of
the U.S., it\'s just not jiving for me that those two things belong in
the same paragraph.

MS. MELLON: But that is the issue, is that \-- but that isn\'t going to
happen. I need to know about it now. But that is precisely the issue
that, you know, hit me like a thunderbolt, was that we were talking
about pharmaceutical, industrial crops on tiny acreage, or small
acreage, and how we might confine it. All of the sudden I saw ahead of
us industrial crops, you know, engineered for nonfood purposes, but that
were going to of necessity be used on a really enormous scale.

And that it is an issue that needs to be addressed, and it really
doesn\'t fit in the PMP mind box, because that implies tiny acreage. And
I think it therefore does deserve just a \-- it deserves a special look.
And it deserves to be offered to the Secretary as an issue that deserves
to be, deserves a special look.

MS. DILLEY: Go ahead Michael.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I offer a possible suggestion. The potential scale
of such nonfood uses of food crops will raise the visibility of these
uses, and any issues that may be associated with them. Does that \--

MR. SHURDUT: I still think with that you\'re tripping over the
distinction that Duane made, which is the PMP, which is nonproteins
within the plant, versus structural changes or changes to the corn
plant. That difference is huge. And a lot of folks are working on
structural changes, but it\'s not going to change in the corn plant, per
se.

But then others may be thinking about putting in, you know, other
proteins, made in terms of the manufacturing, which would be more \-- to
the crop. Somehow we\'ve got to get that distinction here, because I
think that\'s what is the crux of your issue, the PMIP issue.

MS. DILLEY: So do you need to be \--

MR. DYKES: But we already have a section on PMP\'s and PMI\'s.

MS. MELLON: Well, but you\'ve got Craig Venter going around \--

MS. DILLEY: So, wait, wait, wait. Just so I understand Brad\'s point. So
what you are saying is that it\'s the type of change you\'re making in a
food crop, not that it\'s a blanket, all things that are nonfood uses.
So we need to be more specific about the type of change that raises,
that underscores the change.

MR. SHURDUT: For example if you change, if you change latent content or
structural content for ease of processing, that\'s not that big of a
change.

MS. DILLEY: So, it\'s the particular \-- Mardi.

MS. MELLON: I think that is important, although I think it\'s implied in
nonfood uses that among them will be ones that are important. And I will
just point out that Craig Venter, who has spent the last two years going
around the world collecting organisms from weird places, all of which he
intends to mine for use to solve our energy problems.

So he\'s looking forward to taking all of these proteins and genes from
very exotic organisms, and putting them into the energy crops.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. MELLON: And that means corn.

MS. DILLEY: So maybe it\'s just being very specific with this, when you
are using food based, the potential scale of food-based crops for
nonfood uses, when exchange \-- I\'m trying to, if you have language,
Brad, to \--

MR. SHURDUT: Well, I mean, it just gets back to the feeling of, it\'s
the PMIP. I mean, you\'re looking at broad scale PMIP or PMP and how you
are going to control that, which then gets back to the point someone
made over here is, are we covering that point. And what is that, in the
other items.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I guess it depends on whether it\'s an energy use that
changes a protein that triggers that, that is a change that triggers
this particular issue. Then it\'s different because it\'s an energy use.
I don\'t know.

MS. LAYTON: Energy is industrial, is a large scale.

MS. MELLON: If you are modifying it, that we can\'t get food or use,
your PMIP, and you\'re already under very confined small scale, right.
So if you are not in the definition of PMIP, which a lot of these will
be, you have food and feed safety. A lot of the byproducts go into feed.
So that anything I\'ve heard on that part is there could be some market,
some consumer issues that are going to have to be dealt with. So I think
if we left that to the consumer issues, there could be some public
perception issues. But I don\'t think anybody has really had any real
safety or regulatory issues. And I haven\'t seen like a real marketing
issue, you know, at the commercial side. It\'s a public perception
issue.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s why we have to maintain public confidence in the
food safety system.

MS. DILLEY: Carole.

MS. FOREMAN: I thought that \--

MS. CRAMER: I just wanted to remind the committee of our past, which one
of the other areas that we might have brought this in initially had only
to do with the concept that if there is a huge dynamic or movement into
food and \-- into energy crops, whether this would impact commodity
streams and the potential use among growers as well. So I think that we
initially came at this in trying to highlight the overall crop usage
type of implications to the Secretary that might be involved, way back
in the beginning.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: It\'s at the bottom of this piece. I think it\'s
still in there.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s at the bottom.

MS. CRAMER: Yes, so that was part of what we started thinking, and the
consumer issues, I think, have emerged since.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. Okay. So Pat.

MS. LAYTON: Yes, I just want to say, if, for example, we could do
something in corn that would start to make it a very usable energy crop,
more usable than now, to me the issues are, a) it pulls everything out
of soybean, and conservation reserve programs that we\'ve worked on for
the last 70 years, 60-50 years anyway \-- which I don\'t want to see
come out.

So it expands the acreage of land that is in agricultural production,
and it pulls, it changes my state from 60 percent forest to 60 percent
agriculture. And that\'s what we\'re talking about. But that\'s the
scale of energy production. That\'s a vast habitat change.

So if you do something in corn, that\'s where I am. I mean, it is a
major change in habitat and quality of life, and what the whole
landscape looks like, to solve a, just the liquid fuel portion. That\'s
not even solving the power portion, but just the liquid fuel. We\'re
talking that kind of vast change, and that\'s many millions of acres of
land, going back into food production, which have issues. That\'s a
cropping issue. That is a cropping issue. So there is a cropping issue
here.

There may be a consumer issue here. I\'m not as expert on the consumer
issue, but the cropping issue is huge. And potentially huge, if we were
to go full scale, to try to get to energy security issues.

The other concern I would have is, as a nation, if we are depending on
liquid fuel, energy security, from growing corn, or growing a vast
monoculture of any one particular, or even a few, three or four things,
we have an energy security problem if there is a disease or an insect or
anything like that that we\'re not ready to handle. So there are some
energy security issues that are also there.

So I think to me that\'s why I was interested in having a section like
that. It is the vast scale of whatever we\'re going to do. Either we\'re
going to have a lot of different things that are niched, like switch
grass, like trees, like corn. So we come at this from a group of areas,
a group of products that can contribute, or we have a scale issue of,
quote, monocultures of maybe three crops that could have a energy
security issues. So I think I said three things.

MR. DYKES: But aren\'t all those, aren\'t all those ramifications that
somehow we wanted to highlight the things you just said \--

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. DYKES: \-- that this energy thing is growing, and agriculture is
going to have a role, and it\'s going to have impacts. And do you agreed
\--

MS. LAYTON: Absolutely.

MR. DYKES: \-- you take the 39 million acres out of CRP or not, that\'s
\-- somebody is going to have to decide that at some point in time.

MS. LAYTON: Yes. Right. And that\'s the big issue.

MR. DYKES: That\'s a very big issue.

MS. LAYTON: Those are the big issues. And those are, to me, the
important things that we say. Because we have already talked about
plant-made industrials. There is another area on that. We talked about
\--

MS. DILLEY: Public perception.

MS. LAYTON: \-- public perception. We\'ve got another area on that. So
think, here, if we could just concentrate on scale diversity for safety
and security, and what was the third one? Anyway, scale and diversity or
just security. And I will shut my mouth.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so Carol and then maybe we need to have another group
take a go.

MS. FOREMAN: I think that what we know is that given our enormous, given
the great concerns about energy security, and the need to shift away
from fossil fuels, there is going to be a big attraction in this. And it
raises very great public policy issues that go far beyond just
biotechnology. Biotechnology is basic. But it goes way beyond that.

And if we are going to talk about this, I think we need to say that it
raises big public policy issues, and that some of those are, and you
know, just because we have raised the fact that PMP\'s create some
concerns about having food crops contaminated with nonfood substances,
doesn\'t mean that it\'s not an issue here, and doesn\'t mean that we
don\'t talk about it here.

But I think, Pat, you have laid out the terrific kind of overview of all
the issues that we\'ve got here, and that in our, the scale is likely to
be real big. So I think maybe we need to back up on this one, and go at
it, perhaps with less specificity, but saying that we recognize that if
we go into this on the scale that we think is possible, it\'s going to
require changing a lot of the public policies.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So Pat has raised kind of a framework to take another
run at it. Duane, you had a comment, and then Randy, and then we need to
move on. So I would suggest that maybe Pat take another run at this, and
we move onto \-- well, why not, you know.

MR. GRANT: And one other suggestion, Abby, would be that we need to
lower our expectations as a committee about what we want. And this is
one topic.

MS. DILLEY: Sure.

MR. GRANT: And we\'re trying to take on the energy policy for the U.S.
And we need to lower our expectations.

MS. DILLEY: No, I think your point is right. I mean, the reason that we
have this \-- we raise, we touch on a lot of issues that other topics
have raised, and that\'s not the point. The point is that energy is a
particular thing, and we\'re trying to capture that. And we, I think
we\'ve got different flashes of it, but it hasn\'t coalesced into a
whole thing.

So if we can have Pat, and others, who want to help take another run at
it, I just think we need to move on, because we spent an hour on this
now, and we\'ve got other topics in the introduction to at least take a
run at before the end of the day. So can we, oh, Randy, I\'m sorry. Did
you want to make a \--

MR. GIROUX: It\'s just exactly what Duane says. We\'re not going to
solve CRP and the energy \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. GIROUX: \-- problems here. And this is supposed to be biotech, so we
need to focus.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Right.

MS. LAYTON: So let me ask you this, if I can ask this.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Do we need to have this topic here?

MS. DILLEY: Yes, because energy is \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t think anybody disagrees.

MS. LAYTON: This is a document about topics of genetic engineering. And
so the question is, energy is a huge topic, but is there anything about
genetic engineering and energy that\'s not anywhere else in the
document? And so that\'s why I\'m asking that is, have we covered it in
other places, and do we actually need to have this topic here, because
we have covered it in other places. Is there something specific about
energy?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: There is.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, it\'s a great big huge demand for genetically
engineered plants.

MR. KREMER: I think we mentioned it in the scenarios.

MR. GIROUX: We\'ve had this conversation for an hour, and I asked this
question at the beginning of the hour, and I still haven\'t heard the
answer. What is it specifically about energy \--

MS. LAYTON: And engineering.

MR. GIROUX: \-- and genetic engineering that makes this such a unique
topic? And I haven\'t heard that answer. So \--

MS. LAYTON: And I agree with Randy, which is why I am saying this topic
may need to just drop away, rather than spend anymore time on it.

MS. DILLEY: I think, my sense of the discussion we just has is yes, and
maybe, if we can find the right language. I think it crystallizes a lot
of different things that people have mentioned, that it\'s a nonfood use
and a food crop, and it\'s a larger scale. And it just raises or touches
on different things. And because it\'s an energy issue, it just
exacerbates some of these things we\'re trying to get at. I don\'t think
it gets to the cropping pattern because we talked about very specific
crops, and not nonfood and not nonfood uses. Those were all food crops.

So I think it is, there is a slightly different twist here that we\'re
trying to capture. And we haven\'t gotten there yet, but I think, I
think it merits another run, and I don\'t think it merits another run
now.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: I think we want to put it aside, have you work with maybe
the group that had worked on it before, and take another crack at it.
We\'ll figure that out when we know what all we need to work on between
now and wrapping this thing up.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: But if we can table this one for now, and move onto 9, why
don\'t we do that at this point. And we\'re reserving judgment until we
have something to look at and approve. Okay.

What I would suggest, we have nine, and you\'ll see on the bottom of the
page, should this topic be juxtaposed with number 15, and because they
are somewhat similar, and maybe we just focus on one. I don\'t think our
efforts should go with juxtaposing. It should really go on focusing on
that particular topic and taking them one at a time. If there\'s a way
that makes sense to make the document read well, great. If not, then we
won\'t expend a lot of energy.

So what I would suggest, if you do 9 separately, look at it, review it,
we\'ll talk about it, and then we\'ll have the opportunity to review. I
thought we\'d got to 15 after 9, and then we\'ll go back in order.

But right now, why don\'t you take a minute or so to refresh your memory
on 9.

MR. DYKES: If I could ask a question?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. DYKES: Doesn\'t it make more sense to think about if we could lump 9
and 15 together. So if we make that decision, then we\'re writing that
one time.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, if you want to do \-- yes, if it is an easily done
thing, great. If it takes us too much energy trying to merge them, then
I don\'t want to spend the time doing that. I want to make sure that we
at least have something that makes, two topics that make sense is better
than one merged topic that we\'re wrestling with.

MR. DYKES: I would advocate that we merge them, because I think both of
these you are talking about \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. DYKES: \-- kind of the future of biotechnology and the next
generation of products, in my mind.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay, so why don\'t you \-- Carole, go ahead.

MS. CRAMER: And I would say that I was the one who at least put one of
those things forward, and I have no problem with that. It seems it is
the same issue. Let\'s just put them together.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So why don\'t you read both 9 and 15 and we\'ll see
if, in fact, everybody is on the same page, and that they are so linked
that we can merge them together.

MR. JAFFE: Can you just say what we are, at this point, working on?
What\'s the question posed to the committee at this point?

MS. DILLEY: Well, what I would start with is maybe, do we have a clear
sense of the topic statements for 9 and 15, because if we have a clear
sense of those topic statements, then I think the question is, do they
merit merging? But I think until you can understand what the points are
being made in each of those, it\'s hard to know whether you merge them
or not.

MR. SLOCUM: Maybe they merit being put together but not \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: You mean one after another.

MR. SLOCUM: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So that\'s different than merging, obviously. And so that\'s
the question. Do we want to \--

MR. JAFFE: That would be the simpler way to do it. If you want, if
there\'s a connectivity there, just do it one and then another.

MS. DILLEY: So one option is that you just put them in order, so that 15
becomes 10, if they are two different points. If they are the same
point, then merging makes sense. But that\'s the question. And Michael,
is your card up?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so go ahead.

MR. DYKES: Again, I would advocate merging, because I think that the
point of both of them is that they are new technology. The next wave of
biotech products, you\'re going to have new ways of accomplishing the
end results that have been employed heretofore. So I would suggest
there\'s a topic sentence. I guess it\'s the one you have in the March
15th document.

MR. SLOCUM: For 9 or 15?

MR. DYKES: I would suggest for the March 15 document, the first sentence
after number 9, as the topic sentence, which reads, some of the new gene
manipulation technologies for crop variety improvement that are being
employed, or under development, may not easily fit into the categories
of organisms regulated by the U.S. government under the regulatory
frameworks current biotech related regulatory categories.

MR. JAFFE: Agreed.

MR. DYKES: I think that\'s the topic sentence for the combined 9 and 15.

MS. DILLEY: For both. That\'s what your sentence is.

MR. DYKES: So you have one section here that\'s talking about that area
of issue.

MS. DILLEY: So we\'ve got these new technologies, and we\'re not sure if
they fit easily, et cetera.

MR. DYKES: We recognize they are new. Do they fit the current process?
How are we going to deal with them? Those kinds of things.

MS. DILLEY: And that\'s the main point, from your perspective, on the
two, 9 and 15, so it would be a good idea to merge them.

MR. DYKES: That would be my thought, Abby.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Okay. Greg?

MR. JAFFE: I mean, I don\'t have a problem merging them, but I do thing
they have two different issues. One is dealing with transgenics, and one
is now dealing with nontransgenics. So one is saying that the next
generation of transgenics is going to raise some new issues in the
regulatory system. And another one is saying, and we\'re also going to
have other technologies that are also going to raise some issues.

MS. DILLEY: That are not transgenic. Yes.

MR. JAFFE: So I don\'t see a problem with merging them, but they are two
different things. And I don\'t want to lose, I\'m afraid if we\'re
merging them, we\'re going to lose the second, the one from number 15
which is that, it\'s trying to make a point which is that the regulatory
system may not be ready to adequately deal with the next generation of
transgenic organisms.

That\'s different from the point that number 9 is making, is that there
are also other technologies, other than

genetic engineering, other than adding a gene that will be a way in
which products will come to market in the next 10 years. So there are
two different issues to me. They can be merged together. I don\'t have a
problem with that.

But I just want to caution that I don\'t want to lose the one that, I
think there is a real point in number 15

about the next generation of transgenic organisms that we need to keep.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. JAFFE: And if we keep that in the merged one, that\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. DYKES: And I was thinking, Greg, that the, to your point, some of
the new gene manipulation technologies, we may need to further clarify
that, if you\'ve got both pieces covered. But to me that could cover
both fronts.

MR. JAFFE: I\'m saying, it could. The question is, do we do it? I don\'t
want to lose that, I\'m saying.

MR. DYKES: Yes, yes. I agree with you.

