> UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
>
> WASHINGTON, D.C.
>
> \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--x
>
> :
>
> ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON :
>
> BIOTECHNOLOGY AND 21ST CENTURY :
>
> AGRICULTURE (AC21) :
>
> TENTH PLENARY MEETING :
>
> :
>
> \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--x
>
> A meeting in the above-entitled matter was held on Monday, October 24,
> 2005, commencing at 8:30 a.m., at USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue,
> S.W., Room 107-A, Jamie L. Whitten Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20250.
>
> Dr. Patricia Layton, Chairperson

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

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Good morning. This is the tenth meeting of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture\'s Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and
21st Century Agriculture or AC21. Welcome everyone. My name is Michael
Schechtman and I\'m the Executive Secretary and Designated Federal
Official for the AC21. I\'d like to specifically welcome our committee
members who are here today. I believe we\'ll have a few more arriving a
little bit later.

We also have one new member today, Russell Kremer, and I\'d like to
welcome you and note that we\'ll have some more formal introductions in
a little while.

To my left is the AC21 Chairman, Dr. Patricia Layton, from Clemson
University. To my right is our facilitators from the organization
Resolve, Ms. Abby Dilley and Ms. Kathy Grant. And to my far left,
another facilitator from Resolve, Mr. Paul DeMorgan, whom some of you
may remember from previous advisory committee, the ACAB, that USDA had
on biotechnology. And also to my left is Ms. Cynthia Sulton from the
organization, HW&W, another of our facilitating partners in this process
to help make the advisory committee successful.

Also, who will be joining us today is USDA\'s Special Assistant to the
Secretary for Biotechnology, Bernice Slutsky, and she\'ll be helping us
out as well. She\'ll be in and out through this meeting. We, as always,
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 5:00 p.m.

For members of the public who request to speak during the public comment
period I\'ll 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. To help get the
Minutes and meeting announcements up on the Web the website address for
the committee is www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/ac21.html. We are not
working with microphones today. I hope that everyone will be able to
hear well enough. We have these little mikes for the benefit of the
transcription, but it turns out that this room is not well suited to be
able to put in table microphones.

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 meeting itself. We ask that you not conduct any
interviews or request comments from members of the AC21 while the
committee 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\'d also like to request that all members of the AC21 as well
as all members of the audience and the press please shut off your cell
phones and beepers while in the meeting room.

Bathrooms are located on either side of the main patio that is just
outside in that direction. Ladies are on the near side; gentlemen on the
far side of the patio. Just outside the door there\'s one table with
meeting documents and background documents on them. Please take only one
copy.

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

The committee is currently working on completing a paper we hope by the
end of our next meeting which deals with several aspects of our first
charge, the five to ten year view. And at the last plenary we also had
some preliminary discussions of additional topics for future work
related to that second charge.

As for meeting documents for this meeting there are several background
documents first. They are the official AC21 charter; the AC21 by-laws
and operating procedures; a package of biographical sketches for all of
the current AC21 members, including our newest member; the draft meeting
summary prepared from the Ninth AC21 Meeting which was held on August
9th and 10th of this year; a package of meeting summaries from three
open-ended work groups that met between the last plenary in August and
this meeting; and a revised meeting summary from a meeting that was held
before our August plenary with four new members to acquaint them with
the workings of federal advisory committees in general and this
committee in particular.

There had been a small but significant change requested last time in
that summary so the revised document is being circulated today for the
information of our members.

Specific to this meeting we have the following official documents.
First, the provisional agenda for this meeting. After that, all of the
remaining documents are portions of draft chair\'s texts on this paper
on how biotechnology may change agriculture and the work of USDA over
the next five to ten years along with compiled comments on that.

These papers are the following: First, a compilation of the few very
general comments received on the texts. Second, a side-by-side rendition
of text plus comments on one of the two introductory pieces for the
chapter; and, third, two different side-by-side renditions for what we
are now calling topics of discussion, one of the topics that had
previously been discussed by this committee and the other for the new
topics of discussion that were identified at the last plenary.

The committee\'s note on the agenda for this meeting that there are
breaks scheduled for morning and afternoon. For members of the public
who wish coffee, coffee is available one floor below us in the
cafeteria. Also on the agenda, let me note that we are planning \-- let
me note again that we are planning for a period of one and a half hours
for public comment from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. today. We want to be
responsive to the needs of the public and we\'ll see as the meeting
progresses how we need to structure that time.

Based on the fact that as far as I know, no one has yet signed up for
comment, it\'s likely we\'ll be able to use at least the bulk of that
time to continue discussions on the paper. So, members of the public,
please be sure you\'ve signed up at the door if you wish to make a
comment and have not done so already so that we can plan that time well.

One brief update for the committee. You should all have received this
information via e-mail but I\'ll mention it now for the benefit of any
that may have missed it and to the public as well. On October 13th of
this year the Federal Register notice was published announcing an open
nomination period for membership on the AC21. Since the terms of
membership for roughly half of the committee, since those terms expire
in February 2006, those members whose terms expire and wish to be
considered for an additional term need to submit the required materials
to USDA by November 14th, 2005.

Now, turning back to today\'s meeting. From USDA\'s perspective there
are two objectives. They are, first, to introduce one new member of the
AC21 to the committee and the committee to him and we\'ll get to that in
just a few minutes. And, second, for you to continue your ongoing work
towards completion of a paper examining the impacts of agricultural
biotechnology on American agriculture and USDA over the next five to ten
years, specifically reviewing and revising the draft Chair\'s text for
the paper.

Everyone should recall that the Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Johanns,
when he met with some members of this committee in May and received the
two reports the committee had completed earlier this year, indicated his
interest that this report be completed by around the end of this year.
We\'ve stretched that date to accommodate the realities of Christmas
season and are planning to meet again in early January and the dates
that we\'re working on are January 5th through 6th, 2006.

We hope to finish all substantial work on the paper by the end of that
meeting. To accomplish this goal you all obviously have a considerable
challenge ahead of you. Now, we, on this committee, you all, have had
great success working on difficult topics in our past two reports when
people on this committee have worked together to find a way through
problems through compromise.

The final report that this committee is working on is unlikely to
describe the world as any one of you, yourselves, sees it or to describe
discussions in the words that you would prefer. I would make the point
that no one person can ask others to compromise without expecting the
same to be asked of that person.

I\'d like to note as well that we will undoubtedly have considerable
discussion over the next two days about what the format of the documents
you\'re grappling with is ultimately going to look like. Members were
selected for this committee based not only on their expertise but also
on the views they hold and the constituencies they represent. While the
various views of those constituencies are useful to USDA, information
about what those views are is something that the department can get in a
variety of ways.

What an advisory committee rather than a particular group of individuals
can particularly and uniquely add to USDA\'s understanding of a complex
field is the picture of where consensus exists. As you work towards
completion of this report the report needs to, and undoubtedly will,
acknowledge differences of opinion, but, the strength of advisory
committees comes when members can work past those acknowledged
differences and find common ground.

So, I think that while some topics in this paper may need to be
discussed in terms of some people think A and some people think B, we
hope that most topics can be presented as cohesive and unified
articulations. I\'ll have a little bit more to say about the process
before we begin substantive discussions on the paper; that is, the
Chair\'s draft text in a little while. But, first let me turn to our
Chairman, Dr. Patricia Layton, for your words of welcome, your views on
the work that you and committee have done since last time, and your
thoughts for this meeting. Go ahead.

DR. LAYTON: Thank you and welcome everybody this morning. I\'m looking
for missing faces and I\'m seeing Randy\'s missing and Dick is. Is that
\--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Brad Shurdut.

DR. LAYTON: Brad. Okay. Sorry. I didn\'t see that one. Brad will be here
tomorrow. Did we hear from Randy?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: There was a question whether Randy was going to be able
to make it.

DR. LAYTON: There was some illness that he may have needed to deal with.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: That\'s right.

DR. LAYTON: So, I knew there was a possibility he may not be here and I
believe told us at our previous meeting that he was not going to be able
to be at this meeting so I think everyone\'s here and accounted for.

Let me just second what Michael said. I think this is going to be a very
productive two days. You know, it would be ideal if we actually could
get through all of this and come back in January with a document and a
format so we can deal with particular details if we can get all this
stuff and things out of the way this time.

And I know that many of us would be very happy because some of the
topics that are coming up in the future we\'d really like to finish to
work on. I think we\'re all anxious to get to our new work and I think
it\'s also important for those of us who might be going off in February
that we complete this series of documents that we\'ve all worked so long
and hard on because most of the people who are going to re-up have
already re-upped once if I remember correctly. So, I think it\'s really
important to do that.

One of the things we do, Russell, when we get a new member is we kind of
all tell who we are but we actually put the new member on the spot and
you actually tell us a little bit more about yourself. What we\'re
interested in, you know, who you are, where you\'re from, and why you
wanted to join this body of people interested in biotechnology and then
I\'m going to let you do that and then we\'ll start around the table
with our introductions. So, why don\'t you go first.

MR. KREMER: First of all, it\'s a privilege and an honor to be with you
all and be part of this group. It\'s an outstanding appointment. Just a
little bit about me, it\'s hard to say, to tell everything about me in
this amount of time, but, I am a farmer. First of all, I am a farmer.
That\'s all I wanted to do in my life. I\'ve been part of a family farm
since I was five years old. It was my responsibility taking care of the
runt and orphaned pigs on my 220 acre family farm. I\'m one of seven
children in central Missouri, just pretty near Jefferson City, kind of
the foothills of the Ozarks I call it. It\'s nice, gently, rolling
hills.

Actually, I\'m going to tell you the name of my town because it\'s not
necessarily my address of where I live. It\'s probably one of the most
popular towns this time of year. It\'s called Frankenstein. It\'s
probably my claim to shame or fame is that I was the only mayor of that
town. That\'s past history.

So, anyway, the population is thirty \-- it\'s community. It\'s all
about community. There\'s a church and a school and a grocery store
there and I\'m proud of that. But, anyway, my farming operation is \--
consists of hogs and cattle and some crops, some pasture and some
vegetables and whatnot. As a small family farmer, and I\'m also just
going to give you a little bit about \-- I guess I\'ve always been an
advocate of agriculture. I organized the first 4-H Club, for instance,
in Frankenstein when I was 8 years old and became president of that 4-H
Club. I got involved in agriculture with FFA and was president there and
throughout.

I\'m a past president of the Missouri Pork Producers Association back
about 15 years ago. I think I still hold the record for being the
youngest president there. But, in our area we had a large membership,
12,000 farmers and they were primarily smaller family farmers and hogs,
of course, were always considered the mortgage lifters and so it always
meant a lot to me.

But, eventually realized that some of our family farmers didn\'t have
the economy and scale to actually \-- to be as powerful in the
marketplace as they should be so we started a pork cooperative about
five years ago and I\'m now president of a natural pork cooperative
where we raise \-- it\'s a great niche market where we raise the natural
hogs and we\'ve kind of catapulted to where we\'re now suppliers to
Whole Foods and to \-- we are now suppliers to Chipotle's. I eat there.
We are now going to be their poster children so to speak, our farmers.

So, we\'re into this authentic agriculture, both hogs and cattle; also
organized a certified Angus beef cooperative on the eastern part of the
state. But, anyway, after \-- I was also an educator. I was also a
younger farmer educator in my alma mater in my high school area. I had
300 families that were enrolled in that particular program and then
later on I was elected the first president of the Missouri Farmers
Union, which was an organization that started six years ago; part of the
National Farmers Union which has been around for 103 years old \-- 103
years.

Missouri Farmers Union kind of developed, again, as a group of family
farmers came together to do cooperative development, education, and
advocacy of behalf of family farmers and rural residents. I held that
position for six years and also a board of directors member of the
National Farmers Union, again involved in cooperative development,
education.

About three years ago our state organization created the Family Farm
Opportunity Center which is a co-op development, community development.
We do receive some funding from USDA. We\'ve had out of all the centers
\-- there\'s 20 centers across the United States and ours has received
the highest rating two of the last two years and we\'re proud of that.

But, anyway, that\'s my interest. Can\'t tell you too much about my
personal life. I\'ve never been \-- I\'m on the road constantly. I\'ve
never been married so I still have my family back home and my friends. I
still live in the same town and same area that I farmed and grew up in.
Travel about 6,000 miles a month in my car. I basically live in my car,
plus my air time, and, so, a lot of good things are growing in Missouri
as far as opportunities and we believe there\'s a lot of opportunities
for all sizes of farmers and farm operations.

We believe there\'s opportunities for all rural communities in different
businesses, a lot of entrepreneurs are going on. We\'re involved, for
instance, in broadband internet, trying to get all of our \-- getting
all of our members access to broadband internet, home-based businesses
and things.

I guess the reason that I wish to be a part of this group is because,
you know, definitely biotechnology is something that\'s going to affect
agriculture probably as much as anything in the future and we have, you
know, as a family farmer and a person that\'s an advocate for rural
residents, we want to be part of something, you know, to flush out the
concerns as we shape this thing, as we mold \-- mold this thing that
could, again, affect our residents of this country.

And, so, that\'s why I\'m here. I think with my background representing
the agriculture in general and family farmers and rural residents, and
also on the consumer \-- you\'ve got to remember that the project \--
the businesses and the projects that we\'ve developed in Missouri are
all based on building authentic relationships with the consumer and I
think biotech and the concerns with biotech has got definitely
ramifications there. So, I\'m happy to be part of this group and I hope
to get to know each and every one of you as we go along and not break
the bale out yet.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Well, with that how about if I start and we\'ll go
this way and end up. I\'m Pat Layton and I am a forester and chair of
the Department of Forestry and Natural Resources at Clemson University.
So, we\'ll keep it that brief. I\'ll set the example.

MS. SULTON: Hi. I\'m Cindy Sulton and I\'m a facilitator with the firm
HW&W from Bethesda, Maryland.

MR. DEMORGAN: I\'m Paul DeMorgan, Mediator with Resolve. I actually work
out of Utah at the moment and Oregon.

DR. MELLON: I\'m Mardi Mellon and I work with the Union of Concerned
Scientists.

DR. HERDT: I\'m Bob Herdt. I\'m an agricultural economist. I\'m an
adjunct professor at Cornell University and my particular interest is
developing countries.

DR. BUSS: I\'m Daryl Buss, Dean of the School of Veterinary Medicine at
the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

DR. HUNT: I\'m Josephine Hunt and I\'m with Kraft Foods.

MR. CORZINE: I\'m Leon Corzine. I farm. We\'re neighbors, Russell, in
Central Illinois. Meet for border war games at St. Louis sometimes. We
have a lot of commonality farming about 120 miles from St. Louis and
I\'m also currently serving as chairman now of the National Corn Growers
Association.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I\'m Alison Van Eenennaam. I\'m a cooperative
extension specialist in the Animal Science Department at UC Davis with a
specialty in biotechnology.

DR. VILKER: Vince Vilker. I grew up in Wisconsin from generations of
farmers. My duties here are I\'m representing the Department of Commerce
and I work at NIST as the new chief of biotechnology.

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

DR. JAFFE: I\'m Greg Jaffe and I\'m the Director of the Biotechnology
Project at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit
consumer group here in Washington dealing with food and nutrition
issues.

DR. CRAMER: I\'m Carole Cramer and I\'m the head of the Arkansas
Biosciences Institute at Arkansas State University, but, also an
entrepreneur in the area of molecular biology and plant-made
pharmaceuticals.

MR. SLOCUM: Russell, I\'m Jerry Slocum. I farm just south of Memphis,
Tennessee in a little town called Coldwater, Mississippi, primarily
soybeans and soft grain winter wheat and corn and I operate four country
grain elevators in the northwestern corner of the state.

DR. MARYANSKI: I\'m Jim Maryanski. I\'m the *ex officio* representative
from FDA to this committee. I\'m with FDA. I\'m the biotechnology
coordinator for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

DR. DYKES: I\'m Michael Dykes, Monsanto Company.

MR. GRANT: Russell, I\'m Duane Grant, farmer from South Central Idaho.
I\'ve done a lot of work with the National Wheat Growers Association and
am also on the Executive Committee of Amalgamated Sugar Company which is
located out in Idaho.

MR. OLSON: Ron Olson. I run the grain division for General Mills.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I\'m Carol Tucker Foreman with Consumer Federation
of America. I\'m on my way from Arkansas to Washington, D.C. I stopped
and spent several years in the Kingdom of Calloway. And, you know, all
the members of the committee have heard me talk a number of times about
my members and my responsibility to them. He\'s one of them. The
National Farmers Union is a member, one of our 300 organizational
members, and Dave Frederickson is a member of our board of directors,
so, welcome.

MS. GRANT: I\'m Kathy Grant, mediator with Resolve, D.C.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m Abby Dilley, also with Resolve, and I just wanted to
mention that Paul, I think, is familiar to many of you who have worked
with him before and you might think he was here because I didn\'t have a
voice this time but obviously I do so that\'s because of our health care
plan and also he\'s going to assist us over the next two days. I am not
able to be here tomorrow so he\'s joining us for both days to help work
with the team of facilitators and I appreciate that.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And I\'m Michael Schechtman, and when I\'m not doing
this I\'m biotechnology coordinator with the Agricultural Research
Service at USDA. And finally \--

DR. SLUTSKY: I\'m Bernice Slutsky. I\'m the Secretary\'s advisor on
biotechnology.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And your timing is impeccable.

DR. LAYTON: Thank you. And with that we should turn to Cynthia to review
the Minutes from last time.

MS. SULTON: At our last meeting we discussed the issues from the concern
chapter. Basically what I was going to ask is, I\'m not going to go into
too much detail about the Minutes, but, ask that you please note of any
changes or any modifications you want made to the Minutes and let
Michael know within a week and that will possibly give us more time this
morning.

But, basically our meeting focused on the discussion of completing the
ongoing work for examining the long-term impacts of biotechnology and
agriculture and some discussion of potential future committee works and
then a game plan for how we were going to get that report done to
include some work sessions that have occurred between our meeting and
today\'s meeting.

You all will also have the opportunity to read some draft reports and
comment on them. So, with that, I would, again, ask if you could, in
writing, by e-mail, send Michael any comments that you might have on the
full Minutes. And, Abby, if you want to go over the agenda for today.

MS. DILLEY: Sure. A document that was placed at the table was a
compilation of work group conference calls from the previous plenary
session, I guess two, today and the reason we put that at your table is
not so much to review them, but, we will use, especially the last
summary that\'s attached to that compilation, to look at the outline.
And the reason I say that as an introduction, first of all, you may have
wondered why that was at your table, but, also the meeting is really \--
a major objective, as Michael has already referred to, is making
progress on this paper that we hope to submit to the Secretary shortly
after our January 5-6 meeting.

And, so, we\'re really trying to gear up very much over these two days
to work hard on doing that, first starting with the big picture of some
of the progress, I think, and evolution of thinking in terms of how
we\'re approaching this report and the organization of it and a lot of
good work that was conducted since the last meeting to the last meeting
and subsequent to that meeting on the work group conference calls.

So, we\'re going to take \-- we\'ll start with the introductory sections
and talk a little bit about \-- provide some background on that call and
I think, again, some progression in thinking in terms of how to set the
paper up and what the introductory sections will look like before we
jump into the text. We want to take the big picture view and really get
that pinned down to get some basic principles of how we\'re approaching
this report as well as the outline structure and then building off that,
once we have that pretty well established, then moving into actually
looking at the text and editing.

I think it\'s important to get the writing before we actually fire and
start editing so we\'re as much on the same page in our approach and how
we\'re going about looking at the document before we actually jump into
the document itself. So, this morning will be to do \-- most of today is
focused on the introductory sections starting with the basic concepts,
looking at the outline, which, again, is part of the last summary that
went to everybody prior to the meeting, but, also you have another copy
of that for your reference, so we can talk through that.

And then we\'ll move to the text. If we get there this morning before we
break for lunch, great. If not, then we\'ll hope to get to that shortly
after lunch. And then spend most of this afternoon working on the text
and then we want to talk a little bit about how we want to set up the
topics discussed section and hopefully they flow a little bit better
now. I think one of the things that the conference call members talked
about a little bit was how to integrate those a little bit more so it
provides a backdrop to \-- the introductory sections provided the
backdrop to enter into the conversation and topics discussed.

But, then talk a little bit about the big picture on the topics
discussed as well and how we\'re approaching that and the vision for
that section of the paper and then we\'ll break for public comment
between 3:30 and 5:00. Again, I want to encourage the people who want to
make comment to sign up if you haven\'t already done so. And we\'ve been
doing what we have done in the past. If that time is not all taken up by
public comment then spend some of that time coming back to working on
the drafts and making some progress on the documents.

And then we\'ll adjourn for the day no later than 5:00 this afternoon
and if we have time we hope by the end of the day that maybe we\'ll have
a couple of topics under our belt so that maybe we develop a rhythm of
how we\'re approaching those; we\'ve got a sense of what we\'re doing
and how we\'re doing it and then actually work on some of those issues
so we can get a little bit of momentum in working through the editing
part, the side-by-side, using the side-by-side document to work through
those.

And then we\'ll pick that up wherever we leave off today. Obviously,
we\'ll pick that back up tomorrow and work through the rest. And our
proposal is to start with the new issues mostly because I think they are
ones obviously that we haven\'t discussed as much. We raised those
during the last plenary session. There\'s been a work group that has
spent some time working through those. You had a chance to comment on
them so we through we\'d start with those and then work through the
current issues as well.

So, that hopefully by the end of the two days and when you leave here we
have a pretty thoroughly gone over documents. We know what next steps we
need to do to turn the document around and what work we need to do
between this and the January meeting to complete our task of hopefully
submitting the paper to the Secretary shortly thereafter and have a good
work plan to get that work completed.