MR. JAFFE: I don\'t want to lose that.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. He doesn\'t disagree. I think you are in agreement. The
question is, if we can come up with language that captures both of
those. Carole and then Ron?

MS. CRAMER: And actually, just to clarify, because in nine we are
talking about, for example RNAi\'s, and Randy was saying, how is RNAi
not transgenic. In many cases, the mechanisms that we would utilize, at
least in plants to shut down a gene, which is RNAi, is mediated in many
cases by a transgenic event. So you introduce DNA in order to knock
something out. There are other ways to do it through viral vectors,
through transient systems, which is part of why it gets murky. But I
think that they are not as different as you think.

And even when we talk about what was highlighted in 9, there are often
recombinant intermediates that are brokering that response.

MS. DILLEY: So, Carole, does that, is that in sync with Michael\'s
suggestion that the driver here is new gene manipulation technologies,
and making sure that you have different categories of organisms or
products that are transgenic or nontransgenic? It seems like it does,
but I\'m just trying to be \-- yes?

MS. CRAMER: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So Ron, and then Robert.

MR. OLSON: I\'m just still trying to pick up what Greg and Carole said
that to not lose the thought, maybe it\'s just that some of these
organisms, whether it\'s some or many, of these organisms would be
transgenic, but some may also be nontransgenic \--

MS. DILLEY: Nontransgenic.

MR. OLSON: \-- given the various techniques available to science today
to manipulate. Just some basic statement to say both of these are going
to be new or different than we\'ve seen today.

MS. DILLEY: So maybe it\'s a qualifiers on categories of organisms, some
transgenic and some not, or something like that, if you use Michael\'s
suggestion as a topic sentence. Robert and then Mardi and then Greg.

MR. HERDT: Yes. I think Greg has clarified the difference between these
two points.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. HERDT: And I think we, you know, let\'s just keep two points. Let\'s
not try to merge them, because merging these two things, because they
are different. I mean, they are different.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right. So then we would go, I think, to Jerry\'s
suggestion of juxtaposing them. So one would be 9 and then 10. And they
are two different points. And let\'s see if we can just have two
different topic sentences. That\'s an alternative proposal by the group.
Mardi, your card went down, so it seems like that must be what you\'re
going to \-- okay, Greg.

MR. JAFFE: I had just editing language on that, on Michael\'s sentence.
But it doesn\'t sound like we are going there, so, at least not yet.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so I still \-- well, let\'s see if we can get the, I
mean, I think your main issue was efficiency, Michael. But if you feel
strongly that they need to be merged, then \--

MR. DYKES: I don\'t. I think we can cover them both in the text. I think
we are talking about all the new stuff coming, be it transgenic or
otherwise. We can cover with Bob\'s concern with a sentence in the text
that talks about new transgenics. I mean, I\'m just trying to, I just
think if you read it later on, you are going to be asking yourself, what
is the real difference, and could we have not put them together.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. DYKES: I don\'t have a strong feeling.

MR. HERDT: I don\'t either.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. We\'re wearing you down. Okay. Why don\'t we see if we
can get two distinct pieces, and then if we\'ve got a \-- let\'s make
sure we capture both points, and then if they fit well together, great.
If they don\'t, then we\'ll keep them separate by putting one right
after the other.

So the first one is, Greg, I mean, I think you raised the two points. So
let\'s see if we can get some that\'s \-- they are both lengths that use
gene manipulation technologies, and future products, some of which are
going to be new transgenic products, and other that are not. And so is
that how we are distinguishing the two topics? Did I just make complete
nonsense?

MR. JAFFE: Are we trying to make one? Are we trying to put them
together, now, is that what you are saying?

MS. DILLEY: No, I was trying to get two points, two sentences. And if,
then, we find that they are easily put together, great. If they are not,
then we\'ll just stick with two statements. I just want to make sure
I\'ve got the two points.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: She was just asking you to reiterate the difference
between 9 and 15.

MR. JAFFE: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Thank you for interpreting.

MR. JAFFE: I think 9 is looking at new technologies. It is saying that
there are new technologies that will be used to produce, new
technologies that come out of biotechnology that will be used to produce
products that aren\'t necessarily transgenic. Okay. And those are going
to raise some issues.

Fifteen is saying that the next generation of transgenic organisms may
raise some new scientific and other issues and not fit easily into the
regulatory system. I think those are, there are two different points,
one saying using the same technologies that we use today, we\'re going
to have different kinds, the next generation is going to have a
different kind of organisms, nutritionally enhanced organisms that are
going to require different kinds of scientific assessments for them. And
maybe, maybe some of them will be food additives, or some other kind of
regulatory process, because they have, because they are a next
generation of transgenics. That\'s what 15 is talking about.

Nine is talking about using different technologies, mutations, putting
in a gene, taking out a gene. I\'m not a scientist, so I don\'t know
what those are, those technologies are, to produce organisms that may
not even fall within the definition of transgenic, or may not fall
within he regulatory systems current definitions.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: The other one is saying, they fall within it, but they are
not, but there are new kinds of issues being raised. This one is saying,
some of these, if you look at them, they may not have foreign DNA in
them. So are they even? But they may have had an intermediary step that
had it, or something else. So they are two different, my view is, they
are two different sort of products coming out of biotechnology in the
future.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: One that\'s similar to what we have today, but raises
different issues. One that may not look at all like what we have today,
and we don\'t know what\'s going to happen about that.

MS. DILLEY: Alison and then Daryl.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I\'d just like to, it sounds like we want two points.
Can we have a look at number nine on the facilitator\'s version and see
if people can accept that language?

MS. DILLEY: Are you proposing that that works for you in terms of the
topic statement?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: The topic statement, yes. Number nine.

MS. DILLEY: Number nine.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: On the 15th.

MS. DILLEY: So it is important to anticipate how a new generation of
biotechnologies that may not be transgenic, such as RNAi and gene
silencing technology will be addressed by the regulatory system. Ron.

MR. OLSON: It\'s not really a generation that\'s not transgenic. It\'s
the products that are not classed as transgenic.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: How new biotechnologies?

MR. OLSON: Yes. It\'s how a new generation that may not be transgenic,
so a new generation of what? Products.

MR. VAN EENENNAAM: No, a new generation of biotechnologies.

MR. OLSON: A new generation of biotechnology that may not be transgenic
\--

MR. JAFFE: That may not produce transgenic organisms.

MR. OLSON: \-- may not produce transgenic organisms or transgenic
products or products that are not classed as transgenics, something like
that.

MR. JAFFE: Maybe given we sometimes use generation to be first and
second generation of GMO\'s, maybe we should change that term,
generation to just new technologies, to avoid that.

MS. CRAMER: Why don\'t we go to Michael\'s suggestion that we forget the
topic sentence, go to the first sentence.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: All right.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so that becomes at least for number nine, of the new,
that becomes the topic statement.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Okay. Yes.

MR. JAFFE: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m sorry. Daryl is first, and then Greg.

MR. BUSS: Well, you kind of on the path I was going down, actually. If
you use that first sentence as the topic statement, it seems to me that
between the text in 9 and 15, you can put those two together, because if
you use that first sentence as the issue, and then continue with the
next sentence in 9 that says, for example, some technologies, et cetera,
et cetera. After that sentence, switch to 15 using the first sentence,
and slightly modify it by saying \--

MS. DILLEY: So ending at, for example, to transgenic organisms?

MR. BUSS: Right. Arguably, do not produce transgenic organisms. Period.
Then go to the lead sentence in 15 and say, on the other hand, future
transgenic products may result in substantially different types of \--
it\'s not exactly that, but anyway, may result in substantially
different products, and thus that have been reviewed by U.S. regulatory
agencies. In either case, some of those organisms may not have been
anticipated or considered during the elaboration, that they could have
been regulatory procedures, et cetera.

MS. DILLEY: I see a lot of nodding. Yes? Okay. Let\'s make sure we\'ve
got a proposal, your whole proposal on here, and then people can take a
look at it. Duane, are you helping Cindy out? Okay, thanks. So let\'s
give her a minute to get it up here on the \--

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. DILLEY: Okay, let\'s make sure we\'ve got it. And I saw a lot of
heads nodding, so it seemed like it resonated with people in terms of
how to organize it. Okay. A slight technical delay here.

MR. JAFFE: I have a comment on that topic sentence that Michael had that
Daryl is using.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Let\'s, okay, so using that as the topic statement,
because Daryl is proposing that as the topic statement.

MR. JAFFE: Right. I mean, a couple of comments. One is, some of the new
genetic manipulation technologies, we should get rid of the word new,
because we\'re talking about both of these things, we get rid of the
word new.

MS. DILLEY: So some of the gene manipulation technologies \--

MR. JAFFE: Gene manipulation technologies. But then I think you need to
change it. We don\'t regulate technologies. We regulate products. So I
would write it as some of the gene manipulation technologies for crop
variety improvement that are being employed or under development, may
produce organisms that are not regulated by the U.S. government under
the regulatory framework\'s current biotechnology related regulatory
categories. Because we don\'t \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: I mean, we don\'t regulate technologies.

MS. DILLEY: Right, right, right.

MR. JAFFE: So you have no problem.

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t think you\'d have anybody disagree with that. I
just want to make sure I have it. So development may produce organisms
\--

MR. JAFFE: That are not regulated \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- that are not regulated \--

MR. JAFFE: \-- by the \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- by the U.S. government under the regulatory framework\'s
current, blah, blah?

MR. JAFFE: Yes. That\'s, I mean \--

MS. LAYTON: You just have to stick the 9 in, Cindy.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So I don\'t know, so right now, this is the main topic
statement that we\'re looking at, and we\'ve got there, is some of the
gene manipulation technologies for crop variety, for crop variety
improvements that are being employed, or are under development, may
produce organisms that are not regulated by the U.S. government under
the regulatory framework\'s current biotechnology related regulatory
categories.

MR. JAFFE: Right.

MS. MELLON: Don\'t we need to say, may present new issues, or may not
fit easily?

MS. DILLEY: Well, I think that\'s where we are \-- so we extracted that
out under Greg\'s suggestion. Why don\'t we get that up there, the
language up there, and we can work on it. So Mardi, maybe you had said,
may produce organisms that may not easily fit?

MR. JAFFE: I just said that are not. I just said that are not regulated.

MS. MELLON: Well, I\'m just trying to capture both the idea that the
ones that are regulated raise new issues, and other ones may not be
regulated at all.

MR. JAFFE: Well, here it says may produce organisms that are not
regulated. So \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: But does that topic sentence cover the other one?

MS. DILLEY: Hold on. Let\'s make sure you can get Daryl\'s proposal up
there, and we\'ll give it a run.

MS. MELLON: Daryl, help us here. It was, what did you have? So it was
the first bit from 9, and then you brought in an addition for the next
generation, was it?

MR. BUSS: Okay, the first, the first sentence of the text, then would
begin, for example, but as the first sentence I just believe, the for
example part and start with some technologies. Some technologies could
move \-- yadda yadda yadda.

MR. DYKES: No, no, no.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. We\'ve got Alison working on it.

MR. BUSS: Make that the first \-- right. And then, going to the \--

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. BUSS: I would suggest just changing the wording of the first part of
that sentence where, instead of rapid advances, it\'s just \-- okay, how
about we start it, on the other hand, new transgenic products may result
in \--

MS. DILLEY: Different \-- it doesn\'t make sense.

MR. BUSS: \-- types of organisms \--

MS. DILLEY: Of organisms.

MR. BUSS: \-- that thus far have been reviewed. And then the next
sentence where it begins, some. Now, right underneath, it\'s up there
further.

MS. DILLEY: Some of these organisms?

MR. BUSS: Right there. Instead say, in either case, some of those
organisms, and just continue on.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So that, that contains your \-- okay. So let\'s go
back on because Greg has some comments, and we didn\'t capture them, but
let\'s just make sure we\'ve got, Daryl, what you had suggested. So we
are taking out the new, and this is the topic statement. It currently
has not been modified for Greg\'s comments, but let\'s just see where we
are.

So some of the new, some of the gene manipulation technologies for crop
variety improvements that are being employed or are under development,
may not easily fit into the categories of organisms regulated by the
U.S. government and the regulatory framework\'s current biotechnology
related regulatory categories, is the topic statement.

And then we are merging some of the pieces of both 9 and 15, that go on
to say, some technologies to remove, particularly genes, mutate or
silence their expression, arguably do not produce transgenic organisms.
You can take the quotes out of the one after the \-- on the other hand,
new transgenic products may result in substantially different types of
organisms that have thus far been reviewed by U.S. regulatory agencies.

In either case, some of these organisms may not have been anticipated or
considered during the elaboration of existing regulatory procedures, may
require new or modified regulatory assessment methodologies, or may pose
challenges for the traditional boundaries of agency responsibility. So
trying to cover both points, with a more, a leaner topic statement, and
elaboration of the two points.

So let me go back to Greg, and then come over to Mardi. Greg, start.

MR. JAFFE: Do you want me do my changes again?

MS. DILLEY: Well, I guess the question is, I think, what Mardi had
responded to your changes was, does that then take out, does it make it
too narrow that it leaves out one of the two points that we\'re trying
to make? And I don\'t know, so it was taking out other, you had, took
out \--

MR. JAFFE: I, after under development, may produce, may produce
organisms that are not, and you could say adequately, but I mean, I was
just saying, that are not regulated.

MS. DILLEY: That are not regulated by the U.S. government under the
regulatory framework for current biotechnology. Right. So what does
that, so, the question is, does that change what we\'re trying to cover,
or not? Or help add clarity? Mardi?

MS. MELLON: I think I\'m in the post-lunch slump here, but it seems to
me that in some case they are going to produce organisms that simply
aren\'t regulated at all. Now, whether it\'s adequately or not, they\'re
simply not technologies that are captured by the existing definitions of
the regulatory statute. So in that case, to capture that, I like that
earlier language. You know, they don\'t fit easily under these
categories.

On the other hand, we have transgenic organisms that are captured under,
I think, the existing regulatory language, as imperfect as it is, which
just pose new regulatory issues that might not be, those might not be
adequately covered or evaluated. I mean, at least it seems to me that
they are. And then a small point is that I don\'t think new transgenic
products mean that organisms are transgenic.

So I think on that second sentence that begins, on the other hand, it\'s
probably new transgenic organisms may result in different kinds of
products that thus far haven\'t been reviewed by the U.S. regulatory
agencies.

MS. ZANNONI: What if you turn it around and just started with the U.S.
government\'s regulatory framework must be able to address, and then the
new technologies, whatever you want to put on that, and the new
transgenic products.

MS. DILLEY: So where are you putting that, Lisa?

MS. ZANNONI: As the head thing. So both of them, you just switch it
around.

MS. MELLON: You may be into recommendation.

MS. ZANNONI: Sorry.

MR. JAFFE: I don\'t have a comment.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: I mean, I still think you can\'t have the old language for
number 9, because it\'s not what the regulatory system does. I think
it\'s not accurate. You\'re talking about technologies, and the
regulatory system doesn\'t regulate technologies. It regulates the
products produced by those technologies.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. So we\'ve got the language that you are looking for.

MR. JAFFE: Right. And I understand what Mardi is saying, I just, but you
can\'t use the old language, because it\'s not, I don\'t think it\'s,
that isn\'t going to happen.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. What I\'m trying to understand is making sure we\'ve
got your point, Mardi, but it doesn\'t all necessarily have to be in the
topic statement. I mean, I think if we want to make sure that the topic
statement makes sense, and then we elaborate and make sure we\'ve got
your point in the explanatory text, that\'s just another \--

MS. MELLON: It\'s something like, are not regulated at all, or you know,
adequately, if at all, maybe under the regulatory \-- under the
framework of current regulatory avenues.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. MELLON: So right after regulated, put regulated adequately, if at
all. Does that work?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Would it do the trick to pull a few words from the old
15 heading to say, some of the technologies that are being employed may
not be, may not be regulated under these categories, or may require
development of new methodologies or assessment criteria? Does that
capture both without \--

MS. DILLEY: Yes, okay, so why don\'t you say it again?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. So can we take out the green words there at the
bottom, those green words, and put at the end, for may require
development of new methodologies or assessment criteria.

MS. DILLEY: Assessment.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Assessment methodologies or criteria.

MS. MELLON: Maybe just use assessment methodologies.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Assessment methodologies.

MR. DYKES: Could that be risk assessment methodologies?

MS. MELLON: No, he\'s actually saying assessments.

MS. DILLEY: Keep it assessment?

MS. MELLON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So now it reads, some of the \-- no, it doesn\'t read
that. Some of the gene manipulation technologies for crop variety and
food method that are being employed or are under development may produce
organisms that are not regulated by the U.S. government under the
regulatory framework\'s current biotechnology related regulatory
categories, or may require development of new assessment methodologies.

MS. MELLON: Maybe you should just get rid of by the U.S. government. I
think that\'s \-- regulate under the current regulatory framework.

MS. DILLEY: Do you want to \-- I think you are trying to simply the
sentence. Does it make sense to take that out or not? Or do you want to
keep it?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Why don\'t you get rid of the regulatory framework\'s.

MS. MELLON: Not U.S. government?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. Regulated by the U.S. government under current
biotechnology related regulatory categories.

MS. MELLON: Well, what are the, why do we need the framework\'s
regulatory categories? Why isn\'t it just the framework?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Does that work better? Produce organisms that are not
regulated by the U.S. government under the current biotechnology related
regulatory framework. It sounds better.

MS. MELLON: Just that biotechnology, under the current biotechnology
framework.

MS. DILLEY: Under the current biotechnology framework. Good. Trim that a
little. That\'s good. Okay. Does that work as a topic sentence then? All
right. Let\'s move on. Okay.

MR. OLSON: Abby, what about crop variety improvements? Should that just
be crop alterations or changes?

MR. JAFFE: Is it just crops?

MR. OLSON: Yes, for crops. Because driving implies you are doing it on
an existing something.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so some of the gene manipulation technologies for
crops?

MR. DYKES: For crop improvement.

MS. DILLEY: For crop improvement. Not crop variety improvement, but crop
improvement? Take out variety in the top sentence. Crop variety
improvement, and just take out variety?

MR. OLSON: And if you know you\'ve got for energy, is that an
improvement, or is that just an alternative use?

MS. DILLEY: I\'m sorry.

MR. OLSON: If you\'re are converting it to another use like energy, is
that an improvement, or is that an alternate use?

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t know the answer to that. Crop improvement or
alternate use. You\'re suggesting \--

MR. OLSON: If we\'re developing something new, it may not be an
improvement on the crop. It may be, it\'s an alternate use of the crop,
or a modification.

MS. DILLEY: A crop modification.

MR. OLSON: A crop modification.

MS. DILLEY: Do you want crop modification then?

MR. OLSON: Yes.

MS. CRAMER: Why don\'t you just say, for crops.

MS. DILLEY: For the modification, isn\'t that what you are looking at?
So just stick with that. Okay. Alison, your card is up.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Yes, I guess Michael made me thing of that. If we are
talking about ag biotech here, why do we need for crops in there at all?
Why not just manipulation technologies that are being employed are under
development may produce organisms, and then that doesn\'t specify crops
or animals or anything else.

MS. MELLON: That\'s good.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. We\'ve got the splinters hacking away at this thing
now. Okay.

MS. MELLON: But we made it to the first sentence of the thing.

MR. OLSON: Yes, because the first sentence was okay.

MS. DILLEY: Come on, now, we\'re trying to squeeze it all into the topic
sentence, Carole, come on. No, yes, let\'s move on. Great.

MS. CRAMER: I think to be technically and grammatically correct \--

MS. DILLEY: Oh gosh.

MS. CRAMER: \-- in the first one, you say some technologies to remove,
it should be, to remove, comma, mutate, or regulate the expression of
particular genes.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: In the first sentence.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Oh, you are moving down out of the topic?

MS. CRAMER: Yes. No, that.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: In the text.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Remember, it\'s 3:00.

MR. OLSON: The parallelism is wrong in the sentence. I was going to
suggest something else that was different.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. SULTON: Carole, one more time.

MS. CRAMER: Some technologies to remove, comma, mutate \-- actually,
it\'s all in there. Just take particular genes and move it to later, or
take it out. To remove, mutate, or silence the expression \-- the
expression of particular genes. So it just puts them in the same
context, of particular genes.

MS. DILLEY: Arguably do not produce transgenic organisms. Okay. Are you
okay with that first sentence? Okay. Second sentence, on the other hand,
new transgenic organisms may result in substantially different types of
products that have thus far been reviewed by U.S. regulatory agencies.

And then the last sentence is, in either case, some of these organisms
may not have been anticipated or considered during the elaboration of
existing regulatory procedures, may require new or modified regulatory
assessment methodologies, or may post challenges for the traditional
boundaries of agency responsibility.

MS. CRAMER: Yes, that\'s good. That\'s good.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right. Mardi.

MS. MELLON: This almost implies that transgenic is a term employed in a
lot of the regulations that apply to genetically engineered organisms.
So, but I think conceptually, it\'s okay, and I don\'t \--

MS. DILLEY: If you don\'t, leave it up.

MS. MELLON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: So you are okay with it? Good.

MS. CRAMER: I mean, we could replace that with genetic engineered.

MS. DILLEY: Pardon?

MS. MELLON: We don\'t use those terms.

MS. DILLEY: Genetically engineered organisms. That is the consistent
terminology we\'re using, isn\'t it?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, we defined transgenic as genetically
engineered.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: So either way.

MS. DILLEY: So we\'re okay.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: So either way.

MS. DILLEY: We can use it. Okay. We\'re good. Any other comments on this
one? Okay. So this \-- oh Ron?

MR. OLSON: Just a slight one. In the other case, some of these organisms
may not have been anticipated or considered. Do we know that? Do we need
that?

MS. DILLEY: May not.

MR. OLSON: Can we just say, in either case, these may require new or
modified assessments?

MS. DILLEY: That\'s true.

MR. OLSON: Or do we need to \--

MS. DILLEY: So in either case, some of these organisms may require new
or modified regulatory assessment methodologies, or may pose challenges
for the traditional boundaries of agency responsibility.

MR. OLSON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: It sounds better.

MS. MELLON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: We don\'t care if they were anticipated. The real point is
they require these other things. Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Wait, wait, wait \-- hold on. Greg.

MR. JAFFE: I mean, one of the things that was in the other one, I don\'t
have a problem taking out those words that we\'ve just taken out, but I
mean, it wasn\'t known whether some of these will be regulated at all,
or how they will be regulated.

MS. DILLEY: But we\'ve captured that.

MR. JAFFE: No, you\'re not. You\'re saying, new or modified regulatory
assessment methodologies, as opposed to that\'s talking about, that\'s
making the assumption they all will be regulated, and we\'re only
talking about the assessment methodologies for them.

MS. DILLEY: But you\'re saying, that are not regulated, or require new
assessment methodologies. You\'re covered.

MR. JAFFE: But on the bottom you\'re saying, looking at the last
sentence, I\'m talking about the last sentence.

MS. LAYTON: In either case, some of these organisms may require new or
modified regulatory assessment methodologies, or may pose challenges for
the traditional boundaries of agency responsibility.

MR. JAFFE: Right. I would like to put in there somewhere the sentence we
had from before which talks about, it\'s unclear whether these organisms
will be regulated.

MS. DILLEY: I see what you are saying.

MR. JAFFE: It\'s a different issue.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. It\'s not what we just deleted. It\'s a different \--

MR. JAFFE: Right, I said it wasn\'t what we deleted. I\'m saying there
was a point there that was in number nine that I think has not been
captured here \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: \-- which is, it is sort of captured in the topic sentence,
but \--

MS. DILLEY: Some of these organisms may fall outside of the regulatory
\-- how do you want to say that? I don\'t know what you want to say.

MR. JAFFE: The sentence we had was, it is not yet clear how organisms
develop using these new technology applications will be regulated or
received in the international marketplace, was how we had it in the
other one.

MS. DILLEY: It is not yet clear whether some of these organisms will be
what?

MR. JAFFE: Whether they will be regulated.

MS. LAYTON: So you\'re okay with the sentence as it is? It is not yet
clear whether some of these organisms will be regulated.

MR. JAFFE: Right.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Instead of, it is not clear, could you say, it is possible
that some of these organisms will not be regulated?

MR. JAFFE: Will fall outside the regulatory boundaries, you mean?

MS. LAYTON: Yes. I\'m okay with the way it is.

MR. JAFFE: Yes, that\'s fine. I don\'t have any problem with that.

MR. BUSS: You could actually put that in the previous sentence.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, you could.

MS. LAYTON: Exactly.

MR. BUSS: In either case, some of these organisms may fall outside of
whatever that\'s going to be. Then, comma, others may require new or
modified \--

MR. JAFFE: I wouldn\'t use boundaries there. I would just say, of the
regulatory system.

MR. DYKES: I think it\'s better as a phrase, a phrase in the previous
sentence, where Daryl is going.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MR. BUSS: So if you say, in either case, some organisms may \-- will
fall outside the regulatory system, comma, others may require new or
modified regulatory assessment methodologies.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: That\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: People comfortable with that?

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Then, Mardi?

MS. MELLON: Are we going to put in the next sentence which says, as of
itself, this new generation of biotechnology may influence the overall
growth \-- I mean, if you all of the sudden have a new set of modern
biotech, modern biotechnologies that fall outside the regulatory
framework \--

MS. DILLEY: That\'s under 9.

MS. MELLON: \-- that may influence the debate.

MS. DILLEY: So that\'s on number nine, Mardi?

MS. MELLON: That\'s on number nine.

MS. DILLEY: So picking up \-- okay, so let\'s make sure we\'ve got this
last sentence here, and then we\'ll look at that. So you\'re looking for
the language on, received into the international marketplace? I\'m
trying to pick up where you are.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: As a result, this new generation of

biotechnologies may influence the \--

MS. DILLEY: Oh, okay. Genetic engineering. That\'s the sentence you want
to add to the end of this?

MS. MELLON: I think it\'s an important point that, like I said, you have
a whole bunch of \-- you have new technologies that are arguably modern
biotechnology that are not regulated that could influence the course of
the debate.

MS. DILLEY: Is that new generation of biotechnologies or products or is
that the right phrasing? Comments on that? Randy?

MR. GIROUX: Yes, so I was okay when we talked about it in the context of
the United States regulation. But I believe with this example, all of
these would be regulated by the Canadian government, because they would
all be novel, so I assume they would all be regulated. So once we start
going outside the U.S., now we\'re going to have all these exemptions,
and some will be and some won\'t be.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, that\'s true.

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: It stands at, because we\'re at the topic sentence is on the
U.S. government, and so \--

MR. GIROUX: And we don\'t know whether the countries may decide to
regulate these. They may decide to regulate more stringently than the
United States.

MS. MELLON: Well then, I agree with you. I think maybe we should take
out overall worldwide, and just say, may influence the course of the
debate inside the U.S.

MR. GIROUX: And I think it says that now, right?

MS. MELLON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. You say, take that last sentence out or \--

MR. GIROUX: Yes, I don\'t see us adding that sentence.

MS. MELLON: As ourselves. The part on the debate, you want that out?

MS. LAYTON: It\'s going to engender debate, so \--

MS. DILLEY: I thought what Randy said, and that\'s why I\'m not, I
don\'t think you are there on the same page. I think Randy said, let\'s
just take that last sentence out. And I think, Mardi, you were saying
\--

MS. MELLON: No, I would leave it in. I think it may influence debate.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s what I thought you were going to say. Michael.

MR. DYKES: On the phrase, I understand where Greg is coming from on the
phrase that we added, fall outside the regulatory system. That sounds
pejorative to me, that it just, like it\'s fallen between the cracks. I
don\'t think that\'s what we need. I think what we are saying, it may
not be regulated under the current system.

MS. DILLEY: May not be regulated \--

MR. DYKES: Yes, so it falls outside.

MS. DILLEY: \-- under the current regulatory system.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So may not, may not be regulated.

MS. LAYTON: Just take out falls outside.

MR. DYKES: The same point, I just think it\'s said differently. And
that\'s what we are really saying.

MS. DILLEY: All right.

MS. CRAMER: You need to put regulatory. Current regulatory system.

MS. LAYTON: Between current and system.

MS. DILLEY: Under the current regulatory system.

Regulated under the current regulatory system. Okay. All right. Do we
have that wrapped up? Two, two down. One. We\'ve knocked out two of
them.

MS. SULTON: So this replaces 9 and \--

MS. DILLEY: 15.

MS. SULTON: \-- and 15. Okay.

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Great. So the next one is to come back to 10, I
believe. Advance to 10.

MS. LAYTON: You can delete 15, too, yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So there is no comprehensive domestic policy regarding
the presence of transgenes or transgenic events. And see that transgenes
is the language on that. March 15th. Let\'s take about, if we could take
10 minutes and try and make some significant progress on 10, and then
we\'ve got to take a break before public comment at 3:30. So take a
minute or two to read this over, and see where we are after 10 minutes.
Yes, number 10.

MS. LAYTON: There was a piece of that, that we never brought before the
whole committee.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: And we should probably do 24, but it doesn\'t matter.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: So some of the things that are mostly, of course, one
person\'s grammatical change, may be the other people\'s substantive
change. But I think in trying to take a run at some of the suggested
changed language, it\'s mostly grammatical in nature. So any comments on
first a topic sentence of 10, which is basically adding the \-- let\'s
try and clarify that. Michael, is your card up? Okay. Any, Carole?

MS. CRAMER: I don\'t understand what transgene adds, because a
transgenic event, by definition, is a specifically defined transgene.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so the question you\'re asking is, does it change both
sides, or do we go \--

MS. CRAMER: I\'m asking, why do you think the word transgene needs to go
in there, since a transgenic event is, by definition, a specific defined
transgene.

MS. MELLON: I wanted, all I wanted to denote was the fact that in a lot
of cases, we\'re talking about genes that have moved from the transgenic
crop into a nontransgenic crop. So it\'s those genes that you\'re, that
are adventitiously present.

MS. CRAMER: But the event is defined as \--

MR. DYKES: Right.

MS. MELLON: Right, but the event, you are also worried about having a
trangenic event that it has not been proved that can be found, you know,
in a, in a grain shipment. In addition, you are worried about the
transgenes that move by pollen from the transgenic event into a non,
into a conventional corn, and therefore is adventitious presence as
well.

MS. CRAMER: But I don\'t think saying this or that delineates that.
Because I think in the field, the transgenic event, whether it has moved
by commingling or by pollen transformation, there is a distinct piece of
DNA that\'s termed the transgene event which \--

MS. MELLON: Oh, I always think of the event as a variety, and I would
refer to \--

MS. CRAMER: Yes, because you can have, you can have a variety with three
events.

MS. MELLON: Okay. Go for it.

MS. DILLEY: So the transgenic event is the correct terminology to use.

MS. MELLON: That\'s fine. That\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so let\'s remove the transgenes, and of transgenic
events \--

MS. LAYTON: Whether intentional or unintentional.

MS. DILLEY: And then I think Mardi and Alison had some additional
comments on this, so I just wanted to see if people \-- why don\'t we go
to the next sentence. The next sentence wasn\'t changed. So I don\'t
know if there are others. That doesn\'t mean they can\'t be changed. I
just wanted to see if there were any comments on it. Brad.

MR. SHURDUT: Potentially now, in the discussion of adventitious \--
someone brought up intentional versus unintentional. Usually the word
now is incidental, low levels.

MS. DILLEY: So incidental replacing unintentional?

MR. SHURDUT: It just seems to be more commonplace.

MS. DILLEY: I think that was probably a reference to how we talked about
it in the previous report.

MR. JAFFE: Yes, I think we defined it in the other report. That\'s why
I\'d like to keep it this way.

MR. SHURDUT: In the other report?

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: You could put in parenthesis, you could put in parenthesis,
if it would help you.

MR. SHURDUT: That\'s fine, if it\'s consistent with the other report,
then that\'s fine.

MS. LAYTON: Yes, now termed by \--

MS. DILLEY: He\'s okay with that. Let\'s go with it. Okay. And then, so
moving ahead, any other comments on that sentence? So keep
unintentional, because it\'s \-- to be consistent with the previous
report, which is referenced further below. How about on the second
sentence, then? There\'s a proposed change to that sentence, a couple of
changes to that sentence. So look at it and see if you have comments.
Duane.

MR. GRANT: So, I guess I would just take out the, in grain and feed
products. I don\'t want to limit it, I guess, to grain and feed where
above that we say, seed grain and food and feed. So would it read all
right if we just said \--

MS. DILLEY: Products?

MR. GRANT: \-- kind of low levels can derive from the varieties that
have \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so deleted and grain and food products.

MR. GRANT: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So the transgenically derived materials found at low levels
can derive from either varieties that have, and then continue on? Greg.

MR. JAFFE: I\'m not sure why the original sentence wasn\'t okay, because
you are just repeating low levels. You are repeating grain and feed
products without including the seed. So now he\'s taken that out. I
never heard the phrase, transgenically derived materials. It\'s just
transgenic materials. I mean, I don\'t know why it would derive
materials. They\'re transgenic materials.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so you are just suggesting to go back to the original
sentence, which is \--

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: \-- adventitious presence can arise from transgenic
organisms?