So that overall is the general agenda for the two days, wanting to see
if there are any comments or questions about the overall agenda, and, if
not, we\'ll jump in shortly. So, I need questions or comments on the
agenda. Okay.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Just a couple of quick housekeeping things. I\'d like to
just ask everyone to be careful. There are a lot of wires running along
this side and the back here from the transcription service so please be
careful of the wires and there\'s no problem with hearing us in the
back. People may need to speak up a little bit, and for the benefit of
our one new member, the way we do things at the meetings, when people
want to have an intervention they sort of put their signs on for
comment.

MS. DILLEY: Intervention or comment.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah, intervention or comment. Interventions are a
little bit more severe.

DR. LAYTON: Also, for just housekeeping. When we get through these, if
we\'re going to table, I\'ve used initials at the beginning of a comment
to indicate whose comment it is. I figured that out. That was pretty
easy, right.

MS. DILLEY: If you did not bring those documents with you there are
additional copies outside. Hopefully you brought your copies with you
with your notes scrawled all over them. Any other questions or comments
about the agenda or any other housekeeping? Okay.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. So, I\'ll turn now for just a little bit of
discussion on the process to date, where we\'ve gotten to. At the last
AC21 \-- at the last meeting in August, the AC21 formulated a plan for
working through the various difficulties in developing a consensus paper
on future impacts of biotechnology on the food and agricultural system
of the United States.

As you all know, a lot of work has already gone into this paper. There
have been many rather long drafts, many iterations. The current plan for
completing this work was arrived at through discussions at the last
plenary. It called for a new, more abbreviated draft introduction and
more abbreviated, what we call, "topics of discussion" rather than, what
we used to call, "issues to consider."

For the topics of discussion it was agreed that previously discussed
topics in various previous texts would be shortened and refocused into a
format of one to two topic sentences, plus three to four sentences of
explanatory text, and additional new topics that were identified at the
last AC21 meeting would be prepared according to the same new format.

It was decided that the next version for the committee would be
developed as a Chair\'s text which everyone would have an opportunity to
comment on prior to this meeting and there were three open-ended work
groups established to help in drafting text be considered here for the
new issues and the introduction.

To produce the Chair\'s text, a couple of "straw man" text examples for
two of the previously discussed topics, one on humanitarian use licenses
and the other on regulation of products not intended for food or feed
use were developed and they were sent around to the committee to look
at.

Having heard back comments from some members about the need to make the
text more focused and more direct and to offer salient examples when
appropriate, an effort was made to modify those two texts upon receiving
those comments for those topics and to bear those suggestions in mind in
drafting the remainder of the pre-existing topics as well.

The list of topics included, by the way, the whole subject of benefits
which was moved \-- biotech benefits which was moved from its previous
placement in the introduction and condensed into a single topic
discussed. Now, some of the old topics, if you want me to call them old,
as you\'re all well aware, have been the subject of considerable
discussion and controversy in past committee discussions. Let me note
that for several of the texts it was hard to fit concepts that seemed to
be important from those previous discussions into that relatively short
format and, accordingly, some of the sentences on those topics in the
Chair\'s text are rather long and maybe even a bit contorted.

We\'d, of course, welcome any consensus around ways to shorten and focus
texts where there\'s consensus. Now, after those first texts were
drafted two open-ended working groups convened via telephone on
September 12th and 16th to prepare text for the ten newer topics. That
work went rather smoothly with even the deletion of one of the potential
new topics and you\'ll be pleased to note that the texts for the new
topics are generally considerably more brief than those for the previous
topics.

For the introductory materials, our first Chair\'s draft of a brief
formal introduction, plus a piece called Realizing the Promise, was
circulated on September 21st and another open-ended work group met on
September 26th to consider those pieces and the overall approach to the
introduction.

In that call the work group felt that the draft that was circulated at
that time was not proportionate to the reduced projected size of the
paper. So, they thought something needed to be done that made a shorter
introduction. So, at that time they also developed an outline for this
much abbreviated version and thereafter a new Chair\'s text for that
portion of the paper was developed based on those discussions.

All documents were circulated to committee members by October 6th; the
topics of discussion documents having actually been distributed earlier;
and the request was made that comments be submitted no later than
October 12th. Comments were received, I believe, from nine out of the
eighteen committee members by that time. All the comments received were
collated by Dr. Layton and sent back out to you last week.

I\'d like to make a couple of comments before I turn the discussion back
to our facilitators. The content of these documents obviously still
needs work. Obviously it\'s going to take a bit longer to do this. But,
I would like to try, if I can, to get us past one point that was made in
a couple of comments without lengthy discussions on and that is this.

I\'d like everyone to agree that once the substance of the document is
clear the group or the facilitators and chair and I will go back through
and scrub it to ensure that the terminology, which is to say "derived
from modern biotechnology," "transgenic," "genetically engineered,"
whatever\'s agreed upon, is consistent within the text and park the
discussion of terminology at this point except in particular instances
where there is some case where there\'s a very serious \-- where
there\'s a place where people might very well within the committee mean
different things as opposed to just having written it inarticulately in
the document.

I\'d also like at this point to thank those who sent in comments in a
timely fashion as well as to admonish all the other committee members
who were not able to do so. We\'re pushing against a deadline that
members agreed to last time and we depend on you to help us meet those
deadlines. Being able to collate everybody\'s comments would have been
very useful for this meeting so obviously we\'re going to need to work
with comments any way we get them.

But, it\'s important, I think, for the progress of this committee\'s
work and for the chemistry that\'s going to enable the committee to
complete work on this or on future projects for everyone to play by the
same rules. After this meeting when we need to gather comments again we
really must get everyone to provide their comments, specific text
changes, in a timely fashion.

So, as the committee works through the various discussions and the
comments, I\'d like to offer the suggestion that you provide definite
comments and specific comments on items that are there, not the \-- I
don\'t like this or I just don\'t understand this paragraph. If you can,
please try to focus in specifically on what element is unclear and
provide alternative language.

I think for us to meet the charge we\'re going to really need to move
forward with specific and constructive approaches. So, now I\'d like to
turn back to the facilitators to guide you through discussions. Comment?
Greg?

DR. JAFFE: Yeah. I just have two comments. One, I guess I agree with
you, Michael, that we shouldn\'t spend time for each specific topic
discussing the specific terminology, but, I would like to have where we
spend some time identifying what the terminology is we\'re going to use
and defining that before we start into those because then we have an
idea what they are because I\'m still unclear about what terminology
we\'re going to use, whether it\'s transgenic, genetic engineering,
derived from modern biotechnology.

I\'m not sure I understand what the definitions are for some of those
because then we\'ll have an understanding of whether or not in specific
instances they either need to be broadened or narrowed or we\'ll have an
understanding of what is going to be placed in there. So, I would say, I
agree with you. I don\'t think it\'s productive to use time, reiterate
that, but, I do think before we start, therefore, I do think we need to
have a discussion about what terminology we are going to use, if we\'re
all comfortable with that, and what those terminology mean.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I guess that \-- I think that\'s fine. The one point
that I would make is that at various times in the other paper and in
previous discussions for this one people have thought that for the ease
of flow of the document it makes sense to be able to use more than one
term. People will need to agree on what those are, but, just to make it
not sound, you know, even more like a document written by committee than
it has to.

DR. JAFFE: I agree with you. I mean, I think that we should use more
than one term. Using the same term just once all around we limit and it
also may be boring after a while anyway. But, I\'m just saying, we have
to be clear about what that term means, what the definition is, and not
just the biotechnology, but, also when we talk about the products. I\'ve
gotten confused about what we mean by products. Products are seeds,
products are food. We do need to be more specific about those type of
things.

MS. DILLEY: It would be helpful to go back to the previous reports we
submitted because I remember having the same conversation. So, maybe if
we can use those as a reference too to see what terminology we used
maybe that would be helpful. But, I think to your point, we\'ll try to
and get to that sometime today before we get heavily into editing
because it would be helpful to have that resolved.

You had two comments you said.

DR. JAFFE: Oh, I forget the second one.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any other questions or comments on work conducted
between August and now? Anything else? Okay.

Then I\'d like to turn your attention to the compilation of the
conference call summaries. And the last one on that and all of you
should have that document at your place. I believe I got one put in
front of everybody. The reason I want you to just have that in front of
you are a couple of things.

One, we thought we\'d start this discussion, the introductory section,
with just a little background in terms of what the committee members who
participated in that call discussed in terms of the overall approach to
this and then an outline that they generated to set up and get some
discussion around that before we launch into doing an editorial exercise
or looking at the documents.

So, I just wanted to provide a little bit of background and context to
the work that that group did and then also just a brief look at the
outline.

Greg, did you have a question before I do that?

DR. JAFFE: Yeah. Just a process question. Pat sent out a document that
was entitled Introductory Sections of the Emerging Committee Report.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: How different is that document from the summary here? In
looking at the first paragraph I noticed that each one starts different.
I mean, it looks substantively \-- the question is, is it substantively
different? Looking at it, clearly it\'s different in text. Is it
substantively different?

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t think so, but, that\'s partly the committee\'s
review. I mean, the text was drafted from the outline and the
conversation. There is not an attempt to try and repeat. There are two
different \-- there are different documents. This is a summary of the
conference call and an outline for the chapter. The text that\'s in the
side-by-side is the text.

DR. JAFFE: That\'s not what I\'m talking about. I\'m talking about a
document that Pat handed out which is similar to the summary that you
just handed out, but, does not look identical to the summary you just
handed out.

DR. LAYTON: I don\'t know offhand what you\'re talking about I handed
out. This is the document I distributed. The compilation \--

DR. JAFFE: You distributed two documents.

DR. LAYTON: Three documents.

DR. JAFFE: You distributed \-- well, no, you said four documents. The
documents distributed \--

MS. DILLEY: Are you talking about the general comments on the draft,
that?

DR. JAFFE: No. It\'s entitled AC21 and it\'s entitled "Introductory
Sections of the Emerging Committee Report."

DR. LAYTON: Oh, yes, that was \--

DR. JAFFE: That is similar to the document you just described to us and
my question is it doesn\'t look identical. What is the difference?

DR. LAYTON: It was the results of the conference call that you asked me
to send out with the table, so, you\'re right, I did send it out. Thank
you for pointing that out. When we originally mailed out this table for
comment you had asked me to send out a summary that you all had done
that included the documents \--

DR. JAFFE: The outline.

DR. LAYTON: The outlines.

DR. JAFFE: It included an outline.

DR. LAYTON: Which included the outline. And I did do that. They were not
meant to \-- I think mine was the first draft of the summary of that
phone call.

MS. DILLEY: I would use the one that\'s in part of the compilation.

DR. JAFFE: Okay. Then can we have a chance \-- I guess I was asking
what\'s the substantive differences, whether we need time to read it
because I had read this one but having looked at the one we just handed
out and the question was, is it substantively different that we should
take some time to read it or is it not substantively different? That was
my question.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: It should not be substantively different. These meeting
summaries were prepared, you know, for the formal committee requirements
and I used the materials that came from the message that was sent out by
Abby.