MS. MELLON: The reason I put that in there is that a lot of these
materials are not transgenic anymore, and they are, they\'ve derived
from transgenic events. They are now found quite far away from that. I
mean, but I don\'t feel real strongly about it, but if they were derived
from transgenic materials, in some cases, all you get is a promoter, or
something like that.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. MELLON: You\'re not getting the entire transgenic event or a,
certainly not a whole grain. You are just getting little bits of DNA
that derive from transgenic products. And that\'s the reason I put it
in.

MS. DILLEY: It makes it more confusing to you?

MR. JAFFE: I\'m just, the transgenically derived materials doesn\'t \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so let\'s go back to the original language, then, if
that makes sense to people. So then it would be \--

MR. GIROUX: You\'ve already cut too much out.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. Adventitious presence can arrive from transgenic
organisms that have neither \-- don\'t cut that have. Just the red part.
Yes \-- that have, and Mardi, I think you\'ve suggested to delete
either, that have satisfactorily completed or those that have not. So,
that have satisfactorily completed all regulatory procedures, or those
that have not.

MS. MELLON: Right.

MS. DILLEY: So taking Alison and Mardi\'s suggestions, that have not.
Okay. And then since we, transgenically derived does not make sense, so
stick with the such advantageous presence can result in regulatory,
contractual, and/or consumer issues. Okay. All right. So if people look
at it one more time, then we are going to take a break, and then we\'ve
got a 10 minute break, and then we come back for public comment. All
right. We\'ll close out 10 and we\'ll keep moving.

MS. LAYTON: 10 minute break and back at 3:30 for public comment.

(Recess.)

MS. LAYTON: Excuse me, it\'s 3:33. At this point in time, I would like
to ask if there is anyone here in the audience who would like to make
public comments. Okay. We did have a previous request. That person has
not, apparently, shown up at this public comment period. Because of
that, I will therefore check back in approximately half an hour to 45
minutes, depending on where we are, at a break near that point. I will
check back to see if a member of the public has arrived, and would like
to make public comments.

Given that, I will then move to, back to Abby, and we are working on
number \--

MS. DILLEY: 11.

MS. LAYTON: \-- 11.

MS. DILLEY: So that\'s page 14 on the March 14th document, and page nine
on the March 15th document. So why don\'t you take a minute to read
through comments and text, and we\'ll pick up conversation in about a
minute.

Okay, so number 11. Why don\'t we start with the topic sentence. We
didn\'t have any changes to the topic sentence, so hopefully that
forebodes an easy discussion that one. Any, clear about what, we mean
what we say and we say what we mean? Okay. Do you want to work off the
15th or the 14th?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: 15th, yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So any comments on the first sentence? Randy?

MR. GIROUX: I just, I wish we could have a better example than the one
we have, because we talked about, we all know what conventional crops
are. Could we use something like yellow corn and white corn, which is
\--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, yellow corn and white corn.

MR. GIROUX: Right.

MS. DILLEY: So within that e.g., just use yellow corn and white corn.

MS. LAYTON: Or yellow and white corn.

MR. GIROUX: A yellow and a white corn shipment, or something like that,
because that\'s what we\'re really talking about, right?

MR. OLSON: We want to avoid yellow and white corn. We want yellow corn
or white corn.

MS. LAYTON: So we should just make it all purple.

MS. DILLEY: Are we going with yellow and white corn?

MS. MELLON: No, yellow corn and white corn.

MS. DILLEY: Yellow corn and white corn, because that\'s butter and eggs,
or whatever, if you yellow and white corn. I need it. I like it.

MR. GIROUX: No, that\'s peaches and cream, and that\'s different.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay. Yellow corn and white corn.

MR. GIROUX: Could you say yellow corn in a white corn shipment, or
something like that, so it\'s clear.

MS. DILLEY: Yellow corn in a white corn shipment.

MR. OLSON: Yes.

MS. SULTON: In a white corn shipment.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, which is, and again, we are commingling it for that.
Okay. Okay. Anything else on that first sentence? Okay, second sentence?
Okay. Moving onto the third sentence in use of identity preservation
systems.

Okay.

MR. OLSON: We need to define dramatically. Or is that \--

MS. DILLEY: How would you define it?

MR. OLSON: I don\'t know. I mean, I assume that\'s a lot.

MS. LAYTON: Well, it\'s less than exponentially.

MR. OLSON: I agree with that.

MS. DILLEY: Is it?

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. OLSON: I mean, it\'s expanding. Do we need to say dramatically, or
could we just say expanding?

MS. LAYTON: Expanding.

MS. DILLEY: Anybody have any problem with that? Significantly expanding?
I mean, is it \-- do you need a qualifier on that? Is it expanding?

MS. LAYTON: It\'s just expanding.

MR. OLSON: It\'s just expanding, just expanding.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So let\'s take out dramatically.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s corny, but it\'s not drama.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Let\'s not get punchy. We\'re not there yet. Only at
5:30.

MS. LAYTON: To early to get punchy?

MS. DILLEY: Yes, too early to get punchy. Okay. Next sentence, these
systems \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Are there brackets missing there? MR. OLSON: Yes,
that\'s just a substitute for the one below in red. It starts, they all
start at the same spot.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, you\'re right. You\'re right. You\'re right. Okay. So on
15, you\'ve got two sentences. It\'s either one or the other. It\'s not
both. So the brackets should be around, these systems \--

MR. OLSON: All the way to the \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- to the other place, and then the red text is a proposed
substitution for that.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And I like the red, personally, better.

MR. OLSON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: You like the which?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: The red, the substitution.

MS. DILLEY: The red better.

MR. OLSON: I think we delete it. Just start with the red.

MS. DILLEY: So delete the two sentences, these systems, and some
challenges.

MR. OLSON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: And it\'s, these systems enable producers, et cetera.

MR. OLSON: There we go.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: So these systems enable producers to participate in new
value-added markets, resulting in differing views as to which party
should bear responsibility for managing production practices?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No.

MS. CRAMER: No, that qualified something else.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, because the sum of which is a comma phrase that
doesn\'t have to be there. So that\'s why I\'m asking.

MR. GIROUX: It has to be there, but we just \--

MS. CRAMER: Yes, it has to be there.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: And this has resulted in?

MS. LAYTON: But you understand, if you take out the comma phrase, which
has to be there, and read the sentence without the comma phrase, that
doesn\'t make sense.

MS. DILLEY: So Alison suggested after the comma saying, and this has
resulted in the ability of producers to achieve. Is that what you were
suggesting, Alison?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: This has resulted in \-- no, actually, the next
sentence. This has resulted in differing views.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Yes. What she has?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Right.

MR. OLSON: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. That\'s better. I\'m happy.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And you also might move, the sum of which, to after
these systems.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So Cindy, get that, and then Ron has a comment, and
then Mardi. Wait.

MR. JAFFE: No, actually, I may be wrong. I may be wrong.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Hold on. Ron.

MR. OLSON: This resulted in differing views. I\'m looking for a
substitute for differing views, because the view is always, the other
guy should bear it. And so maybe it\'s just resulted in issues as to
which party \--

MS. DILLEY: As conflicts? Has resulted in issues as to which party
should? Is that what you are looking for, Ron?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Questions to it.

MR. OLSON: Or questions might be a better way.

MS. DILLEY: Questions.

MR. OLSON: Yes, that\'s better.

MS. DILLEY: As to which party should bear responsibility in managing
production practices, et cetera. That\'s what you\'re looking for, Ron?

MR. OLSON: Well, yes. We\'ve used this sometimes. We\'ve talked about
blurring of roles or questions. You know, it\'s a blurring of who is
responsible, because different people are now telling people what to do,
as opposed to operating independently. It\'s this interdependent
concept, versus independent concept.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. OLSON: So we\'ve always used blurring views. Questions is fine, I
think.

MS. DILLEY: Questions is fine. Mardi.

MR. OLSON: Ambiguity.

MS. MELLON: I think the defining of the term, the word defining has to
be defined. It\'s as to which party should bear responsibility to define
the specifications and assure a level of crop purity and differences.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. MELLON: So you really \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Define that and assure that. Okay. Any other comments
on this one? Are we ready to cross it off? Okay. Onto 21.

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. LAYTON: Which one are we going from?

MS. DILLEY: 21. We\'re doing 21 right now. Oh which \-- from 15 or 14?
So starting with our topic sentence. Any questions about the topic
sentence. There are a couple of, actually, it\'s sentences. Alison.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Just the last five words, it kind of sounds like the
consumers want to purchase themselves, kind of the way it refers. And I
would just suggest deleting those last five, the public perceives the
resulting genetically engineered food products as providing value to
them.

MS. DILLEY: Where are we?

MS. LAYTON: She wants to end the sentence with them, and to delete, and
what to purchase them. So end with the first, and delete, and want to
purchase them.

MR. OLSON: Yes. Pat, you could add, instead of their decision, you could
say, purchasing decisions will be influenced.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m sorry, Ron. I didn\'t hear that.

MR. OLSON: You could take the word purchasing, and start the sentence
with it. Purchasing decisions.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, so, purchasing decisions, rather than their decisions?

MR. OLSON: Right.

MS. DILLEY: Purchasing decisions will, in turn, be influenced by whether
customers \-- okay. So kind of modifying the tail end of that, and
putting it up in the purchasing decisions as opposed to their, and then
ending at value to them, period.

MS. FOREMAN: So how would it read? Purchasing decisions will in turn be
influenced by customers and the public perceived \-- I, oh, I\'m sorry,
it\'s not my turn.

MS. DILLEY: You can go ahead, I think. I don\'t think if I asked anyone
if their card was up.

MS. FOREMAN: I would like the word consumers back in there, that was
taken out. Customers, you can say, and consumers, because, again, we\'ve
been trying to differentiate between customers and consumers.

MS. DILLEY: So you want that, just so I\'m clear, you want that instead
of public perceives, or \--

MS. FOREMAN: I had it as the consuming public, which I think is the most
accurate. I\'m not sure why.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I was the one that took that out because I\'m not
sure who the unconsuming public was.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s those people whose primary role in the marketplace is
as food consumers. They are not engaged in food production or
processing, retailing.

MS. DILLEY: So that\'s a distinction between retailers and \--

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: And if you are going to do that, either way it makes \--

MS. DILLEY: So customers and consumers as opposed to public perceives?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, and the consuming public perceive. Take the S off that
word.

MS. CRAMER: I like consumers better than consumer.

MS. DILLEY: Is consumers better, because it is whether customers and
consumers, or Carol, do you particularly like \--

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, put consumers.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so customers and consumers \--

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, perceive \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- perceive the resulting genetically engineered \--

MS. FOREMAN: And then the end of it should be given this term, the
resulting genetically engineered food provides value to them, products
provide value to them.

MS. DILLEY: Provide value to them, as opposed to as providing?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, providing \--

MS. DILLEY: Provide value to them.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: Provides value is fine.

MS. DILLEY: Provides value.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Period. Is that what I heard? Okay, provides value, period.

MS. MELLON: Is it, the products provide?

MS. LAYTON: Products provide value.

MS. DILLEY: Period. Take out, to them.

MS. CRAMER: No, I think it\'s actually to them is the point, isn\'t it?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. CRAMER: As opposed to value to the environment or Santa Claus.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Keep it in. Okay.

MS. CRAMER: Do we need a "that" after "perceive," I think.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m sorry. Carole, do that again?

MS. CRAMER: I believe we need a "that" after "perceive." Perceive that
the \--

MS. DILLEY: That the resulting \-- provide value to them. So are we
keeping to them or not?

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Michael?

MR. DYKES: I guess I\'m coming back, what are we, as I read the first
sentence of this, the success of some future food products derived from
transgenic plants or animals will be influenced by whether processors or
retailers embrace these products as adding value to their businesses.
What are we trying, what\'s the message we\'re trying to convey, because
I, I mean, I think that we would \-- what do we have to say for the
first 10 years of biotech?

Because I\'m not sure that we would say that the success to date has
been added because of added value to their businesses, necessarily.

MR. BUSS: That\'s why I think we put some in there, because some wasn\'t
there before.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. DYKES: So the success of some of the future \-- are we talking about
the future food products are going to do some things? I\'m just not
clear \--

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. DYKES: \-- what we\'re trying to convey here?

MS. DILLEY: Yes. So it\'s future food products, and it\'s, that the
market, that have a particular trait that are marketable.

MR. DYKES: So we are trying to convey that we think some of those future
food products derived from these are going to be better received by the
consuming public?

MS. FOREMAN: Take for example \--

MS. DILLEY: That\'s what I\'m trying to say.

MS. DYKES: That\'s what I thought, but I wanted to make sure I knew.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- milk from cloned cows. Kroger has said, we\'re not
going to handle them. We\'re going to tell our suppliers, we don\'t want
it. They obviously at an early time have decided that that might be a
problem for them. I\'m sorry, it was C-O, carbon \-- has already said
they don\'t want milk from cloned cows. It wasn\'t Kroger.

MS. DILLEY: I think Michael was just asking for clarification.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, but that\'s what I was trying to say. That\'s an
example where when we get these products that are, they come to people
as whole foods or with some controversy associated with them, instead of
getting them through an animal where they were used as feed, and they
are a lot less visible.

MR. DYKES: Okay. So we\'re talking some of the future food products.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. DYKES: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Any other comment on the topic sentences? I think \-- Duane,
go ahead.

MR. GRANT: So kind of picking up a little bit where Michael was at, on
that third line down says, these products as adding value to their
business.

MS. DILLEY: Uh-huh.

MR. GRANT: Again, I don\'t think that these products always offer an
added value. They offer some value. But \--

MS. DILLEY: That\'s why \--

MR. GRANT: \-- the way it\'s written, it implies that there has to be an
affirmative addition of value to the processor. I don\'t think that\'s
the case. I think there\'s a lot of food products, or there are
definitely some ingredients that are used now that the processor is
indifferent to. Just the fact that you can buy them, you know, a steady
supply at a known price, offers some value, not necessarily an added
value. But \--

MS. DILLEY: So I think that\'s why the some was added, Duane, but I
don\'t know if that \--

MR. GRANT: It doesn\'t do it for me.

MS. DILLEY: It doesn\'t.

MS. CRAMER: Just take out the last six lines.

MR. GRANT: I would say it offers some value instead of adding value,
offers some value.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay, some value is better. I think that actually \--

MR. OLSON: Or you could say capturing. They capture value.

MS. DILLEY: Capture, they can capture value?

MR. OLSON: Just trying to find a word.

MS. HUNT: I mean, plus \--

MS. DILLEY: Jo, you have a comment?

MS. HUNT: We\'re talking about future food products.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MS. HUNT: I think we elaborate a little bit more in the text, and that
is maybe more important than \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can you speak up, please?

MS. DILLEY: She\'s trying her best. She\'s got a cold. So capturing. I
think you said it. You elaborate in the text, and it\'s future food
products, it\'s not current.

MS. HUNT: Yes. Okay, it\'s some and it\'s future, and I think those are
probably the two key words there.

MS. DILLEY: Carol.

MS. FOREMAN: I think capturing is good business terminology \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- and providing adding some value to their business,
providing some value to their business is more public kind of language.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Duane?

MR. GRANT: I guess, again, I just disagree. I think that oftentimes food
processors are indifferent to the source of. As long as they can buy it
at a cheaper price, it doesn\'t really matter what the source is.

MS. FOREMAN: But that\'s a value \--

MR. GRANT: And so is that an additional value? I know it\'s semantics,
and it\'s kind of a fine point, and I guess I\'m a little bit sensitized
to it because of the way this was originally written. We also had to
offer added value to the consumer.

And there again, I don\'t think the consumer always perceives an added
value. In fact, most of the times they are ignorant to the presence of,
period, of the trait.

MS. FOREMAN: I think my point, Duane, was, just a minute a go, first of
all, we are talking about some. We are talking about future. The
products that are out there now have primarily been animal feed, and the
public has been unaware of them.

When you have products that are whole foods, where we are much more
visible to the public, and now that you have 10 years of public
knowledge, you know, the products got out there without the public being
aware of them. And I did bring with me today some opinion polling data
that shows that in the 10 years that they\'ve been out there, people now
say they would be less likely to purchase oil that has been genetically
enhanced to have less saturated fat than they were 10 years ago.

Ten years ago, it was reported, the controversy was out there. Today,
not very many new products are going to get on the market without the
public being very much aware of it, because it would be reported in the
media. And in addition, again, the data show that people today are
substantially more concerned about their health, and whether justifiably
or rationally or not, are more inclined to want to know where their food
comes from.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so I would suggest, on Jo\'s terms, maybe that we look
at, that we hold onto the some future food products, and not completely
pin down the sentence, because we\'ve got a lot of explanatory text in
there. And I don\'t know if we\'ll find language that helps or makes us
more comfortable with those topic sentences, but why don\'t we review
the text under it and see if we need to come back and do anything more
on the topic sentences.