DR. LAYTON: Yeah. I think you\'ve got the draft of the conference call
summary that you\'re using.

DR. JAFFE: Okay.

DR. LAYTON: And this is the more final draft.

DR. JAFFE: Okay.

DR. LAYTON: Of the conference call. And I\'m sorry to be confusing.

MS. DILLEY: I just thought people may not have the document that you
brought with you. Okay. So, I think the answer is they are not
substantively different that, you know, one person\'s edit is another
person\'s substantive difference, so, I can\'t say definitively that
they\'re not substantively different. So, with that in mind, let me just
give you a little bit of background on the call and the outline that\'s
in the compiled documents that I put at your place.

I think the group had \-- first of all, the group had a very productive
call and I think a couple of things emerged from that conversation that
were particularly helpful, I think, and proposing a way forward to the
report overall on this particular section.

One is that the section just was too long and the whole concept for this
paper has evolved from a pretty lengthy report to now trying to do a
more concise document and we\'re even calling it a paper as opposed to
report I think to try and reflect that we\'re trying to be brief with
this and try and be as concise in the comments and structuring it.

So, there was just an overall comment that we need to be edit back to
make sure that it\'s not \-- that it\'s reflective of a more streamlined
approach to writing the paper. Also, the group really wanted to see a
more integrated \-- that it provided the logic flow necessary before you
get into the topics of discussion. So, it really needed to provide that
context and backdrop and I think when they went through the outline they
tried to do exactly that, provide \-- to frame that conversation and the
charge that you\'ve been given as well as the first opinions and makeup
of the committee and a way forward and to provide that contextual piece
before getting into the topics of discussion because I think we\'re now
down to maybe 27 instead of 28 topics.

You want to know why am I about to read this list of statements and what
does this mean, where does this come from, why is it important. So, I
think to provide some more of that context was really important to the
group and hopefully the outline gives that and that\'s one of the things
we want to check and make sure that from all your perspective it does
that.

I think, too, that it was important to acknowledge that historically
this section has been almost reviewed \-- it\'s been developed later
than the topics and it was almost seen as a counter way to what had been
viewed as kind of a concerns piece and a more negative, maybe, view and
then the more positive or benefits view. And, so, it almost made it
impossible to review these documents because you were either looking at
a too negative or too positive dimension of these and it was very hard
to proceed in a coherent, integrative way.

So, I think the group just acknowledged that up front and we want to
have a more integrated approach. The topics are now topics. They\'re not
issues of concern. They\'re topics and, so, it runs through the whole
range of topics that have been discussed relative to this charge by the
committee \-- to the committee and discussed by the committee.

So, those \-- those observations, I think, were very helpful in terms of
getting us set up for then trying to make some progress on so what now
does this section look like and what kind of outline.

I think the other really important piece, and it was mentioned in the
summary as well as integrated into the text, that\'s the other document
that we\'ll get to eventually, was that I think part of the struggle
with this whole charge has been kind of skipping over, if you will, the
diverse views about transgenic products in the marketplace and the
future of agricultural products and that do we have a common vision and
I think that conversation was very constructive to say we had diverse
visions for where transgenic products fit into the future of
agricultural production.

However, we have a shared vision in terms of a diverse marketplace that
embraces transgenic products as well as the whole range of products that
are being developed in the course of agricultural production into the
future. So, trying to just basically state that and acknowledge that and
then move from there and allow it, Michael mentioned earlier to say
we\'re not trying to change each other\'s philosophies about where
transgenic products fit into the future of American agriculture. We\'re
trying to acknowledge that and move forward with that commonality of
vision of a diverse marketplace.

So, I think that was extremely helpful, at least from my perspective, to
get us past and just arguing with each other in kind of a fundamental
way and just saying we know we have diverse points of view, now let\'s
see where we do agree in terms of that diverse marketplace and what
those issues are that we think, or, topics are that are important for
USDA and the Secretary that we highlight that need to be considered in
moving forward and moving these products into the marketplace.

So, I think that was, again, really helpful contextually to acknowledge
and articulate and we have put that into the introductory text as well.
Where it goes, I\'m sure we\'ll talk about that and we\'ve got some
comments on that, but, I think that was, again, a really helpful piece
of discussion that that group did.

And then from that was developing that, given that vision, and providing
that backdrop and what we want to see with this report. That was \--
those are some of the, I think, key pieces of that discussion that I
thought was particularly helpful to present to the committee as a whole.

I just wanted to see if there are any comments or questions or the group
that participated in that call wanted to add anything more before we get
into the actual outline because the flow of the conversation, okay, if
that\'s what we want to do with an introductory section then let\'s come
up with an outline that reflects that and hopefully provides the context
then to get into the topics of discussion and lay that groundwork for
that section, so, the next section of topics or piece.

So, I wanted to see if there were any questions or comments from the
other folks on the call. Anything else to highlight. Okay. Then based on
that, the flow of the outline, you see the big categories are really
current and future so there\'s the historical context of current
agricultural biotechnology products. I just want to hit the big pieces
and then we\'ll go through this a little bit more thoroughly since there
will be comments on the three sections of this.

But, the logic flow is the historical context of current ag biotech
products. I know we\'re going to have to come back with terminology. And
then some thoughts about what needed to be contained within that
historical context. And then it shifts into the future agricultural
biotechnology and products and talks a little bit about what those
products are and the fact that these products are entering into a new
environment and the different dimensions of that.

So, that was \-- some of these products have been in the marketplace for
ten years and there have been rapid adoption and some things that have
happened. Now we\'re shifting gears and saying in the future, in the
next five to ten years, our projected time frame, this is what we see
and, so, again, explain that backdrop for the topics discussed, here are
the products we envision are going to be there; this is the environment
into which they\'re entering; and these topics are things that should be
considered or what we talked about in the course of our deliberations
that we thought important to highlight for you, Mr. Secretary, and USDA.
And then that will then lead into the topics of discussion.

So, I just wanted to \-- again, there\'s obviously a lot more detail,
but, that gives you the overall logic flow of this section. Any
additional comments or questions about that? Michael?

DR. DYKES: Just one in general on the historical context. As I looked at
these things, parts have emphasized enhanced production and so forth. I
think there\'s a piece that we\'re missing here with what\'s happened in
biotechnology in the first ten years is these traits, BT proteins and
herbicide tolerance, are the two basic, two big pockets of what\'s been
out there. Maybe they\'ve done some things with increased production,
but, their intent was not increased production. Their intent was pest
management and weed control.

I think what\'s happened with the first ten years, because of the traits
and the changes that have occurred within the seed industry and the
emphasis on germplasm that overall the quality of germplasm has
increased over the last ten years probably at a rate that we\'ve not
seen in the past.

So, I think we\'ve got to be careful that we are differentiating between
the traits and between the germplasm and what\'s happened. I think there
have been a lot of dynamic changes occurring in seeds in general from
the study of genomics and the markers and knowing more about breeding
plants and I think biotechnology has brought increased research and
development just in the basic plant breeding into the crops in which
there have been traits.

And I don\'t think that\'s captured here. I just think we\'re saying
because there\'s a BT protein in it we\'re seeing all these things and
my point is that\'s not \-- it\'s not the BT protein that\'s causing all
that or it\'s not the herbicide tolerant gene. The traits, to me, are a
small piece of what we\'ve seen in the last ten years.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we need to have \-- we need to flush out that
portion of it in terms of what we\'re talking about.

DR. DYKES: I just think we need to make some \-- we just need to make
some mention of that so people who are reading this aren\'t thinking two
genes, three genes have done all this stuff.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. LAYTON: So, basically what you\'re saying is that while the end
product may have been two or three genes stuck in the knowledge of the
genome and other breeding, subsequent breeding using that knowledge has
benefited greatly in the productivity of crops and that\'s where the
focus has come such as sticking genes has caused us to focus on all of
the biotechnologies.

DR. DYKES: And farmers in the room and others in the room can speak to
this, but, I just think that the general quality and productivity of
germplasm in the last ten years has gone through a growth that we\'ve
not seen recently.

MR. CORZINE: That might be because \-- I can talk about what we\'ve seen
as far as stability of yields and adverse weather like we had this year
in some parts of the country and areas not far from me. It\'s not just
because of biotechnology. It\'s because of getting the corn genome
mapped or getting closer, they\'re learning more.

And maybe if we can capture somehow it\'s the research, and corn, in
this case, and soybeans that is bringing along via through conventional
breeding or transgenic process. It really is bold and that\'s what
you\'re seeing, Michael, right?

DR. DYKES: Yes.

MR. CORZINE: It\'s helping, you know, if you include in that the
enhanced production, really a more environmentally friendly way then we
may get into a little controversy there, but, with the reduced chemical
use and some of those type things, but, I think what we\'re trying to
capture is, is we\'re increasing production not just because of two or
three basic events.

It\'s the whole learning and the research that\'s going into, like I
say, in this case maize and corn.

MS. DILLEY: It sounds like now it\'s narrowly broader than a couple of
traits, but, it\'s also just advances in agricultural research and
production along with biotechnology. We need a richer picture. Ron?

MR. OLSON: Yeah, I would add to that as well. We do breeding for Green
Giant and sweet corn and stuff like that we use biotech type tools, gene
mapping stuff, stuff like this and it\'s allowed us to make much faster
selection process, much faster breeding.

I agree with what Michael\'s saying. Just the knowledge of the genome
and what traits and how do you connect those genes to the can or the box
or the package is something that we weren\'t able to do. BT was just a
product that went out there, but, it\'s the richness of everything else
that\'s much bigger than that.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: If I can ask. Obviously this is a trend that\'s been
going on. How much of this is what you attribute to the subject of the
report, which is largely transgenics and how much of this is just sort
of painting a picture of things that have gone on at the same time? I\'m
just trying to get a feeling for how to appropriately put this in the
discussion. I don\'t know if that was the point you were \--

DR. JAFFE: Yeah, it gets back to our definitions. I mean, the title here
is historical contents of the current agricultural biotechnology, but,
the discussion really, I think, is at least some of the members of the
committee and the work group was really to discuss the transgenic, the
historical context of the transgenic product that have been highly
adopted; those that have had some benefits.

I don\'t disagree with anything that\'s been said around the table. The
question is are we going to have a section on other, the context other
than transgenic? I mean, I think the \-- what Michael said when you
brought up, these products emphasize enhanced production. This was \--
these products were specifically talking about the BT and the herbicide
resistance product. We can have a broader section, but, I think we have
to either use different terminology and we also then have to talk more
generally about agriculture in the last ten years.

But, I still think we want to have a specific section on the history of
the transgenic crops and those, whether we want to use the word enhanced
production or whatever, I do think we still want to have \-- if we want
to talk about genomics and those kind of things I think we need to
separate them, not mix them together.

DR. DYKES: I guess the only reason I raised the point is thinking about
it going to the Secretary, I just don\'t want someone like the Secretary
to read this and think, okay, so we have BT and we have herbicide
tolerance so all these things that I\'m thinking about in my mind while
I\'m reading this report is that I want to get the broadness that there
have been a lot of other things that have happened that are accounting
for the things we see in agriculture today that aren\'t just in the
broad \-- and I agree with Greg, in the broader sense of biotechnology,
technology, and agriculture.

MR. CORZINE: Maybe does it help, Greg and Michael, it\'s really these
products were developed or emphasized improved production techniques and
maybe I don\'t think a whole section but a statement that the research
that has come with this has accelerated the development of other
agricultural products or something like that.

DR. DYKES: I\'m not talking about a whole page. I\'m just talking about
this, something to give it a little broader context other than think
about specific products.

MS. DILLEY: I think it sounds like there are two things. One is we need
to get our terminology and what we\'re talking about and when we\'re
talking about it square in the report. And then the other, I think, is
to the other points made that we need to make that a little bit richer
in terms of when we do talk about those particular products, that
they\'re within the context of advances made in agricultural research
and development generally and advancement of tools.

I heard it wasn\'t a lengthy section maybe so it may just be a little
bit more that needs to be added to provide that richer context. Okay.
And obviously we\'ll get to that opportunity to really flush that out
when you get to actual editing.

Margaret, you had a comment? And then Carol.

DR. MELLON: Well, I think this is very important. I think it\'s a very
important point and especially when we\'re looking to the future we
really want to be able to make and it kind of goes to Greg\'s point,
but, I\'m not sure that we do \-- I mean, I think we want to show how
these two things relate to one another.

I think there are implications to the fact that there \-- that the
transgenic work is not the only kind of work that has gone forward and
is not the only kind of work that accounts for increases of productivity
that we\'re now seeing; that there are other ways of other approaches to
agricultural research, to plant breeding, that, I mean, have, in fact,
proven themselves, you know, in the field to increase productivity.

That\'s really important as we go forward because it will \-- you know
\-- even though we have to keep focusing on biotech or on transgenic I
think it does provide some context for what we might hope to see in the
future and it won\'t be just transgenic. I mean, that would be an
implication would be that you would want - you would want to either
acknowledge or encourage this overall context of research rather than
focusing like a laser beam just on transgenics.

And, so, I think it\'s a very \-- at least for me it\'s a very important
concept that we do \-- you know \-- I don\'t think we do need to do much
more than lay it out in a couple of sentences, but, I haven\'t really
heard that before to be honest. And, so, and I\'d like in many ways to
know whether it\'s been documented, but, I\'m more than willing to rely
on real farmers out there, real breeders, to tell me that that is the
way it\'s working out.

MS. DILLEY: I think, Mardi, a couple of your comments I could envision
seeing some of that contextual piece elaborating on the vision for a
diverse marketplace piece even before we get into the historical context
of current ag but it\'s almost the setup for the backdrop of having a
conversation and some of it may go into the section here or also some of
the points that you\'ve made I think come up in the topics discussed
like research.

DR. MELLON: Well, they do come up with new topics. It\'s almost like a
throw away to gene silencing. It\'s different.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, but, I think maybe a couple of these comments could
come up in various places. I just want to \-- I\'m trying to envision
where exactly they would go. But, we\'ll get to that when we actually
edit. But, I think I don\'t hear any disagreement in terms of providing
that richer context, and Carol, I want to make sure that your comment
before we move on.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: The B says the products have emphasized enhanced
production. C, many people see benefits to these products. E, the
marketplace has responded to the diverse needs and interest. All of
those emphasize the production benefits and there\'s nothing in this
introductory material to the introductory chapter to say that there have
been no products with direct benefits to retail consumers and the retail
marketplace has not responded because they\'re not aware that the
products are there.

So, if it\'s not enough to just put consumers down in sub II under
little c under B(2).

MS. DILLEY: You have kind of a sense or since we\'re doing this is kind
of an outline form we\'re obviously not editing right now, but, in terms
of a placeholder or \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Just put retail consumers in there right now and let
me come up with something.

DR. LAYTON: Under E? Let me make sure I\'m clear.

MS. DILLEY: Just making sure it\'s in that first section.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Somewhere in between A through E just some
reference.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. LAYTON: You might check out page 3 in the text.

MS. DILLEY: Let\'s not go there yet.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yeah, but, this is the outline.

MS. DILLEY: So we need a placeholder because what we\'re trying to do
right now is just looking at the outline and making sure the logic flow
and the big piece logic flow make sense and then flush it out so if
there are sections missing or people don\'t understand what\'s there now
or it needs additions like this and what Michael offered, that\'s what
we want to do right now. And then when we actually get to the editing
the text is when we\'ll really focus on the language.

But, any other?

MR. CORZINE: I would just say, Carol, it seems to me that that would
fit. It sort of infers consumer without saying consumer in E. So, E
would be kind of a natural place to \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, let\'s put a placeholder and then we can kind of
figure out where exactly in the text because it\'s hard to know until we
actually get into the text to really figure out where to put it. So,
we\'ve got it down to a placeholder and, Carol, when you have language
you want to offer we can come to that.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: When we get to the text.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. But, we know that we need an additional \-- is there
anything else within the historical context? When you look at this does
anything jump out at you and you would say, gosh, you know, we really
need to have x or y or z to make sure that the historical context is
accurate and comprehensive as we want it to be recognizing it\'s brief?

So, anything else in that historical context piece? Okay. On the next
section, what we started with was the broad variety of future
agricultural biotechnology products. Now, we do this again. They\'re not
identical lists in the text so if we can get a concept. Again, this is,
again, where we come up against the terminology issue in terms of what
exactly our scope is. We need to pin that down and then maybe \-- we did
get some comments on the introductory section in terms of \-- I\'m sorry
\-- yeah, what products are actually we need to list here as examples.

Some people thought, you know, some of these products are mentioned. Are
they really going to be here in five to ten years? Because we\'ve had
conversations about that. Does it fall within our scope or doesn\'t it?
Those kinds of things. So, I guess just kind of a general comment on
this now and then when we really pin down some examples maybe that\'s
best done when we look at text.

But, I just wanted to see if people had reaction to setting up this
section starting with a listing of the products we anticipate in the
next five to ten years and then did a brief look at the listing make
sense.

I think, Bob, you may have had one that wasn\'t on here that was in a
particular nutritional \-- the gluten free wheat.

DR. HERDT: The gluten free wheat. Yeah. But, the question that occurs to
me is, are these examples? I mean, these have to be examples of what
might happen.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Not the only. Only such as kinds of
things, not the only products that are anticipated. It\'s just trying to
give people a sense of the diversity.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Bob, do you really expect the gluten free wheat in
the next five to ten years as a commercial product?

DR. HERDT: That\'s the whole issue, you know, are these examples? Are
these ideas? I don\'t know. I mean, do I expect it? Well, I\'d have to
ask \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I think there is an issue and I\'m reluctant to make
assumptions because from the beginning, for ten years almost now, there
have been statements that there will be nutritionally enhanced products
that will benefit retail consumers. There\'s really been almost no
progress toward that, and, you know, there are people who will
acknowledge that they\'re not very far down the pipeline for development
and they\'re certainly not over in the regulatory pipeline. And, as
Greg\'s paper pointed out last year, the flow of new products to market
has \-- or, the flow through FDA has diminished radically over the past
few years so I think I would prefer to see a very realistic assessment
here.

MS. DILLEY: So if the category were nutritionally enhanced products is
that the correct \--

DR. HERDT: Well, I think products that \--

MS. DILLEY: You have different language.

DR. HERDT: I think products that might carry a nutritional benefit to
consumers too.

MS. DILLEY: So then the question that Carol \-- you have to strike that
balance of what \-- maybe there\'s a different example that is people
who feel more comfortable with that that\'s going to fall in the range
of five to ten years. I think the category, we don\'t have that category
in here at all and I wonder if maybe we need that category and if we can
find examples that can fit into that five to ten year time frame that
that would make sense.

Greg?

DR. JAFFE: I guess like Carol I have a little bit of discomfort here. I
think that, first of all, I\'ve always thought that this committee
really doesn\'t have the expertise to know exactly which products were
going to be likely to come to market in five to ten years. I think two
years ago we brought in lots of experts to sort of give us some view on
that, including somebody from DuPont who spent a long time discussing a
lot of different things.

And I think the discussion that revolved around that was there weren\'t
that many that were likely going to be in the market from five to ten
years. That was even two years ago. I don\'t know if our time period has
switched or we\'re already two years into our ten years, but, there
aren\'t any things that are even in the pipeline that he talked about
two years ago that haven\'t really made progress in terms of
commercialization.

And one solution here may be to discuss things that are being researched
because there are nutritionally enhanced products and things like that
that are being researched and not give an opinion on what things are
going to be commercial products in five to ten years, but, to say this
is the range of things that scientists and companies are researching and
some, many, none of these might make it to market in five to ten years.

I mean, I think our whole point is that this section in part is entering
into a new environment so you would have asked Monsanto five years ago
they would have said, gee, it was going to be here five years from now,
from five years from then it would be here today and it isn\'t here
today because of the new environment, not necessarily because of safety
reasons, not necessarily because of scientific technical reasons, but,
the things we\'re talking about here could have technical hurdles.

They could have regulatory hurdles. They could have a host of things and
I think maybe the solution is to talk about research as opposed to
commercial products because I think there is a lot of research and you
could document a bunch of field trials on a lot of these things and I
think the Dupont discussion was that there was, in fact, a lot of
changes of nutritionally enhanced things.

The question that came out of that discussion, my memory from two years
ago was, will any of them be of such magnitude that they actually could
become a product, would they be of value, or, would they have to bundle
them and would there be value to General Mills or others from them, so,
not that it\'s the technical issues, that there would end up being a lot
of marketing issues.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: So that\'s a proposed solution.

MS. DILLEY: So, I see a lot of heads nodding. Carol, do you want to add
to that?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Well, just reflecting back to E and the one before
in the first section here, the marketplace has not \-- you know \-- some
of these things, as with wheat, the marketplace hasn\'t reflected a
positive environment. So, if we go to research I think that works a lot
better for me.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I saw a lot of heads nodding, so, the basic point I
think in terms of setting this up is that there are a range of products
being researched within that time frame and then listing some or none
may reach commercialization. I think that\'s what you\'re saying, Greg,
so it\'s got those two points as opening up the broad range of things
that are under research and then not making it the definitive piece is
not that they\'ll all be commercialized within that five to ten year
time frame.

So, they\'re well under research. Okay. Does anybody disagree with that
approach? I saw heads nodding, so, Duane.