Again, we have \-- we\'re obviously trying to get a lot of thoughts in
here, because we\'ve got a fairly lengthy paragraph that is in this, is
in the explanatory text. So let\'s give it a go under that and see if
that helps clarify the topic sentences. So, Mike, I don\'t know if your
card is up for explanatory text. Okay. Carol, explanatory text comment?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, mine is up for explanatory text because there is a
statement that is, I think, just not accurate. There are currently \--

MS. LAYTON: Are you working off March 15th?

MS. DILLEY: You\'re looking at the sentence number three?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, just a minute, March 15.

MS. LAYTON: Let\'s go sentence by sentence.

MS. FOREMAN: We want to go sentence by sentence?

MS. DILLEY: We can. I mean, do people have comments on the first two
sentences? If not, then we\'ll go to that. Okay. So on sentence three
\--

MS. LAYTON: Beginning, however, there are currently?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. There are currently no products that provide retail
consumers with improved nutrition or particular safety benefits, is
factually correct. Your new

\-- is that it, being the trait that creates the high lysine is not
genetically engineered. It\'s in a RoundupReady^®^ soybean. So that is
not a product \-- it is a product that produces a nutritional benefit,
but it is not a genetically engineered trait that\'s created that
benefit.

The high oleic soybean oil that DuPont has, and I think he\'ll have one
or two, is not being used in any food products at this time.

MR. DYKES: I don\'t know about DuPont, but ours is not.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, DuPont\'s is not. I called them and they said that
they are using it in industrial purposes. Those are the only two.

MR. DYKES: I think Iowa State has a low lin, and I think Dupont has,
Dupont and ADM have a low lin.

MS. DILLEY: A low what?

MR. DYKES: A low linoleic acid.

MS. FOREMAN: Dupont\'s Pioneers is also RoundupReady^®^ soybean,
RoundupReady^®^ bean, and it\'s not a genetically engineered trait.

MR. SLOCUM: Okay.

MR. BUSS: Low lin is not genetically engineered.

MR. SLOCUM: Right.

MS. DILLEY: So the question is whether it\'s actually incorrect on \--

MS. FOREMAN: The whole \-- genetically engineered, but not being sold
for food. So the fact is, and this is important, because from the
beginning there has been the promise of direct consumer benefits. None
of those have yet been produced.

I\'ve got a February 14th article by Andrew Pollack in the New York
Times going through the products that have been anticipated. And in
fact, none of them are yet out there on the market. So you\'ve got to
be, you know, we\'ve got to be straight about this.

MS. DILLEY: Alison.

MS. FOREMAN: So there are no, the original statement was that there were
none currently on the market that provide retail consumers with improved
nutrition. There are products under development, but they\'ve been under
development for a decade, and none of them have yet come to market. And
that\'s the difference in the equation, I think, about whether you
develop a consumer attachment to products that were designed to be
directly beneficial to consumers. I think that\'s what this one is
about.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we are trying to both be factually correct, as well
as talk about \-- and part of it is, it is a lead-in sentence to talk
about the appeal these products will have for consumers, that these
products will have for consumers is difficult to assess and anticipate.
So Alison, did you have some suggested language?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Yes. I think this topic is about the success of
future food products.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: And the sentence has been changed to talk about under
development, rather than current products, because the topic sentence is
about future products.

MS. FOREMAN: I think it lays the groundwork for, you know, it\'s a fact,
they\'ve been talked about. None of them are out there yet. So that you
have to say, the reason this is an issue is that there are none of them
out there yet.

MS. DILLEY: So, but I don\'t know that.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, I mean, I know that I was just at a talk on the
omega-3 soy, and I mean, we are talking five to 10 years. There are some
that are in the regulatory process. I don\'t know for sure if they will
be \--

MS. FOREMAN: There are not. The \--

MS. CRAMER: No, in the regulatory process, she said.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, I checked with the \-- I checked over at \-- and I
can\'t find any letters on any.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: On any \--

MS. FOREMAN: Products that have been through the process and \--

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: No, they are under development. I\'m not sure that
they are going to be through the regulatory process in the next 5 to 10
years.

MS. FOREMAN: I\'m sure they are under development. The issue is, we are
saying here, that the success of future products will be influenced by
whether or not they offer people value. Right now, there are no products
out there that offer a direct consumer value in terms of nutrition or
food safety.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: So we may get them in the future, but right now there are
none.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. But where is the under development \-- I\'m sorry.

MS. FOREMAN: I didn\'t have under development. It was put in when Abby
was putting together this document. And it is more accurate to say there
are none out there now. You can add, there are some under development.

MS. DILLEY: There are two different issues. There are none in the
marketplace now, and I mean, I think you are both trying to \-- you are
making two distinct points. So we\'re trying to wrestle with that
language. Greg.

MR. JAFFE: I think for the argument and for the discussion that\'s going
on in the text \--

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. JAFFE: \-- I think Carol is right. But I think the solution is to
say, however, there are currently, there are currently none on the
market, now, but there are some under development. But there are a
limited number under development.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, and the future success will depend on \-- right.

MR. JAFFE: So I think you have to put \-- but just going to say, they
are currently under development, some of these \--

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. JAFFE: \-- misses the whole frame of the discussion here.

MS. DILLEY: No, I understand what you are saying. And so we\'ve got
three different things that we are trying to add here. Whether they fit
in a sentence, I don\'t know. Currently, there are no products in the
marketplace. There are some \--

MR. JAFFE: With consumer benefits. You just can\'t say there are not
products.

MS. DILLEY: \-- with consumer benefit. There are some under development,
and their success for consumers is difficult to assess and anticipate.
Are those the three points we are trying to make?

MS. FOREMAN: But it is important to keep their, the terms of food
safety, improved nutrition or particular safety benefit. I know you were
just trying to get through that, but that needs to stay in.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And that question is, it\'s probably one really long
sentence, so we can break it up a little bit. As long as we know what
we\'re trying to say \--

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s just come out, and I want to get it \--

MS. DILLEY: Oh, yes, don\'t take that out.

MR. DYKES: I think the thing we\'re \--

MS. DILLEY: There you go.

MS. LAYTON: No products have \--

MS. DILLEY: No products have \--

MS. FOREMAN: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DYKES: I think the thing that we, I think where Carol is going, and
I hear what she\'s saying, and I think it\'s a valid point, in terms of
biotech, we\'ve talked about them. They\'ve been under development. We
have products on the market today that are providing some benefits on
low lin, for example, however, they are not biotech products. And there
may be biotech products under development, or how we want to deal with
that.

So I think there are three different concepts we are trying to get out
here, so people aren\'t confused that the low lin products on the market
today, they are not biotech.

MS. FOREMAN: So you want to say that currently no genetically engineered
products that provide retail consumers.

MR. DYKES: That or the food products on the market today are not
biotech-derived products. There may be biotech-derived products
currently under development, or something like that.

MS. DILLEY: Greg.

MR. JAFFE: I would say, there are currently no genetically engineered
traits that provide, because that\'s what you are talking about here,
specifically genetically engineered traits that provide retailers with
improved nutrition or particular safety benefits. Because there are
genetically engineered soybeans that have nongenetic traits. I think
that\'s not in the scope of this report, and I think it\'s too confusing
to put in explanations about those in this discussion. But \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so this is the sense we have right now. However, there
are currently no specifically genetically engineered \--

MR. JAFFE: You don\'t need specifically, just genetically.

MS. LAYTON: Yes, you don\'t need specifically.

MR. JAFFE: You don\'t need specifically.

MS. DILLEY: Right. No genetically engineered traits that provide retail
consumers with improvements to obtain nutrition or safety benefits, such
as \-- okay. So there are very limited numbers \--

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, that used to be when it was on the market. Now
we are more into development, and I don\'t know \--

MS. FOREMAN: On the market should go back up higher in the sentence, I
think.

MS. HUNT: After traits.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, you know, this is a marketing issue, and in using the
term genetically engineered trait, it loses the thrust of marketing.
Then I would rather have a different phrase, because you can say, there
are no foods with genetically engineered traits currently on the market
that provide consumers.

MR. DYKES: Yes, that I think is more accurate.

MS. FOREMAN: There are no foods with genetically engineered traits.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, does that work, then? No foods are genetically
engineered traits on the market?

MS. FOREMAN: Now on the market, say, because it\'s current.

MS. DILLEY: Now on the market. Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: That provide \--

MS. CRAMER: No, this is getting to be an awful sentence.

MS. FOREMAN: Let\'s just get it down.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, let\'s just maybe we just get the concept down, and
then we get into grammar.

MS. CRAMER: While we\'re messing with the sentence, I think in addition
to improved nutrition and safety benefits, we need to put something like
characteristics, or quality characteristics. Because if you are talking
about delayed ripening or prettier, prettier orange or tomatoes \--

MS. DILLEY: What\'s the word that you want to use?

MS. FOREMAN: How about, how about, or quality.

MS. CRAMER: Yes, just quality. Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: Or particular \--

MS. CRAMER: Nutrition, quality.

MR. SHURDUT: Quality and functionality.

MR. DYKES: I don\'t think that\'s accurate. I agree with what we are
trying say. I don\'t think it\'s accurate to say there are no foods with
genetically engineered traits on the market today. I think what we are
trying \--

MS. FOREMAN: That provide the retail consumers with improved nutrition.
You\'ve got to have the rest of it.

MR. DYKES: Because I think while we\'re in and around the background
makes that false, which I don\'t think is where we\'re going. I think
what it is, is there are no food quality traits on the market today that
are derived from biotechnology. That\'s what we are trying to say. There
are food quality traits out there in genetic engineered backgrounds, but
the food traits themselves have not been genetically engineered. That\'s
the point we are trying to make.

MS. FOREMAN: That says, no foods with genetically engineered traits \--

MS. LAYTON: Right. RoundupReady^®^ is a genetically engineered trait.

MR. DYKES: Yes. That\'s what I\'m trying to say.

So what we\'re talking about is the food.

MS. FOREMAN: But, you know, given the fact that, you know, my interest
here is talking about the market. And when you start talking about
genetically engineered traits instead of foods, it loses market
relevance, marketplace relevance.

MS. CRAMER: But what we\'re trying to capture is the honesty of saying
that there may be genetically engineered foods that do not have the
genetically engineered trait targeting nutrition. So we have to make
sure that we are technically correct, that we aren\'t saying, that
we\'re not excluding the low linoleic acid varieties that are actually
transgenic.

MS. FOREMAN: I would venture to say that as of right now, it\'s not on
the market.

MR. DYKES: It is on the market.

MS. FOREMAN: Kelloggs has not started producing it in the cereals yet.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MR. GRANT: Kelloggs isn\'t the only one.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so what are we \--

MR. DYKES: 100,000 acres last year, 500,000 this year.

MS. DILLEY: But in \--

MR. GRANT: How about if you switch the wording around and say, however,
there are no foods which provide any type of safety solution or
particular safety benefits derived from genetically engineered traits on
the market, or right now on the market \--

As a concept, there are no foods offering direct benefits arising from
genetically engineered traits.

MS. FOREMAN: I think that\'s going in the right direction. Say it again.

MR. GRANT: There are not foods \--

MS. CRAMER: Currently on the market.

MS. DILLEY: Currently on the market.

MS. FOREMAN: Currently on the market \-- no foods currently on the
market that provide \--

MR. GRANT: That are a direct result of genetic engineering.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. There are no foods currently on the market \--

MS. FOREMAN: That have nutritional or safety benefits such as that are
\-- cut that next phrase, because it has to go someplace else. Now on
the market, that provide improved nutrition, that use genetically
engineered traits to provide improved nutrition or particular safety.
Does that work?

MR. GRANT: That makes me feel better, yes.

MS. CRAMER: But do we need some qualities?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, I agree.

MR. GRANT: To provide \--

MS. FOREMAN: With improved nutritional quality \--

well, nutrition quality \-- if you will take the to in front of provide
and make it that. Oh, I\'m sorry, to. You\'re right. No, it\'s to
provide.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And then go down to the next sentence. There are
limited numbers under development.

MS. FOREMAN: You drop however, and say, there are a very limited number
under development.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: That very limited number used to be what was on the
market.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: And so I don\'t know that I agree.

MS. FOREMAN: There are a limited number under development.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, I don\'t know if that\'s true. I\'ll defer to
the biotech people.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, I \--

MS. DILLEY: I guess we don\'t know.

MR. JAFFE: Does that mean it\'s not infinity, an infinite number in
development?

MS. DILLEY: Daryl, you have a suggestion?

MR. BUSS: On the \-- no, it\'s actually on the previous sentence.
Currently \--

MS. LAYTON: Currently now on the market? They are either currently on
the market, or they are now on the market.

MS. FOREMAN: Now is a shorter word.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Good.

MS. LAYTON: Good catch, Daryl.

MS. DILLEY: Do you want, there are some under development?

MR. SLOCUM: There are some such products.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: That would be, there are some such products under
development?

MS. DILLEY: There are some such products under development. There are
some under development.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Some such I like.

MR. JAFFE: Some such products.

MR. SLOCUM: Is this meant to be a statement about markets globally, or
about domestic markets, about U.S. markets?

MS. FOREMAN: I think it\'s about U.S. markets.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I think the however, is that a little sentence or \--

MR. SLOCUM: Two howevers in a row?

MS. DILLEY: What?

MR. SLOCUM: Two sentences starting with however in a row.

MS. CRAMER: None the less?

MR. SLOCUM: However there are, however there are.

MS. DILLEY: There are probably \--

MS. LAYTON: You don\'t need that.

MS. FOREMAN: Use however.

MS. DILLEY: All right, so there are no such products under development,
the appeal of these products, the appeal these products will have \--
the appeal these products will have for consumers is difficult to assess
and anticipate. And then \--

MS. LAYTON: Although typically?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, although the appeal \--

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t know if that links. I don\'t know if you want to
link that.

MS. FOREMAN: We may not want to link them together. That\'s a good
thought, Daryl.

MS. DILLEY: What?

MS. LAYTON: Do you want them together or not together? I\'m sorry. It
all goes back in. No, not there. There are some such products under
development, although small "t" the appeal those products, the appeal
these products will have for consumers is difficult to assess and
anticipate.

MS. DILLEY: And then typically, and then it goes on to say, typically
consumers \-- so are people comfortable with changes up to that point?
Michael, is your card up?

MR. DYKES: Well, one point I was going to make, and I guess we\'ve got
it in here, but if you read this in isolation, you would presuppose that
there is really nothing else happening in biotech other than these food
things, which may or may not \-- there may be some there. I mean, there
are new products coming out all the time.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I think we talk about that in the introduction.

MR. DYKES: Okay. I just, but I was just \-- if you just read this, this
says that we\'re kind of at a crossroads, and it\'s all going to depend
on whether these things have consumer appeal.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s number 21 out of 28, so it\'s not being read in
isolation.

MS. FOREMAN: And number 27 \--

MR. DYKES: I just want to make sure that we don\'t take things in
isolation. There are other products coming on the market every day.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. And I do think, I mean, honestly, I do think we top off
that context in the introduction. So, okay. So 21.

MS. LAYTON: Can I suggest something that would make him happy? Most
current and future transgenic crops are developed primarily for
advantages for productivity in agricultural management.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Future? Were developed. No.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Never mind.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Never mind.

MS. LAYTON: Never mind. Ignore it.

MS. FOREMAN: You could say current, but not \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So then we\'re, if we can move onto typically.

MR. DYKES: And I guess we can\'t define any of the environmental
benefits. We\'re just going to leave it there, produce some
environmental benefits?

MS. FOREMAN: One of the reasons that we use very specific language such
as reduce pathogens or allergenicity is \--

MS. DILLEY: No, he wasn\'t looking at that one. He was looking at
environmental \--

MS. FOREMAN: Where?

MR. DYKES: The second sentence.

MS. LAYTON: They have produced some

environmental \--

MS. DILLEY: I think it\'s good to leave it there. Okay. Unless you have
any specific language to propose, I suggest we leave it to that and move
onto the typically. Okay. So, and then, typically, consumers choices on
product purchases involve a diverse array. And then we go into diverse
array. And then, many second generations, so see if we have any comments
on \-- Alison.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I just, I wasn\'t sure if we\'d used the term second
generation previously to people that might not know what that meant.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. So \--

MR. DYKES: Maybe we should replace that with future.

MS. DILLEY: Many future transgenic products may be

major components in foods. Is that, are you okay with that? Okay. All
right.