MR. GRANT: I don\'t disagree really fundamentally. Just that I think
it\'s a pretty broad brush to use the term research. Those who are \--
Carol maybe could speak to this more, but, those who are in the field of
research, the possibilities are probably not \-- you probably can\'t put
boundaries on what the possibilities are with this technology right now,
so, I guess I would suggest rather than research products that could
technically \-- products for which it would be technically feasible to
be ready to go to market within a five to ten year time frame, that
would exclude certain products that are theoretically possible with
which no active research working towards commercialization is underway
right now but it would include them.

MS. DILLEY: You\'re trying to strike that balance between as well into
research that is not just in somebody\'s lab. It\'s already starting to
come before regulators potentially because it\'s really \--

MR. GRANT: Right, right.

MS. DILLEY: \-- moving, it\'s on the track trying to get to
commercialization anyway. So, I\'m not saying that very well, but, I
think that\'s what you\'re trying to get to.

MR. GRANT: Yeah. I mean, we say research we\'re going to be \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. GRANT: \-- criticized for excluding somebody\'s pet project
somewhere in some university lab that, you know, is being researched and
I think the list could get to be very long and totally not relevant to
discussion.

MS. DILLEY: Right, right.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Say your phrase again, what you\'re suggesting.

MR. GRANT: Well, it\'s not a very good phrase, but, I guess in my mind
products that for which technical feasibility is achievable within a
five to ten year time frame.

DR. CRAMER: How about just products currently under development because
development can be research.

MS. DILLEY: Has research but is into development.

DR. CRAMER: You know, so, basically it can be anything from cluster
ready (sic) to fairly early.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Is that development with a disclaimer?

MS. DILLEY: Well, is it \--

DR. CRAMER: Of course.

MS. DILLEY: Again, I think what Duane\'s trying to \-- and Carol,
you\'re trying to assist here in finding the right terminology, it\'s
not just on somebody\'s, you know, chalkboard in their lab. It\'s almost
\-- it\'s either in front of the regulatory community or pretty shortly
getting to commercialization. It\'s in the pipeline rather than just a
research concept.

MR. GRANT: I don\'t think it would have to be \-- excuse me, Carol, for
jumping in. I don\'t think it would have to even necessarily be in front
of the regulators because there are definitely products for which
regulatory packages could begin to be put together that are far enough
along in development. The companies could begin to assemble their
packages but they\'ve looked at the marketplace and said the time isn\'t
right, the market\'s not large enough, the risk is too large, etc., etc.

And, so, I guess I would fall back again that if there\'s technical \--
if there\'s a technical ability to take the product to market within a
five to ten year time frame I\'d like to see those kinds of examples
highlighted, theoretical possibilities, you know.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay. Carol, you had a comment?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yeah. I\'m more comfortable with technically
feasible for exactly the reasons that Duane stated because you have to
assume that there will be a marketplace for them and I will say
something a little bit later about some of those problems that arise
there.

MS. DILLEY: So, technically feasible to go to the market maybe is a way
to \-- Bob, did you have \--

DR. HERDT: I think that\'s the right idea.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

DR. HERDT: It seems to me also you need to step back a minute. Why are
we \-- I mean, we\'re writing this supposedly for the department. If
they\'re in the marketplace \-- you know \-- I mean, it\'s supposed to
be some kind of a heads up, is it? I mean, what is the purpose of
enumerating these things? They\'re already in the regulatory system. The
Department\'s aware of all that. They\'re wrestling with it. So, the
things that are somewhat further out on the horizon are potentially
maybe technically feasible. I have no problem with that, but, just
listing things that are already there.

MS. DILLEY: Yes?

MR. CORZINE: The point that I had, are we talking then about two
categories because there are some products we know are going to be here
in five to ten. I know that I\'m going to have products to enhance the
yield of ethanol from a bushel of corn next year and especially within
two or three years. I mean, these products are there. I mean, so are we
going to \-- my question is, are we talking about two categories here or
are you \--

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t think so. I think it\'s more \-- well, Greg?

DR. JAFFE: These are transgenic with respect to the next two years?

MR. CORZINE: Well, it\'s both, yeah.

DR. JAFFE: With the trade you\'re talking about is transgenic and it\'s
going to be out through regulatory processes in two years?

MR. CORZINE: Greg, what we\'re talking about \-- what I\'m talking about
and it gets a little \-- that\'s where it gets, you know, shades of
gray, I guess, because these are hybrids that are going to have
transgenics in them that are approved.

DR. JAFFE: Okay. I guess what we\'re talking about, and I mean, Monsanto
has a Roundup Ready^®^ soybean and they can then take a lot of different
traditional breeding, a lot of those things and put the Roundup Ready^®^
soybean into it, but, the transgenic trait is still the herbicide
resistance. I think what we\'re trying to talk about here are transgenic
traits that will be marketed in the next five to ten years, or, I like
the term under \-- technically feasible. I like that also.

I don\'t know of \-- I mean, for something to be out in two years it has
to be at the regulatory agencies now and getting close to public comment
on it and I\'m not aware of

\-- I mean, genetically engineered traits but some of the things you
just talked about.

MS. DILLEY: Let me come back to \--

DR. JAFFE: It may be incorporated into a BT \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- your question.

DR. JAFFE: \-- but I don\'t think that\'s what we\'re trying to get at
here.

MS. DILLEY: Let\'s come back to your original question which was, are we
coming up with too less a thing? I mean, taking a step back as Bob did.
Why are we listing these things? We\'re listing these things because the
Secretary asked the committee to talk about what are the impacts of
future products. Well, to even start having a conversation to answer
that charge you have to have some kind of, at least, fairly broad brush
knowledge of what those \-- well, what grounded that discussion. What
are the products that we talked about?

So, again, I think it\'s a technically feasible. So, I don\'t \-- I
don\'t envision that what the report\'s going to do is talk about, well,
these products are going to be commercialized and these are kind of on
the \-- are those that are technically feasible, but, have other
considerations.

I think it\'s just we want to give you a sense of the products we had in
mind when we had this conversation, not to categorize them, not to be on
the definitive source of information for what products are coming, but,
just to ground our discussion, these are the products, these are the
category of products that we see in the next five to ten years.

So, it wouldn\'t be that dividing up or try to be exactly on point with
that, but, it\'s just mainly to ground the discussion of these are the
products we had in mind when we talked about these topics.

MR. CORZINE: Okay. And, Greg, I\'m somewhat familiar with the regulatory
system too and, so, I guess it gets more into the terminology of
products. You know, do you have through traditional breeding do you take
then, you know, a transgenic trait that is going to enhance that, that
is already approved. Okay. That\'s in the pipeline coming forward. It
won\'t have to go \-- or are we limiting to new transgenic products that
are going to be required to go through the regulatory system again.

I guess that\'s the question that maybe I need a little clarity on on
products when we get into that area.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I think your point then goes to the whole question of
improved germplasm that was mentioned before because I think that\'s the
specific, that\'s the kind of thing that you\'re talking about, that the
increases in germplasm are also going to lead to the same \--

MR. CORZINE: Because an approved transgenic event gives us the ability
to enhance through traditional breeding and it goes to some of what
Margaret\'s been saying as well. We have seen improved yields with
conventional breeding corn because they have to come along because of
refuge areas and those kind of things, right alongside mirrored genetics
increasing the yield of both the transgenic event, formed with the
transgenic event, and the one with the same based genetics.

So, you have that going on as well.

MS. DILLEY: Pat, do you have a comment or question?

DR. LAYTON: Yeah, I do. I think that when we started this discussion two
years ago, two and a half years ago, and we talked about this section of
the document and we were trying to stick close to what our original
discussions were it was what\'s in the pipeline technically feasible to
be brought out in a five to ten year time frame and that these were
examples.

And that\'s what the committee on the conference call was trying to do
was come up with technically, commercially, feasible kinds of examples
of transgenes or genetically engineered products that were going to hit
the table, not necessarily placing it in a new variety of soybean or a
new variety of corn, but, what were the new genes that could be stuck in
to something and that\'s what I think this list was supposed to
represent.

Now, what I hear is, and I\'ve already got some language written down on
some of the earlier discussion, and I think it would behoove us to sort
of think about do we want to make it much broader than we ever spent two
years debating, including that day when we had all of the Dupont people
and the other folks coming in and talking about what was in the
pipeline, because that\'s much bigger and broader and we\'re going to go
way out than if we just kind of stick to what the technically,
commercially, feasible stuff is right now and then add in some language
at a certain point, and I kind of looked ahead at the point, that says,
you know, we\'ve done a lot and here\'s where we are.

So, I would say that, you know, our scope all along was to be
technically developed, you know, because I know some of the researchers
at my university and God help us if we ever put things that aren\'t
right down on the articles, but, I don\'t think it\'s going to happen,
but, they like it.

You know, they\'ll tell \-- they learn and then we get into the broader
context. So, I would propose, if we can, to stay with technically,
commercially, really possible, because this is just the introduction and
we just want to throw it out there and, you\'re right, the Secretary
hopefully \-- Bernice has already apprised him of the situation \-- and
he already knows what products are out there, so, it\'s really just \--
this is really one page, you know. This is all just one page.

So, I just want to not \-- if we don\'t need to make this a volume,
let\'s keep it a page, keep it technically, commercial and get into the
meat of this document. Okay. I\'ll stop.

DR. MELLON: I agree that we shouldn\'t expand it in any huge way to
include all kinds of products. I do think in the context of this paper
it is important \-- it is important in addition to new products based on
a new transgenic trait to mention the fact that there are in the near
term, you know, some commercially, attractive products that are going to
be based on conventional breeding with the existing, you know, popular,
whatever they are, variety.

I mean, it\'s important that this and all of these other things that are
out there and I think it\'s not worth a thousand listings of it at all,
but, I do think at the beginning when we talk about these are the ones
that are technically ready for market or likely to be ready for market
within the next five to ten years and then we would just say in addition
there are some attractive products, name three, the ethanol that are,
you know, basically traditionally bred against the background of the
transgenically bred trait.

And I think that is \-- it\'s new. It really is new.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi, could you write some text out so that when we do get
to the actual text you\'ve got that ready to roll?

DR. MELLON: Sure.

MS. DILLEY: Duane, your card went down.

MR. GRANT: Yeah. Some of my issue is in the fuller text so we\'re fine.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, let\'s hold off on that. Ron and then Michael.

MR. OLSON: Just a minor addition. We didn\'t mention disease resistance
or salt tolerance. I mean, the concern. It\'s a huge problem with wheat
and there\'s a biotech wheat that could address that.

DR. LAYTON: In general, pest is considered disease and is \--

MR. OLSON: Okay. That\'s what I didn\'t know. I wrote it down. Is pest
the same because that includes disease, or, does it include salt
tolerance.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. LAYTON: Not salt tolerance.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Drought resistant.

MR. OLSON: Drought resistance could maybe salt tolerance up in that
area. I just want to make sure those two points are covered.