MR. DYKES: Because I think really and truly, I think second generation
now is referring to the second generation of the current products.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I understand that. I just don\'t know if someone that
doesn\'t know \--

MR. DYKES: I\'m agreeing with you.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: All right. Any comment on the next sentence, products
designed to offer... may be more visible and therefore potentially more
controversial. And then food processors and retailers are responsive to
consumer preferences, et cetera. So comments with products design? Mardi

MS. MELLON: I have a suggestion for \--

MS. DILLEY: You\'ve got to speak up. You need to speak up. We can\'t
hear you.

MS. MELLON: Well I had a suggestion earlier \--

MS. DILLEY: For an earlier sentence? We were hoping to move on, so you
better say it now.

MS. MELLON: The sentence said that the appeal of

\-- the first sentence on the screen, the appeal of these products for
consumers is difficult to assess. It just shortens it.

MS. DILLEY: The appeal of these products for consumers \--

MS. LAYTON: No, you don\'t want to take out although.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, no.

MS. MELLON: You have to put in of. The appeal of these products for
consumers \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay.

MS. LAYTON: It just goes on and on.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, this is a lengthy one. So why don\'t, I think we\'re
onto product design. Any comment on that one? Okay. Food processors and
retailers are \--

MS. LAYTON: Do we need that? I mean, isn\'t that in the topic sentence
already?

MR. DYKES: I think we already have it covered elsewhere.

MS. DILLEY: The only thing that\'s an addition is increasing \--

MS. FOREMAN: I think it\'s very important to keep it in there.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So if it\'s just to take it out to make it shorter,
that doesn\'t fly. So if there are any suggested changes or real
concerns, let\'s talk about them, otherwise, we should move on. Just
looking at the clock, it\'s 4:25. So we want to keep moving. Okay.

On the polling data \-- an assessment of consumer response to future
transgenic \-- I guess that just adds additional points to, they are
difficult to assess, response, difficult to assess?

MR. DYKES: I say we\'ve got that covered elsewhere. I don\'t know that
we need \--

MS. FOREMAN: You know, come on. We\'ve got a report that has like 25
different issues, 28 issues. There are two of them that deal with the
consumer side of it. You\'re going to quibble over a couple of lines
here?

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Let\'s move on.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Hold on. Let\'s see if the quibble is still there.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So let\'s see. I don\'t know if you want to put it
where, it seems to me it just adds to the, it\'s difficult to assess
these products but, I don\'t know if you want to put it there or you
just leave it where it is.

MR. SLOCUM: Wouldn\'t it be better moved up a sentence?

MS. CRAMER: But where?

MS. FOREMAN: What\'s the suggestion.

MR. SLOCUM: Somewhere up there we talk about, the sentence we just
modified, we talk about \--

MS. DILLEY: Make them difficult to assess.

MR. SLOCUM: \-- make them difficult to assess.

MS. DILLEY: I was just trying to link it to that.

MR. SLOCUM: Yes, we can just move that up to follow that sentence.

MS. LAYTON: Yes. Don\'t you think it fits better there, Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: No, that\'s fine. I just didn\'t want to take it out.

MR. SLOCUM: I mean that\'s why, that supports why it\'s going to be
difficult to assess it and participate.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Okay. And then so now it\'s food processors and then
there is no way to know whether we\'re concerned about genetic
engineering or desire for nutritional or safety back up will prevail.
And then it gets cut off. Does that make sense?

MS. FOREMAN: You know, the last sentence, and there are three or four of
these in the document, looks a little bit like a recommendation.

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: What, USDA will need to be sensitive, or \-- are you jumping
down to that?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, I was. I\'m sorry. It\'s fine by me if you take it
out.

MS. LAYTON: So take out, USDA will need \--

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: It seems to me \--

MS. DILLEY: Anybody have heartburn about dropping the last sentence? No.

MS. LAYTON: They know they have to be sensitive.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: Some of these things are so obvious.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, Duane?

MR. GRANT: I tried to read and understand it. It says, will prevail,
prevail against what, I guess.

MS. LAYTON: In other words, will they reach the marketplace.

MR. GRANT: The consumer marketplace or \--

MS. FOREMAN: Well, will anybody know about concern about \--

MS. MELLON: Will we sustain \--

MS. FOREMAN: Will prevail in the consumer\'s mind.

MR. DYKES: Will be commercially successful.

MS. DILLEY: Will be commercially \--

MR. SLOCUM: Concern and desire is in the consumer\'s mind. So will
prevail, is the consumer going \-- is it going to continue to be a
concern for them.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Will prevail for consumers.

MR. SLOCUM: Right.

MS. FOREMAN: Prevail and \-- well, prevail in the consumer\'s mind, I
think sounds better.

MS. DILLEY: In consumer choices or what?

MS. LAYTON: Will prevail in the consumer\'s mind.

MR. GRANT: We don\'t ever, we don\'t ever use the word concern. We
don\'t ever pull out \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. GRANT: \-- what the consumer is actually concerned about. Now we are
putting in that concern \--

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, it does say up above \--

MS. DILLEY: It seems to me, well, Carol, go ahead. But it seems like
we\'ve made that point in linking with, it\'s difficult to assess the
dynamics. There are lots of things going on in terms of us making
decisions about food choices. Is it okay to eliminate that sentence?

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s fine. I\'d agree.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I just wonder if that sentence kind of hangs out there
kind of funny. But I don\'t know if that \-- drop it. Can we drop it?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: All right.

MR. BUSS: If you wanted to retain it, you could add it at the end of
that earlier sentence and say, typically, consumer\'s choices are \--
probably purchases involving first considerations including not only,
yatta, yatta, yatta.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. BUSS: And in some cases, consideration is for all the evidence that
it is not clear which of these considerations will prevail.

MS. FOREMAN: At many times.

MS. DILLEY: Why don\'t you just drop it?

MS. LAYTON: Yes, just \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Drop it.

MS. DILLEY: Can we just drop it, make it tighter?

MS. LAYTON: Okay. So there is no way of knowing is coming out. Thank
you.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Can we finish? So we are finished with 21.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. Want me to check \--

MS. DILLEY: Do you want to check on public comment?

MS. LAYTON: Yes. At this point in time I will ask the audience, is there
anyone here who would like to give public comment? Seeing no one jumping
over Elizabeth\'s head to get to the front of the room, we can move on
with \-- do we want to do 24, since we haven\'t done that at all?

MS. DILLEY: Sure, because that\'s kind of a lengthy one, because there
are a lot of comments on that one, and I\'m not sure \-- so we really do
need to look at both March 14th and March 15th.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: The topic sentence on that last one was going to be
finalized depending upon how the bottom looked.

MS. LAYTON: That\'s right.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Okay. So Duane, you\'re the one who raised the issue
about whether that \-- are you loving those topic sentences now?

MR. GRANT: You know, I \-- maybe it\'s just semantics for me, adding
value \--

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I have a suggestion that might remedy this. If you
just stop, food processors and retailers embrace these products, period,
and leave unsaid anything about value to the business. And then the
bottom makes it clear what we are talking about.

MS. FOREMAN: I think you have to then put for their purpose and
decisions \--

MS. LAYTON: Are consumer purchasing decisions?

MS. FOREMAN: No.

MS. LAYTON: Oh, right, right.

MS. DILLEY: Their purchasing decisions will in turn be influenced.

MS. LAYTON: Yes. Okay. Cool.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s fine.

MS. LAYTON: Comfortable, Duane?

MR. GRANT: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Going once, going twice. Moving to 24.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Let me just make the \-- this is just a process
question, process point. I\'m going to suggest that we go until 5:30
today. Is that okay with everyone?

MS. DILLEY: So another hour.

MR. DYKES: I can\'t. I\'ve got to leave at 5:00.

MS. FOREMAN: Oh, good. Let\'s get all the one he \--

MR. GIROUX: I\'ve got to leave by 5:20.

MR. DYKES: I\'ll leave Carol my proxy.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Such a load.

MS. FOREMAN: I will use it responsibly.

MS. LAYTON: Which Carol was he leaving it with?

MS. DILLEY: So what we at least need to accomplish by the time we
adjourn is an assessment analysis of where we are with the introduction.
We may not get through it all. We have to at least get a clear picture
of what we need to work through on the introduction.

But before we get there, let\'s do 24. There are a lot of comments on
there, and it translated into a fairly short paragraph, so I\'m not sure
if this does it or not. So you need to look at those and then we\'ll
start with the topic sentence and then move through.

MR. GIROUX: So are we looking at your comments on this?

MS. DILLEY: I would review both March 14 and March 15 text, because
there were a lot of comments on this, and I did my best to take a swing
at integrating different comments. And I may not get you there.

MS. LAYTON: Can I ask Mardi a question. Mardi, were most of your
comments editorial, for reading, were they substantive? Because I know
you have a lot of comments?

MS. DILLEY: No.

MS. LAYTON: She has several.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, and so does Brad.

MS. LAYTON: I was going around the room, and I started with her.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m sorry.

MS. LAYTON: Yes, 24, and I hit Mardi\'s comments first, which is why \--
okay, and Brad, you did have a lot. Were they more editorial, or were
they substantive?

MR. SHURDUT: They more editorial.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. DYKES: So are we back to saying we are okay with what we had on
February 3rd?

MS. LAYTON: No.

MR. DYKES: No, not that far.

MS. LAYTON: Since they were editorial, I think that I was going to
suggest that maybe Abby has tried to merge the editorials together, and
maybe the March 15th document might be a good place to start.

MR. DYKES: Which document?

MS. LAYTON: March 15.

MR. SHURDUT: I\'m okay with her topic statement.

MS. DILLEY: Are you ready to jump in? So let\'s start with the topic
statement, if people have comments on that? Fine? Any questions,
comments?

MR. SHURDUT: Are you working from the 15th?

MS. DILLEY: Yes. Topic statement only. Okay. Can we move onto the
explanatory text then? Okay.

MS. LAYTON: The first sentence was \--

MS. DILLEY: Comments? Greg?

MR. JAFFE: When I read that sentence, it reads awkwardly to me. It says
there, the global adoption of biotechnology crops has encountered trade
obstacles. And I don\'t know what the position is. It sounds awkward.
It\'s not really the adoption of them, because the adoption to me sounds
like planting, but trade obstacles, the sentence is more, that have come
about because of trade of the products of those crops. And so to me, it
doesn\'t make sense. It\'s just not, it doesn\'t capture whatever is
supposed to be captured here. So that\'s one comment. I don\'t have a
solution to that.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so we\'ve got Brad\'s \--

MR. JAFFE: But let me just say, one other thing is, and I think the word
time, for the lack of timely regulatory approvals. It\'s not timely.
Timely to me means that they\'ve done it in a certain period of time.
It\'s that they are, again, asynchronous.

MR. SHURDUT: They just haven\'t done that yet.

MR. JAFFE: So it\'s not a lack of timely regulatory approvals.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. JAFFE: It\'s not like one taking 18 months, another one taking seven
years. It\'s that they are not synchronized, and one \--

MS. DILLEY: Stemming from asynchronous \--

MR. JAFFE: \-- one may be taking longer than the other. So that is also
incorrect in that sentence.

MS. DILLEY: So, okay, stemming from asynchronous approval.

MR. JAFFE: Not uniform.

MR. SHURDUT: Concurrent, lack of concurrent.

MS. DILLEY: Lack of concurrent. That\'s good.

MR. BUSS: In some cases it\'s the lack of \--

MR. JAFFE: So in that first one, I still think it\'s not \--

MS. DILLEY: Right, no, we have to come back to your first point.

MR. BUSS: Well, I think if you start the sentence by saying, trade of
biotechnology crops, development and commercializing in other countries,
has encountered, then the belief \-- has encountered obstacles stemming
from it.

MR. DYKES: The trade is what has encountered obstacles. I agree.

MS. DILLEY: So that should be genetically engineered \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Or modern \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- or modern biotechnology, is there a preference? We\'ve
got to stay consistent with our terminology.

MS. LAYTON: Trade in modern biotechnology crops?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Derived crops.

MS. LAYTON: Modern biotechnology derived crops.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Modern biotechnology \--

MS. LAYTON: And it\'s got to have a modern in front of biotech.

MR. BUSS: And then just use \-- instead of a lack of timely \--

MS. LAYTON: Daryl, where did you go after the first part of that?

MR. BUSS: Lead to global adoption of, trade of \--

MR. JAFFE: Trade in \--

MR. BUSS: \-- obstacles stemming from, it should be obstacles and then
go to stemming.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Developed in commercial as in the U.S. wants to stay
there, right? Just after biotech crops, developed and commercialized in
the U.S. and other countries.

MS. SULTON: So where are the \--

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: After crops. Just, stop. You want developed and
commercialized in the U.S. to go back up.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Delete that. Okay.

MR. JAFFE: Can\'t we just say commercialized.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: Well, I mean, it doesn\'t matter where they were developed
necessarily.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: That\'s what it used to be.

MS. SULTON: Commercialized?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: In the U.S. and other countries.

MS. DILLEY: Has encountered trade obstacles and the lack of concurrent
regulatory approvals.

MS. LAYTON: Why don\'t you say, asynchronous.

MR. BUSS: Has encountered obstacles.

MR. SHURDUT: Right, get rid of the first has encountered obstacles. Then
get rid of the second phrase, has encountered obstacles.

MR. BUSS: Also get rid of concurrent. I still think time is a big part
of it. Maybe you just want to put in asynchronous approvals.

MS. LAYTON: Does the word, asynchronous, if we look it up in Webster\'s
Dictionary, really, is that what we want? That\'s what we mean? Then use
asynchronous.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: So it\'s \--

MR. SHURDUT: It wouldn\'t be the lack of it.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: We don\'t want that.

MR. SHURDUT: It would be the lack of synchronous.

MS. DILLEY: The lack of synchronous.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Put asynchronous.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So now it\'s trade in modern biotechnology \--
commercialized in the U.S. and other countries has encountered obstacles
stemming from asynchronous regulatory approvals, and many of the
relevant export markets. Good? Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Do we need the first part of that next sentence?

MR. GRANT: Actually, asynchronous, do we want to have asynchronous
global regulatory approvals, period? Does that work?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That sounds like its getting one approval for the world.

MS. LAYTON: No.

MR. GRANT: Okay. And did you \--

MS. LAYTON: No.

MR. GRANT: There are a number of export markets that are perhaps aren\'t
relevant in a particular crop. If there is not approval of those markets
in any product, we\'ve got an issue.

MR. SHURDOT: Maybe they are national regulatory approvals. But we can\'t
use that word because we\'ve had that fight.

MS. DILLEY: I still don\'t \--

MS. LAYTON: I don\'t understand what your point is.

MR. SHURDOT: If we take out relevant, Duane, does that work?

MR. GRANT: Yes, I guess relevant, although it\'s not just export
markets, either. It also would be once products are coming in the U.S.,
looking five to 10 years out. We may have basic issues with products in
China coming into the U.S. And this doesn\'t restrict us just to
products in the U.S.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: How about just stop after regulatory approvals, take
out in many of the relevant

export \--

MS. DILLEY: So Alison, you are suggesting stop the sentence at
regulatory approvals? And just delete, in may of the relevant export
markets. Duane, does that get you there?

MR. GRANT: That would work for me.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I make one suggestion on this as well? That may be
what you want to say is, agricultural trade has encountered obstacles
stemming from asynchronous regulatory approvals of modern biotechnology
derived crops commercialized in the U.S. and other countries. Because
it\'s not just affecting trade in the biotech derived crops.

MS. LAYTON: Agricultural trade has encountered obstacles stemming from
asynchronous regulatory approvals \--

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Yes, you have it.

MR. JAFFE: The whole point of this issue is asynchronous approvals.
It\'s that if something gets approved somewhere in one place and
doesn\'t in the other place, and that\'s been causing, if you read the
text, it talks about, you know, a farmer is not being able to plant, or
things like that.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I think that \-- I think \--

MR. JAFFE: This is getting much too broad there.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, I mean, I think the point is, would be strictly
about the asynchronous approvals, but the point that I was making is
that the asynchronous approvals not only affect your ability to trade in
the transgenic variety, but also in the ability to trade corn.

MR. JAFFE: What in what?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: In the ability to trade corn.

MR. JAFFE: But they\'re also, but they\'re also, but you wrote it in the
way, it also would affect their ability to trade wheat in a country that
doesn\'t want any biotech. I think we are just getting too far. I mean,
some countries say if you have any biotech product, we don\'t want your
\-- and they don\'t have regulatory \-- I mean \--

MS. LAYTON: Some country would say that we couldn\'t send lumber over
because we have biotech corn? Is that what I just heard you say?

MR. JAFFE: There are some countries that don\'t want to have a biotech
crop one place, because they think that all of their exports, the
African countries, that\'s right. They say, we don\'t want to do sweet
potatoes, because then the Europeans aren\'t going to allow any of our
\-- even if we want to export sweet potatoes, they might think our
coffee is genetically engineered. So yes, there are countries that are
doing that.

MS. DILLEY: So is that \--

MR. JAFFE: It may not be relevant.

MS. DILLEY: Does that constitute the last change, Greg? So you are
advocating to go back to how it was framed before? Or was it still
problematic?

MR. JAFFE: It was fine. I was commenting on Michael\'s suggested text
which I thought was too broad.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Can we revert back to \--

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Just trade.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s reverted.

MS. SULTON: You want agriculture \--

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So trade in biotechnology.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Next sentence, second sentence now.

MS. DILLEY: So then the inability to synchronize regulatory approvals
for commodity crop events has affected and will continue to affect
regular access and the acceptance and adoption of such crops and
products derived from \-- by farmers and food processors respectively.

MR. HERDT: To be more consistent with the previous sentence, you could
begin by saying asynchrony in regulatory approvals have, in four
commodity crops, has affected \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: You can just \--

MS. LAYTON: You can delete now.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: You can just delete \--

MS. LAYTON: All the way down. Yes. Right there.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Regulatory approvals for commodity crops.

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

MS. LAYTON: Is that any reason why we are using commodity crops? Ron,
did you have a comment?

MR. OLSON: I was just going to add, has affected and will continue to
affect. You can just say, will continue to affect, because that implies
it already has affected.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Will continue to affect \--

MR. GRANT: You could mark \--

MS. DILLEY: For crops, or for trades?

MR. OLSON: It could be market crops.

MS. DILLEY: For what?

MR. OLSON: Market crops now.

MS. DILLEY: Market crops.

MR. OLSON: You trade crops, you don\'t trade the trade.

MS. DILLEY: Right, I\'m sorry. I didn\'t hear. Okay. For crops. Okay.

MR. GRANT: But Ron, you also trade soybean meal and \--

MR. OLSON: Oh, byproducts, yes. I guess you could say \--

MR. VAN EENENNAAM: How about just get rid of for crops.

MS. DILLEY: For products or what? What are we saying there?

MR. OLSON: Just say for crops and products.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That\'s good.

MS. LAYTON: Asynchrony of regulatory approvals will continue to affect
market access.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. A much shorter sentence, too.

MR. BUSS: Such no longer refers to anything.

MS. DILLEY: Of crops and products.

MR. BUSS: If you substitute in biotechnology before them.

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Derived from biotechnology, from modern biotechnology. Okay.
All right. All right. Then next sentence, resolving how the marketplace
addresses events that have satisfactorily completed some national
regulatory procedures and are present \-- I\'m just reading it. Do
people have comments?

MR. GIROUX: I think what safety, it affects some market access, because
in some cases farmers will grow them just simply for domestic use. And
some products are not affected by market, by this.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Go onto the next sentence.

MR. GIROUX: Shouldn\'t it say, will continue in some cases to affect
market access.

MS. DILLEY: Will continue to affect in some cases market access.

MR. GIROUX: Will continue in some cases \--

MR. HERDT: To affect, yes. Good job, Cindy.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GRANT: Maybe have that farmers do \--

MS. LAYTON: It\'s acceptance.

MS. DILLEY: Do you want to just say, derive from them, period?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That looks better.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay. Mardi, comment?

MS. MELLON: On the next sentence.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, are we ready to move on? Okay, go.

MS. MELLON: On the next sentence, I think it\'s a little deceiving
because it says that \-- marketplace addresses events that have
satisfactorily completed some national regulatory procedure. And that
sounds like only some of the procedures in the country have been
completed. And I think what we were trying to address was a problem of
events that have been completed in virtually all of the regulatory
processes in one or in a few countries, but are nevertheless present in
commodity \-- or present in conventional \-- speciality products.

MS. LAYTON: Could I \--

MS. MELLON: So the problem isn\'t just that they, they really, they\'ve
been approved for the U.S., but not anywhere else in the world,
therefore, unless they are in, they are in all of our grain, going to
all of our export markets, as well as \-- specialty products.

MR. DYKES: I guess I would ask, can we just delete that sentence, and
don\'t we address the issue with the last sentence? And that the market
impact may be reduced through the development of commercially viable
thresholds for AP?

I think we\'ve already said what\'s in that sentence, previously.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. DYKES: And we address it with the last sentence, in my view.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so does retaining that second to the last sentence add
anything? And if not, can we delete it and then just finish with that
last sentence?

MR. JAFFE: I think it adds \-- because, I mean, one way to do it is AP,
but there are other ways to do it. I mean, it\'s sort of, I mean, we\'re
pointing out for the Secretary that how the marketplace deals with this
is going to be important.

And then the next sentence follows with it, saying that some of the
market impact could be reduced through thresholds. It doesn\'t say that
the only solution will solve all of it. So, I mean, to me, they
logically flow to keep them there.

MR. HUNT: One of the solutions is just \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so you want to keep \--

MR. HERDT: So doesn\'t that have to read, resolving how the marketplace
addresses events that have satisfactorily completed regulatory
procedures in some countries.

MR. JAFFE: Right.

MR. HERDT: After procedures, in some countries, in reassessment.
Regulatory whatever, in some countries.

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MR. DYKES: Regulatory reviews in some countries.

MR. HERDT: Yes, regulatory reviews.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So retaining both sentences. And that kind of gives
you one way of resolving. Another

way \--

MR. JAFFE: In some countries, but not others, is the whole thing. In
some countries, but not others.

MS. DILLEY: And our present commodity food. Okay. MR. HERDT:
Satisfactorily completed at regulatory \-- never mind.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right. Anything else on that sentence? Last
sentence. Done with that one. Finished. Completed. That\'s great. Okay.

MS. LAYTON: 23. We have a piece \--

MS. DILLEY: Now, let\'s, we need a little bit of \-- where we left off
in January, so back to 23. We talked about 23, and that\'s a topic that
the committee decided though some people think this, some people think
that. And I think it was toward the end of our meeting, and there was
still some work being done on articulating that, those sentences. And so
what\'s in, what was in italics and still in play, if you will, because
we tried to close off discussion of topics that had been discussed and
finalized at the January meeting, was that one paragraph at 23 that\'s
in italics, so that people could comment on that.

And as Michael said at the beginning, in his comments on the meeting,
there were comments on that paragraph. If you look on the March 15th,
it\'s on page 15. If you look on March 14, draft, that\'s on page 21.
Okay. It says on 20, but the paragraph \-- you are right, 20. I\'m
sorry. It\'s all in blue. So the point, so there is one piece that
people have not had a chance to look at.

And I just want to remind people, because we haven\'t done any of these,
this time around. But kind of the protocol for approaching topics that
we\'re managing by some people think this, and others think that, is
that people have the opportunity, groups that have different
perspectives have the opportunity to craft their own language around how
they want to articulate their points. And we\'re trying to find some
balance among the different groups to be able to articulate their
points.

So this was drafted, but had not been presented to the full group. I
think that\'s right. Carol, that\'s where we left it off. And I think
you were drafting some with maybe Mardi and Greg, and people just had,
the members in that group had not had a chance to look at it. And we got
some comments. So I just wanted to \--

MS. FOREMAN: Well, really we\'re working off something that you drafted
from material that I, and perhaps others, sent to you. But we never
really got around to having a discussion about this part of it, because
all the group discussion was focused on the two things where we came
into the meeting without any statement.

MS. DILLEY: No, I think we did talk about 23, but I think there was
still, that paragraph, in particular, was still in play because we \--

MS. FOREMAN: That paragraph was because we didn\'t get a chance to
discuss it, or we didn\'t spend any time on it because it took so, we
were spending our time developing the two positions that we didn\'t have
any written document for when we came in. But I would like to address a
specific in that paragraph, if you are ready to do that.

MS. LAYTON: The one in italics?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Okay. Carol, just why don\'t you provide the
background, and just have reminders to us how we are approaching doing
\--

MS. LAYTON: It\'s just this paragraph we\'re opening up, the one italic.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. And I specifically, Lisa, in the comments, raised a
question about that last sentence there, members of this group take a
look, and consumers do not understand why you and other governments \--
it\'s really the next sentence. It says \--

MS. DILLEY: Oh, wow, that got cut off.

MR. JAFFE: It\'s in the, the comment is on March 14th.

MS. LAYTON: The comment\'s on March 14th.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- substantiation. Lisa, Greg, I think you are absolutely
right, that somewhere along the way a sentence that started out reading
another way, got turned around some. And it does need to be addressed,
and Greg has \-- Greg, you have the proposal in front of you.

MR. JAFFE: Yes, I do. Okay, so the sentence would read \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: So it would read, it would now read \--

it would now read, the EU and other governments require such information
on labels, and members of this group don\'t understand why U.S.
consumers should not also get that information.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. The EU and other governments require \--

MR. JAFFE: Let\'s turn it around.

MS. LAYTON: \-- such information on labels?

MR. JAFFE: This is down at the end of the paragraph.

MS. LAYTON: She\'s going to cut and paste it in a minute.

MR. JAFFE: On labels, and members of this group do not understand why
U.S. consumers should not also get that information.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: It references only the people who are in this particular
group of the committee.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. JAFFE: That replaces the last sentence in that first paragraph.

MS. FOREMAN: Could I address \--

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. JAFFE: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Wait. Do you have a comment on that last one?

MR. GIROUX: Just a comment on processing. When we came to these ones
that were the point and counterpoint \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. GIROUX: \-- we talked, this group said this and this group said
that.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. GIROUX: You know, I think it\'s unfair that one group gets to change
their text or modify their text or add things, and the process doesn\'t
allow the other side to make sure that they, that it\'s a fair and
balanced.

So if we are going to address a whole bunch of additional text here for
the one group, I think it is only fair that the other group have the
opportunity to also look at their text, and if there is a
point/counterpoint type argument going on, that they have the right to
do that too. This doesn\'t seem fair to me that we would allow one group
to add a bunch of text and issues, but not allow the other ones to give
their counterpoint to that.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, I mean, two points on process. One is that we noted, I
mean, it was in next steps memo, that this paragraph was still in play.
So it was in play, and that\'s where we left off.

I think, to your point of, if it throws off balance the piece, then we
need to revisit that. I guess my only caveat to that is setting a
precedent for opening up others as well. So I\'m trying to just keep it
contained, and this was in play when we left off, and we agreed to that.
So I\'m just, your point is taken, and if we need to revisit other
pieces in number 23, we\'ll do that. If it meets the, you know, can\'t
sign off on it unless, we\'ll do that.

MR. GIROUX: Yes. Well, I\'m assuming this is the two-thirds, one-third
example that Carol was talking about.

MS. DILLEY: We haven\'t gone there yet.

MS. FOREMAN: Actually, it\'s on another one. It\'s number 14, I believe.

MR. GIROUX: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: But, okay, let\'s finish 24.

MS. FOREMAN: So we\'ll go to the first change.

MS. DILLEY: But to your point, if this reaches your point of saying, I
can\'t live with 23, okay \--

MR. GIROUX: Fair enough.

MS. FOREMAN: Whether foods are or are not derived, I think that was
intended to be whether the foods are in whole or are derived from
genetically engineered organisms, that \--

MS. DILLEY: I can\'t, I didn\'t hear your first part, Carol, about
foods?

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s whether a food, it\'s a whole food derived from a
genetically \-- that is genetically engineered, or whether it is derived
from a genetically engineered organism. That\'s not my language, but
that\'s the way that I think it was intended to read.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Would commas around the or are derived from get rid of
the \--

MS. FOREMAN: Maybe, it\'s just \--

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t know, Duane, does that work for you, if the commas
are, or are derived from?

MS. LAYTON: that\'s the way I remember it, too, Carol.

MS. DILLEY: So the distinction is between a whole food or a partially
derived from. Okay. Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: And the third one was just the, because we didn\'t have a
discussion in the meeting last time about this paragraph, and \--

MS. DILLEY: Right. Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: So that\'s why that\'s there.

MS. DILLEY: Randy, do have another \--

MR. GIROUX: No, I\'m just waiting.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: So you are trying to make that sentence, having information
about whether foods are or are derived from genetically engineered
foods, organisms included on the label, would allow consumers to choose
to purchase or avoid these products, and consumers should not be
required to pay a premium to make this choice or avoid these products.
Is that all one sentence, because that is very long.

MS. FOREMAN: It should be, or avoid the products that are, rather than
these. Just, to pay a premium.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: I was trying to make it simple.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Would allow consumers to choose to purchase or avoid
them, or to avoid them down below?

MR. GRANT: What about if you just put a period after choice. Should not
be required to pay a premium to make this choice.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: I wanted to go back a minute to the last sentence and make
the point that Lisa called \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- you know, made a point that probably, that we didn\'t
have any data to show that was correct, and she was absolutely right. So
that change was made in response to what we thought was a legitimate
comment.

MS. DILLEY: All right. Bob and Carol, I don\'t know who wants to go
first. Bob, you want to go ahead, and then Carol.

MR. HERDT: Yes, I mean, I think, Carol, your consumers should not be
required to pay a premium to make this choice. I understand what you are
saying, but it sounds to me like it\'s kind of a wish. I mean, we have
to pay for everything that we have.

You know, and so, I mean, wishing that we don\'t have to pay for this,
it\'s like wishing \-- that\'s the way things work, you know. If you get
another thing, or you don\'t get another thing, you\'ve got to pay for
it. So I\'m not going to \-- you know, I\'m not going to argue for it,
but it just sounds like it\'s never going to happen.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, let me make the point that by not labeling, if it
were labeled, consumers would be able to make the choice.

MR. HERDT: Agreed. I agree.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay, because now the only way that you can avoid it is to
buy organic. You\'d have to pay a premium. But consumers didn\'t choose
to have genetically engineered \--

MR. HERDT: I understand that.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- food in their \--

MR. HERDT: But there will also be a cost of, I mean, if labeling is
required, then there will be more cost.

MS. FOREMAN: Except the market seems to have adjusted to that with
regard to nutrition labeling. And those people say that as the case, and
yet it hasn\'t raised the price.

MR. HERDT: Well, it\'s built into the cost.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay.

MR. HERDT: It is built into the cost. You know, it\'s a nice sentiment,
but I just don\'t think it\'s practical.

MS. FOREMAN: I\'m prepared to have a \--

MR. HERDT: The first part of that sentence I agree with entirely, would
allow consumers to choose to purchase or avoid those products. Anyway.

MS. LAYTON: Carole.

MS. CRAMER: I had the same point. The market drives how much people pay
for it, and if a consumer can get more, if a marketer can get more for
it, they will. The markup on furniture is 80 percent. The markup on
pharmaceuticals is 130 percent, because they think they can get it.

MS. FOREMAN: If they are labeled, if everything out there was labeled as
containing genetically engineered products, then people could choose to
avoid them, and they wouldn\'t have to go buy organic and pay more.

MS. CRAMER: Well, you don\'t know, because you may have to have a
different segmentation strategy in the market that would change the cost
structure. So we don\'t know what to predict in that. And it\'s not
something that should be mandated out of USDA, or chosen ahead of time.
It\'s going to be driven by the market realities, no matter what.

MS. FOREMAN: But the market is being distorted by a lack of information.

MS. CRAMER: The market is being distorted by many, many things.

MS. FOREMAN: The Economic Research Service, in fact, has made the point
that this market is being distorted by a lack of information on this
subject.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so Bob and Carole, you\'ve made your points. Can I get
\--

MS. FOREMAN: But I think if you have some change to make there, I would
be willing to look at it.

MS. DILLEY: Change to make where, which? To the last clause?

MS. FOREMAN: The consumers, you know, the argument frequently is, if you
don\'t want these products, you go buy organic, or you buy the product
that makes the claim that it is free of this substance. That distorts
the market and says that the comment we learned is the good of this
genetically

\-- and that happens without consumers having any awareness of it. So
consumers really shouldn\'t have to go, search hard, to find a specialty
product when these products made their way onto the market with people
unaware of them.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Carole, you have a point, and then Randy, and the
Mardi, is your card up?

MS. CRAMER: Actually, Randy, you were up first.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. CRAMER: I was just going to say, there may be a way to just
rearrange that, and just say, allows consumers to choose to purchase or
avoid these products, and give them options other than selecting the
more expensive organic, or something.

MS. FOREMAN: I think we can get those, I think we can probably \--

MS. CRAMER: Okay. Something \-- yes.

MS. FOREMAN: I can work with that.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And avoid \--

MS. CRAMER: The point is small.