MR. DEMORGAN: And, Ron and Abby, if I could, that was also my issue but
it is in \-- we\'ve got a spot in the text and we can pick that up.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Michael, did you want to \--

DR. DYKES: Yeah. I\'m just kind of following up what Mardi\'s saying
because I think that I agree with Mardi and I think that those comments
also tie in with what we were talking about earlier. As we develop some
of those things through breeding techniques and more knowledge of the
genomics some of those will be able to go the other way. Others we will
\-- they will, because there\'s research and activity and R&D in that
area some of the other ones such as the oils and the steroids and those
other things and the fatty acid profile soybeans may require biotech
applications, transgenic applications.

So, I think it ties with what I was trying to say earlier. Once you get
research and development and investment in an area it expands, it grows
to bring other positives to it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, if I have what we have talked about so far is that
scope is the technically feasible will go to market is kind of the scope
that we\'re trying to capture. We\'ve added or refined some of the
categories. I\'m sure we\'ll do a bit more of that when we get to the
actual text. And then some additional discussion about the near term and
some made commercially viable in the next couple of years and talk a
little bit and Mardi\'s going to have some language ready to add that
when we get there.

So, that\'s kind of the framing of this right now in terms of our scope
and what we\'re looking at and the backdrop of the discussion for topics
in terms of the substantive scope.

Any other point in that? What I\'m going to propose that we do is if
there are no other comments on that, those two sections, A and B, that
we take a short break and then we\'ll come back to see.

Okay. So, I don\'t see any other hands so when we come back \-- I\'ve
got ten after. We can start up again at five and then we\'ll get the new
products that are entering in a new environment. I\'m sure they\'ll take
a little bit of time to flush that out because of what people want to
see in that particular section. Okay. So, fifteen minutes.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken)

MS. DILLEY: Can you take your seats please. It\'s 10:30. Please take
your seats.

DR. LAYTON: Thank you.

MS. DILLEY: So, just to bring us back to where we left off. We\'ve just
defined the scope of the types of things, range of products to be
discussed technically feasible. And, now, this is to talk about the fact
that these products are going to be entering into a new environment,
having described the previous \-- the current products in the previous
environment and now this is to provide that additional context for new
products.

And we start out with an outline here, but, I imagine people have some
thoughts in terms of creating that context. Al?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Yes. Just to go back to the previous section, I just
want to understand the scope of what animals are covered and
specifically I think that at sometime I heard mention of it being
terrestrial animals and I was wondering if insects have been
intentionally excluded from this report and should fish also be included
in here if we\'re talking about terrestrial vertebrates.

So, I guess we just need \-- I need clarification as to what animals are
covered.

DR. LAYTON: I think originally we were going to exclude all animals.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: We had talked about not doing the insects. I think we
actually talked about this on a conference call that we had a couple of
weeks back. The reason fish was added to this, because originally we had
talked about not putting that in, but, it\'s front of regulatory
agencies now, so, it\'s so far along so that\'s why it\'s ended up in
here.

But, you\'re right that we need clarification of what\'s actually in the
pool of things we\'re talking about and what we had taken off the table.
So, Michael, I don\'t know if you want to add more on what we had put on
the table.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, I think that\'s right. You know, intentionally
the focus was to be limited to transgenics and now we have this little
wrinkle that\'s been added now with things that happen to be transgenic
because the traits offer some additional benefits to other new traits
that aren\'t transgenic. So, there\'s that whole question.

But, the intent on animals originally was terrestrial livestock animals.
At the last meeting fish got added just because, you know, they\'re one
of these things that are not only technically feasible, they are \--
they\'re livestock of a sort and they\'re under review.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Aquaculture is absolutely a kind of agriculture.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah. But, insects are not on because we\'ve not had
people on the committee at all who are expert in that until this point
and the initial thought was that fish and insects were topics that might
go into the subsequent report. I think that\'s been overtaken by events
with the new projects that we talked about last time.

But, that was the initial thought when this report was at its original
inception a couple of years ago.

MS. DILLEY: Did you want to ask a question?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I guess insects. If it\'s going to be covered in
another report I think that\'s a pretty important area and technically
feasible in the next ten years probably qualify.

DR. CRAMER: Could you give us an example what you mean by a transgenic
insect that\'s likely to be released?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, there\'s people working in insects. And I agree
with the comments that there\'s no expertise in the room because I\'m
certainly not an expert in it, but, people are working on like honeybees
and mosquitoes and those type of insects for various different traits
and genetically engineering. So, I guess I just need to know why they
would be excluded.

DR. DYKES: Taking on some of the question. So, what was the final
resolution? What does this refer to? Fish and terrestrial animals?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. At the last meeting the discussion was fish and \--
well, there was a mention of fish in this initial list. Obviously
there\'s no discussion of any issues related specifically to transgenic
fish in the report, but, at the last meeting people thought that it was
something that was \-- fish would be far along that at least it needed
to be listed in the intro.

MS. DILLEY: So, the question is whether you add insects to that?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Carol, did you have a \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yes. I don\'t think that I would push for having \--
dealing a great deal with cloned animals and I don\'t even know that it
has to be mentioned in the introduction. But, it\'s going to be very
hard to talk about transgenic animals without acknowledging that the
role of cloning in that and especially with regard to the marketplace.

So, although I don\'t know that it has to be noted here, I think that
when we have a discussion that that issue will come up and I\'d like to
throw that out as at least one proposal.

MS. DILLEY: So, I guess, okay, let\'s put that as a note and then \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I just \-- you know \-- in terms of a marker \--

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I don\'t know if the fact that it\'s not stated here
to \--

MS. DILLEY: Indicate that it\'s not going to be discussed at all. Right.
So, let\'s come back to the issue of insects. I think we had taken that
off the table but I think, Alison, you had raised the issue of you\'re
comfortable having that off the table. And then there are two questions.

One, do we reference it because they\'re far enough along, mosquitoes
and honeybees, and maybe we need to get some input on that in terms of
how far along they are. And, Carol, I don\'t know if this is your
particular point, but, the question, does it need to be referenced
because they are going to be produced within that time frame.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: And I\'m not sure, and, Greg, I don\'t know if you
know what\'s being proposed in terms of who would be the regulatory
agency in charge. Well, maybe some regulatory types could comment.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, I think depending on the kind of insect, I mean,
there are things \-- there are insects that are certainly being
researched that have to do with some specific agricultural issues as
opposed to things like mosquitoes and I think there\'s research that\'s
probably further along than honeybees that\'s being done in largely
public sector institutions.

But, actually to be able to \-- and, you know, some of those things are
probably pretty likely to be regulated via existing channels that have
regulated other kinds of insects and pests in the past, but, in terms of
specific references to that, I think it\'s a committee choice as to, you
know, noting simply that there is work going on on transgenic insects
and not taking it any further than that, or, whether that\'s necessary
at this point at all.

MS. DILLEY: Greg, did you want to comment on that?

DR. JAFFE: I would just say I don\'t have a strong view whether we put
in an example of insects here or not. I do think that fish is relevant
to put in, first of all, because I think it\'s discussed all the time
and not to have it there would look like we were avoiding it for
something.

And, secondly, I think it is relevant to some of the topics because we
do talk about the regulation of transgenic animals under the New Animal
Drug Act. We talk about transparency and some of those things do relate
to things that the fish is actually going through as opposed to, I
don\'t know the details about where it\'s actually going to be going to,
but, I\'m not sure any of our topics really hinge on using insects as an
example or our thoughts came from using insects.

But, I do think that fish is part of the thought process for several of
the topics. I think that fish does need to be in the beginning here for
that reason. Insects, I don\'t have a problem putting an example in
there. I just don\'t think it then \-- I don\'t recall any of the topics
that then relate to that.

MS. DILLEY: Maybe what we do is do what Michael suggested. Maybe
there\'s a nod to that. There\'s research in that area and that may, in
fact, result in products, but, we just didn\'t talk about it in detail
in this committee. I think that\'s accurate and it\'s also in the
interest of not going to be on the 27 topics discussed at this point.

Pat, do you want to add to that?

DR. LAYTON: I was just going to say, yeah, I\'m sort of with Greg on
this one. I mean, you don\'t talk about trees in the introduction
either, but, we have it has something \-- I mean, it is a product. It is
out there. It could be done \-- an agricultural product. But, you know,
we just can\'t cover everything. So, and we didn\'t discuss it. So, I\'d
say at this point in time I don\'t want to mention insects unless
somebody had something \--

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I guess the only thing is if you developed a
genetically engineered tree there would be a pathway that you would know
to go through in terms of regulating; what you\'d need to do to release
it.

DR. LAYTON: Right.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Whereas, and I don\'t know enough about the topic to
even guess, but, if I created a genetically engineered honeybee it\'s
not obvious to me how I would go through it and if it is coming out in
the next ten years is it something that the USDA needs to be aware of.

DR. LAYTON: Would it be any different than fish?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, the fish \-- well, I can give the pros and
cons, but, the fish would go depending on what it\'s making and things
would go through the FDA process so and I don\'t think there\'s been any
suggestion that insects would go through \--

DR. JAFFE: I think that\'s clear.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Right. Yeah.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, I think it\'s a topic that, you know, the
committee had intentionally parked previously. Whether you want to
revisit that or not because what you\'re talking about there would then
require a separate topic of discussion and that\'s something to balance.
Again, there\'s not so much the expertise around the table to draft that
or get presentations talking about the existing situation.

So, that\'s a question for the committee.

MS. DILLEY: We have cards up. So, Carol and then Michael and then Vince.

DR. CRAMER: I just \-- since we ended up in transgenic animals, I wanted
maybe to ask Jim. There have been two pharmaceutical products in
transgenic, one in goats and one in sheep, I think, that had gone into
clinical trials like four years ago. One was Gensitransgenic (sic) and
the other PPL Therapeutics. Do you know if either of those have
progressed in clinical trials?

DR. MARYANSKI: I don\'t know.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Could you speak up, Jim, please. People need to hear.

DR. MARYANSKI: I don\'t know.

DR. CRAMER: Because that \-- I mean, if they went into clinical trials
and are being moved forward that\'s something that could definitely be
released in that time period. But, I haven\'t heard anything for a
couple of years.

MS. DILLEY: So we don\'t know and maybe that\'s something that needs to
be looked into in terms of the text, examples of what we talk about and
what we don\'t.

Michael, you had a comment and then \--

DR. DYKES: I was just going to comment. I agree basically with what Greg
was saying. I don\'t think we should put the insects in here. I think
making some brief mention as Michael suggested that they\'re there,
therefore, Mr. Secretary, I just want to create another committee that
looks at that in depth.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: Vince and then Mardi?

DR. VILKER: I just wanted to add that adding the fish significantly
expands the community to whom this report would be of interest. NOAA is
an agency under Commerce and NOAA supports significant research and
development activities in the area of transgenic fish for agriculture
and nutritional enhancement as well as products, unique products that
can be attributed to aquaculture.

So, if this is an advisory report or an informational report to the
Secretary of Agriculture I would suggest that if fish get big time
attention here that perhaps the advice that comes from NOAA and the
feedback that goes out of the committee might want to consider Commerce.
But, having said that, I just want you to know that the scope, by adding
fish, significantly expands both in terms of information coming into
your deliberations and outputs to whom your deliberations would be of
interest.