MS. DILLEY: Say it again, Carole, because we need to get it on the
screen.

MS. CRAMER: To avoid these products \--

MR. HERDT: Without having to pay an organic premium.

MS. LAYTON: No, not there, not there. Right down at end consumer.

MS. CRAMER: Where the red started.

MS. FOREMAN: Just to purchase products, to purchase or avoid the
products \--

MS. CRAMER: These products.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- or avoid, or not avoiding, or without having to pay a
premium for organics.

MS. LAYTON: For organics?

MS. CRAMER: Without having their only, without the only option \--

MS. FOREMAN: Limiting their options for organics.

MR. HERDT: There you go.

MS. LAYTON: Without limiting their options to organic.

MS. DILLEY: But it\'s the more expensive \--

MS. CRAMER: Is that okay?

MS. FOREMAN: With limiting their option to \-- well, let\'s leave it at
that. I was going to say, to organics that are higher priced. To higher
priced products.

MS. CRAMER: Aren\'t organics always higher priced?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MR. HERDT: Why?

MS. CRAMER: Always? How come?

MS. FOREMAN: Because it\'s a marketing tool.

MS. CRAMER: You\'re probably right.

MS. FOREMAN: Oh, I am. The regulations \--

MS. DILLEY: So I think, so that\'s the proposal on the table. Is that
right?

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Having been, without being limited.

MS. DILLEY: Without being limited to higher priced options. Yes. Randy.

(Discussion off the record.)

MS. LAYTON: Do you need, such as organics, though?

MR. GIROUX: No.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Wait a second, Mardi. Randy, and then Mardi, and then
Alison. Do you have a comment on this?

MR. GIROUX: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: I think it\'s, I think the market has shown very clearly, we
have examples of at least 13 countries where mandatory labeling has been
implemented to label biotech products, that consumers in fact do not
have a choice. And this totally discounts what we\'ve seen in the market
around retailers, and food, branded food companies that will avoid these
products if they are labeled in the market.

So Carol, you know this even better than I do, that mandatory labeling
of a product as derived from modern biotechnology does not provide
consumer choice, in the markets, at least as we\'ve seen today.

MS. FOREMAN: You know, I think that it would in the United States,
because in none of those other countries have the genetically engineered
foods achieved market dominance. The actions were taken by those
governments in advance of the products being there. They\'re already on
the market now here. And I don\'t think that, you know, I don\'t think
it\'s the case, but even if it were, that\'s our little group\'s
position on this.

MR. GIROUX: Right. So I think the second point is that, you know, as
we\'ve iterated a couple of times, the majority of the corn and soybeans
that are grown and processed in the United States go to feed. And so I
think it\'s unrealistic to assume that they would not be higher priced,
period, because if it was to not, if you wanted a choice between GM and
non-GM, you would create two markets. The majority market, the commodity
market, would be feed and export for feed. And there would be a small,
and we don\'t know what the size of that market is, could be large,
could be small. We\'ve never had the market forces show that. But I
wouldn\'t assume, I wouldn\'t assume that it wouldn\'t, you would not
pay an increase, period, just based on basic market dynamic here in the
U.S.

I don\'t think it\'s productive for us to argue this. But if we are
going to make these statements, we\'re going to add these statements to
the italicized text, I think it\'s only fair and reasonable that we\'re
able to address those specific issues in our text. We can\'t say, you
can change one and not the other. So I\'ll just reiterate my position.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s not \-- I think you already have. MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: I think it\'s already in your statement.

MR. GIROUX: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: It says, people have the option of purchasing.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so the point is that Randy is going to go back and
look at it.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: If the statement remains, then go back and \--

MR. GIROUX: There may be no changes. I don\'t know, but I have to think
about it.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Right.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi, and then Alison, and then Ron.

MS. MELLON: I\'d like to suggest changing the phrase that starts after,
avoid these products, to, without being restricted to limited or higher
priced options. I mean, one of the problems from my point of view is
that consumers who want to avoid GE have, they really only have organic
as an option, and organic doesn\'t offer comparable products for all
kinds of food. And in some cases it\'s higher priced.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So that\'s how you would modify it.

MS. MELLON: \-- restricted to limited or higher priced options.

MS. DILLEY: Alison.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: To limited or higher priced.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I guess I kind of agree with Randy that if it cost
more to grow them, then they are going to be higher priced.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: And so I just \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So the answer is that if the people in that group want
to stay with that language, then you guys have, I mean, the other two
have different points of view, want to review your language and modify
accordingly or not, whatever, to make that point.

MS. FOREMAN: Because I\'m going to make the point on another issue, the
various statements should stay in relative proportion to each other in
terms of weight. And \--

MS. DILLEY: Can we finish up with this one, and then come to that in a
second?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, but that may mean that we\'d have to shorten ours.

MS. DILLEY: I know. I\'m just not convinced that length is necessarily
the only measure of balance. So we just need to come to that. We need to
talk about that in terms of what topics we\'re talking about
specifically, and how we want to handle that. So I would like to just
wrap up the discussion on 23, or at least be clear about what we need to
do. It\'s almost quarter after, which is when people wanted to adjourn.

We haven\'t gotten to the introduction yet. I just wanted to take a
quick check of, you know, where people are. If you\'ve had a chance to
look at the introduction, and you\'ve got a lot of comments, or just try
to get an assessment, so we know how to organize our time for tomorrow.
So Ron, I think you had comments on this piece, so when I take whatever
comments on this, you know, we\'ll hear, we\'ve got the notion that
protocol lies, we need to, if this, the italicized language and
modifications stand, then people are going to go back and look at the
whole of 23, and reserve the right to come back and comment on it.

Again, I would just encourage people to do that, and review any other
language that is in the topics now, with a high bar. Anyway, I\'m
getting ahead of myself. Let\'s wrap up the comments on 23.

MS. CRAMER: Cindy, could you go back and put 23 up there for us. We were
trying to copy down the comments, so we could look at see for balance.

MS. DILLEY: Ron.

MR. OLSON: Yes, I\'ll just comment quickly on what Randy said. I think
there is a price difference, because from a manufacturing standpoint, a
lot of times you make one product in one location. If you\'ve got to
make a GM product and a non-GM product, you are going to increase your
manufacturing cost and distribution, and all this kind of stuff. So that
would add cost and differentials.

And then the second thing is, I think mandatory labeling would somewhat
affect choice because we have publicly stated, as a company, if we had
to go to mandatory labeling, we would go non-GMO. And we would take
those products off the market, and you would just price accordingly, and
buy your ingredients accordingly, to influence the cropping patterns of
the United States. And if you\'ve got to pay a dollar more for wheat, so
be it. You just pass it through in price.

But we would rather, at least, and have publicly stated that as a
company, we would rather go that route today, than be forced into
mandatory labeling.

MS. LAYTON: So you\'d raise your prices no matter what.

MR. OLSON: You\'d have to.

MR. GIROUX: Or we wouldn\'t provide choice.

MS. LAYTON: And there would be no choice.

MS. FOREMAN: In the extent of the short term, but you know \--

MR. OLSON: It might be the short term.

MS. FOREMAN: \-- there would be a time when what your customers want is
the non-GM stuff, in the long term, that\'s what you\'d sell. Just like
they\'re selling it in Europe.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, Randy.

MR. GIROUX: Carol, I think that already exists. If you go to the natural
food sections, you can find soy milk that is non-GMO, IPP, IDP. And if,
in fact, and then, in the regular dairy, you can find soy milk,
commodity soy milk, which I assume is derived from GM soybeans, or
commodity soybeans.

If, in fact, the market did want only non-GM soy milk, my assumption is,
five years in, we would see no GM soy milk on the shelf. It would be all
non-GM soy milk. And so what I\'m, there are some choices, and in fact,
where there is choice, I have not, and I don\'t have the data, I\'m
sorry, but I have not seen the commodity-based products be replaced by
those equivalent non-GM products.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Duane, did you have a comment, and then \--

MR. GRANT: It\'s just an interesting discussion, and I guess I\'ll just
add a producer\'s perspective. I\'ve got one dairy customer that
requires non-GM corn to be sold to a unique market. It\'s not an organic
market. It\'s a unique market where they don\'t \-- GM corn. And we\'ve
got our price out there, and it\'s just the dynamics of the marketplace.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. FOREMAN: It is now, but it might not be if the products were
labeled.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So here is where we are at 5:15. We\'ve got language,
it seems to me that the only one that\'s causing some question about how
to balance out 23 is the clause of, without being restricted to limited
or higher priced options. As we did before, you know, people have the
right to change their group\'s point of view, and the language of that
paragraph was in play at the end. I think if that language is \-- it
sounds like, with that language, there is a need for the other group to
go back, wanting to go back and review whether or not they want some
adjustment to their description of their point of view. Period. And so
that\'s kind of where we are.

And I don\'t know how to resolve that without you guys actually going
back and doing that. We don\'t have time to do that tonight. So it seems
to me that we\'ve got to come back to that one tomorrow, if that
language stays in there, without being restricted to limited or higher
priced options, which it\'s proposed to do right now, that you all have
the evening to go back and see if you want to make modifications to your
articulated point of view, and into number 23. Okay. So we can\'t close
this one out until you\'ve had a chance to do that.

I \-- what? Yes, number 8 is still in play, because Pat\'s working on
that. And we\'ll have to come back to that tomorrow. Again, what I would
like to do is just get kind of a quick diagnostic. Have people read the
introduction? Are you prepared to talk about it? Can you give me \--
what I would like is, you know \--

MS. LAYTON: Can we shortcut?

MS. DILLEY: Yes. I mean, are you, you know, it\'s almost there? Have we
got some work to do? Thumbs up? You know, I\'m confident we can get
through it? I\'ve got some questions? It\'s on the side, I don\'t know?
We\'ve got some things we really need to work through? Or man, I\'m
having a lot of trouble with this, this introduction?

I just need a quick assessment, because we need to allocate our time
very efficiently tomorrow morning, trying to work through the rest of
the text that we have not discussed. So can you give me a thumbs up,
yes, it\'s pretty good. We\'ve got some comments but I\'m feeling good?

I don\'t know, we\'ll see how it goes. I\'ve got some comments and it
depends? Or man, this thing is really problematic. So give me a thumbs
up? Down? Now, really, seriously, thumbs up?

MS. LAYTON: Thumbs up on the introduction, or thumbs down? Ron is at
half-mast. Greg is at half-mast.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. I don\'t see any thumbs down. That\'s a good thing.
Carol, can you give me a, people who haven\'t given me any? The thumbs
up, you know, it\'s pretty much there, but we\'ve got some things? Or
I\'ve got some real concerns but \-- okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t see any thumbs down, we\'re really in the toilet on
the introduction, so are we, are we, we\'ve got some hurdles, or yeah,
I\'m liking it?

MS. FOREMAN: I\'ve got some issues, but I think they can probably be
worked out.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So for those of you who have the middle thumbs, can
you just give me a quick on where in particular we\'ve got some
discussion to do? And Lisa, you are the first at half-mast and towards
me. So particular problem spots.

MS. LAYTON: Which one do you want it off of, the 14th or the 15th?

MS. DILLEY: Can you just give me \-- yeah, and you don\'t need to go
through a litany. It\'s just like, page three is where I \-- or the
first decade or the next decade is where I\'m particularly, I\'ve got
some comments?

MS. ZANNONI: Well, it\'s mostly on the people\'s comments, those \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And it\'s \--

MS. ZANNONI: It\'s not on the original stuff.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. CRAMER: Yes, I\'d say about the same. If there are X comments, you
know, like four people wanting to, I have a definite opinion on certain
ones \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. CRAMER: \-- that work better than others.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right. So that\'s fine. Because we\'ve worked
through topics with that same kind of situation.

MS. CRAMER: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Randy, any particular place where you need to spend some
time?

MR. GIROUX: Just two spots, the second paragraph, the first 10 years.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GIROUX: And the option one, option two.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. LAYTON: So in the United States, that paragraph.

MS. DILLEY: All right. Just a quick one. Bob, I don\'t know where you
were. Okay, you\'re fine. Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: Mine are largely directed to the next 10 years, where I
think assumptions of benefits are made, and there is no cautionary
language about potential problems.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Brad?

MR. SHURDUT: I\'m generally okay.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. SHURDUT: The only question is, can it be even more succinct than
what it is? Do we need that long of an introduction.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, we\'re wordy as a committee.

Daryl, you\'re good? Jerry, any particular problem spots for you, Jerry?
No. Okay. Greg?

MR. JAFFE: No particular areas. I suggested a paragraph that you put in.
I don\'t know if people are comfortable with that. I think that\'s one
of my major comments.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. We\'ll probably need to talk through that one.

MR. OLSON: Nothing in particular. I just have that 10-year section that
looks a little more complicated.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So the 10-year section is really the one that seems to
be where we need to spend our time.

MS. LAYTON: The first one or the next one?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: The next 10.

MS. DILLEY: The next 10 years, right?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: The larger one.

MS. CRAMER: And a little on the first one.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I\'m not saying we\'re not going to talk about the
rest of them. I\'m just saying, it seems like the next 10 years is the
one that\'s going to be \-- okay. Any differing from that? Alison, I
don\'t know \-- okay. Jo?

MS. HUNT: Yes, there are just some of the other texts, I think, in
there, the next 10 years.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And Mardi, Duane, you guys? I couldn\'t \-- okay. All
right. So, tomorrow we need to go through the introduction. We need to
do 8 and 23. And my plea again is to open up other texts, I really want
you to think hard about \-- I think, after we\'ve worked through the
introduction, and 8 and 23, I think your barometer should be that it\'s,
you cannot sign off on a consensus document without having to address
additional, some additional points. So make that bar high, and think
about it. And we need to do a quick check of if there is any and where
they are, if that\'s the case. Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Two other quick points. One, did you, Ron, manage to
find out whether you can get that paper -

for the \--

MR. OLSON: No, I gave Abby the email contact. I don\'t have my computer
with me, or stuff to email.

MS. DILLEY: Bill Wilson gave me that contact, so I\'ll probably do it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I\'m going back to the office. Okay. And the other
thing, just to think about what we need to get done and be able to
finish this, we may wind up abridging, if we need to, the discussion on
how we transmit this to the Secretary, presuming that we\'ll do this
similar to the last one. And we may need to work that out after the
meeting, assuming that there will be, you know, we\'ll assume that there
will be an official transmission of it, and we\'ll go through that
process. But we may have to skip a little bit on the time for talking
about how we do that, and do that via email.

MR. JAFFE: Are we talking about title also tomorrow?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Oh yes.

MS. DILLEY: We need to talk about titles. And again, it was just in a
section of where we think we need to spend most of our time. So, okay.
Any other \--

MS. LAYTON: Dinner? Anybody? Who is staying and who wants to go out to
dinner tonight? I need a raise of hands? Okay. Mardi, Duane, I don\'t
see your hand? No dinner tonight? Okay. So one, two, three, four, five,
six, seven, eight, nine, 10. 10 dinner plans. Any preference on any kind
of food? Good food. Have I let you down yet?

MS. DILLEY: No.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Okay. So I will worry about that. And right now,
we\'ll shoot for 6:45 in the lobby of the Doubletree. Now, and I\'ll
call you. You are in my cell phone.

The other issue would be, we have worked on a little bit of \-- is
everyone except for Lisa at the Doubletree?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Who wants to go out?

MS. LAYTON: I have your cell phone in my cell phone. You and I can talk
on cell phones, right? So I\'ve got your cell phone.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Well, how about, how about, can you give the address of
the Doubletree to the people who aren\'t here?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: 1515 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest. 1515 Rhode Island
Avenue, Northwest. It\'s about three-four blocks from here. Okay. 6:45.

MS. DILLEY: Remember, we start 15 minutes early tomorrow at 8:15. So
coffee at 8:00, start our discussion at 8:15.

MS. LAYTON: And if anybody, Michael and I have been working on the
energy one. If you have a comment, or you would like to see what you are
doing, I\'m going to type it up and let \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: We\'re not there yet. We\'re not there yet.

MS. LAYTON: We\'re not there yet.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: We\'ll spend a few minutes here, together.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. We\'re going to spend a few minutes on it. 6:45, lobby
of the Doubletree. I\'m going to make a reservation for 10.

(Recess.)

[]{.underline} Digitally signed by Teresa S. Hinds

[ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE]{.underline}

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC., hereby certifies that the attached pages
represent an accurate transcript of the electronic sound recording of
the proceedings before the

United States Department of Agriculture:

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BIOTECHNOLOGY AND 21ST CENTURY

AGRICULTURE

12th PLENARY SESSION

By:

![](media/image1.png){width="2.435416666666667in"
height="0.7215277777777778in"}

Teresa S. Hinds, Transcriber