MS. DILLEY: Point well taken. I think it may hinge on big time attention
because I don\'t \-- right now it doesn\'t get big time attention, so,
but, point well taken to the committee.

Mardi?

DR. MELLON: I guess I would \-- I mean, I guess I\'m just reluctant to
go there again where it has been and will continue to be this huge issue
of where the environmental impacts of genetically engineered fish are
going to be overseen. Which agency is going to step up to the plate and
so far, I mean, the issue has been raised many times over the last ten
years.

You know, I\'ve visited the \-- you know, NOAA, all these folks. They
were somewhat interested in putting money into developing them, not at
all interested in setting up any kind of a regulatory establishment
which, of course, defaults to our friends at FDA who are now virtually
the only agency out there looking at the environmental impact of fish.

We could restate that. It\'s not difficult to state it. I\'m not sure
that we want to get into, you know, analyzing it except to say really,
you know, there ought to be some \-- you know \-- that the regulatory
system ought to proceed in tandem with the research for development and
that\'s certainly not occurring in fish. But, I think it will just leave
them unable to be commercialized and unable to get out of the pond so to
say.

The FDA has a \-- I mean, on the insects USDA has addressed that issue,
has, you know, as we all know, Marjorie Hoy, and they\'ve overseen
research on insects and have something of a regulatory approach to it so
we could \-- you know \-- it\'s not that USDA has not thought about the
insect issue and that there really isn\'t a place for folks who want to
develop the insects to go.

MS. DILLEY: My sense is that with a caveat on the fish in terms of how
much we get involved and how much additional scope we\'re trying to
bring in, I don\'t think the intent is to really overly expand. But, I
do think we do reference it a couple of times in the topics discussed.

So, we\'ll see how that plays out and need to balance that with making
sure that we do due diligence to the topics that we do raise. I don\'t
hear a strong argument for mentioning insects other than if it\'s in a
broad brush content of a whole range and the committee did not
deliberate on that particular set of possible products.

Is that accurate? Okay. Okay. Anything else on that section before we
move to C, to the environment in which these products are being
developed? Okay.

Can we move into that discussion then and anybody want to start that
conversation? All right. Now we just have very obviously broad
placeholders for regulatory consumers and players in the whole food
production chain more involved with global trade. We haven\'t developed
all the text for that obviously. Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Could I make the suggestion?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Because C and D are so brief, could we just skip
over them and go to the text itself? I understand why we wanted to go
through these more detailed sections.

MS. DILLEY: If people would prefer that I just \-- I just want to make
sure that we have an opportunity to capture any big chunks of things
that we need to think about when we go into the text because part of
what we\'ll do then when we review text is to put at the very least
placeholders in the text if we can\'t get actual language for additional
pieces that just aren\'t here in the outline for whatever reason.

So, why don\'t we wrap up then the outline discussion if we can and do
what Carol\'s suggesting and read into the text. But, I want to make
sure that we get the outline draft up. Greg and then Carol and Michael.

DR. JAFFE: I mean, I like going through the outline. I do think that\'s
helpful. So, I have two comments on this part of the outline and I think
one of the problems with an outline is sometimes things are given small
amounts in the outline but may actually involve more text than they show
in an outline.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: But, two things here. One was, I think there needs to be both
discussions nationally and internationally for each of these topics.

MS. DILLEY: When you talk about the new environment?

DR. JAFFE: Yeah. They need to be separated with some of the national \--
some of the issues of context nationally and then some of the issues in
the context of internationally and that doesn\'t come across, I think,
in the outline and I think it also doesn\'t come across that well in the
text.

And I think the issues global are more than just trade issues. And, so,
we seem to highlight global trade here, but, I think there\'s global
regulatory issues. There are market issues globally and other things.
So, I think that is one thing. The second thing is I think there are
several key events, I think, that do have influenced why the environment
is different and one is a StarLink^®^ kind of thing that has changed the
international debate and how different players look at different things
and how they react to different things.

And, so, I\'d like to see \-- I mean, there\'s an E.U./U.S. dispute. I
mean, there are some sort of key things, I mean, that are going on now
and I think it\'s important to put those in the context because those
are part of this context, the introductory section of the topics that we
had then discussed, are informed and are relevant to people\'s views on
the topics.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, it\'s more than just these categories. It may be
within those categories. There\'s more that you want to see there and
then the nationally/international. Okay. Let me go to Daryl and then
Michael and then \--

DR. BUSS: Under the categories of the new environment it seems in
looking at it that somewhere producers or production environment ought
to be part of that.

MS. DILLEY: Say more about that. Producers or production environment.

DR. BUSS: Producers or the environment in which perhaps some of the
materials are produced. We allude to it indirectly in issues ranging
from international competition to changing crop production patterns and
so on.

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

DR. DYKES: Yeah. I was going to just for the sake of making sure
there\'s a placeholder for it, just going up to the one under pest
resistance comments. Based on the comment Pat made earlier, you mean
that\'s referring to disease tolerance and not necessarily pest
resistance?

DR. LAYTON: In my world pest includes disease, insects, and weeds.

DR. DYKES: Yeah. I just think, because when I look at pest resistance
that doesn\'t jump out at me from that \-- that\'s not what I would
immediately conclude you\'re talking about.

MS. DILLEY: So, Michael, are you talking about in B, that pest
resistance \--

DR. DYKES: B-7.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, okay. Okay. So we need a better title for that
category.

DR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Anything else on C? Carol, you had a comment.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yes, please. Labeling. Now Greg has made the point
about domestic and international StarLink^®^ I think labeling has to be
part of C.

MS. DILLEY: Other pieces on products entering into a new environment?

MR. KREMER: It may go under regulatory but I\'d like to see the topic of
liability be addressed and also make it somewhere else but put social
aspects and basically economic equity among players in the value chain.

MS. DILLEY: I think obviously when we start flushing this out with the
specific text the balance that we\'re going to have to is providing the
background context with all these different dynamics and not try and
have the topics discussion serve as and merging into the introductory
section so I think we have to be mindful of that and really pin down
what is it exactly we want to say in this part that we\'re not already
trying to say later in the text part and have "document creep," so to
speak.

Because when we started we had "document creep" and we pulled it out so
we just need to be mindful of that and it\'s going to be somewhat an
interim progress. We may want to work on this a little bit and then work
on the topics and then come back and see what we didn\'t flush out for
contextual purposes.

Leon, you had a point?

MR. CORZINE: I mean a point of information. Maybe as we go through we
will expand on that, but, what do we mean by new environment? Daryl sort
of touched on that. We need to get our hands around that at some point.
What does that mean? Are we talking about the economic environment, are
we talking about the global environment? Are we talking about \--

MS. DILLEY: All of the above. It\'s just that it\'s a different
transgenic products. You know, I\'m not necessarily using that term,
sorry.

MR. CORZINE: That\'s okay.

MS. DILLEY: Whatever term we end up with. The products are entering into
the marketplace and that\'s different than what it was for previous
products, I guess. It\'s trying to \--

MR. CORZINE: For the first wave.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, for the first wave of products, I guess. And that\'s
hard because when we\'re defining one environment and when did that
change and all those kinds of things. I think it\'s trying to get the
sense of \-- again, this is kind of background that in order for us to
play out the thinking of we envision a diverse marketplace with a whole
range of different kinds of products there are particular pieces that
context has changed that we want you, Mr. Secretary, this is what we
talked about when we thought about that.

And, so, it\'s providing that backdrop that we actually get into the
topics discussed. And it\'s going to be a hard balance because obviously
some of those topics discussed are driven by what different people see
in terms of the environment that the new products are coming into in the
next five to ten years.

So, that was a lengthy explanation and I\'m not sure I got there but I
know other people had different views in trying to pin down what do we
exactly mean by new environment.

DR. LAYTON: It doesn\'t mean science environment.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MR. CORZINE: You\'re talking about marketplace.

DR. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: And what are the factors shaping that marketplace.

MR. CORZINE: I guess I have a little trouble with the term new and how
much of it is really new because we\'ve had market segregation longer
than I\'ve been farming which doesn\'t seem to be new anymore. So,
you\'ve got niche markets that have been developed going clear back into

the \--

MS. DILLEY: Maybe it\'s a different marketplace than a new marketplace.
I don\'t know. Greg?

DR. JAFFE: I was going to say different marketplace. I think that the
concept that was tried and got here was I mean, why are we all around
this table, why are we doing this report? Roundup Ready^®^ soybeans were
commercialized in 1996 and the farmers adopted them and there wasn\'t
any controversy around them, but, today, \--

(Discussion off the record)

DR. JAFFE: Their adoption was very different than the environment today.
GE wheat being the example. That there are certain events, there are
certain things that have changed nationally and internationally that
give the context to the topics that we\'re putting in place here. If we
all thought that these new products would get treated the same way as
ground up ready soybeans were treated we might not all be here but there
is a new context. There\'s a different environment upon which those are
\-- will be coming out in and that\'s what we\'re talking about the
context of.

MS. DILLEY: I think what you need to do is finish the sentence of, okay,
there are products that are technically feasible, ready to go, but,
there are other things that people are considering now that are not the
technical aspects. There\'s this whole range of other stuff that wasn\'t
applying itself as robustly ten years ago as it is now.

So, it\'s a changed marketplace and why is it changed and what are those
components that when you have a technically feasible product to go to
market you\'re thinking about all sorts of things and, so, what is that
whole host of things that you\'re thinking about.

Michael?

DR. DYKES: I was going to raise this point but I didn\'t until Leon did,
but, I was going to wait until later, but, the fact that this is
products entering into a new environment, I agree things are changing,
things are evolving. And, to me, obviously a new environment\'s going to
depend on the very next sentence that\'s switched, by that new, better,
new, worse. I think it\'s just if we think about AP, for example, we
didn\'t talk about AP when we introduced Roundup Ready^®^ soybeans but
we sure did have lots of controversy about whether they need to be
labeled, whether you could keep them separate in the segregation chain,
all those different kind of conversations. They were enormous.

I think we still have controversies today. The nature of the controversy
has new topics, new dimensions to it, but, ten years ago there were
controversial issues. Today there are controversies and there are
issues. So, I don\'t know that I agree with a new environment. There was
a new environment ten years ago with BT cotton as well.

So, I think this keeps evolving and changing.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Evolving, changing environment, dynamic \--

DR. DYKES: Evolving. Bringing on different things so we don\'t worry
about things we used to worry about, we worry about some of those, but,
we also worry about new things.

DR. LAYTON: I actually scratched out new environment and wrote different
marketplace. I mean, it\'s just the outline.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: That\'s fine.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I like the word evolved in there because that\'s
suggesting that it could also change in the future as well.

DR. LAYTON: Evolving marketplace is good. Dynamic.

MS. DILLEY: Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I think, however, it is not the way it was ten years
ago and that it\'s important to acknowledge in what we write that it is
not the same and when we get there I\'ll give you some numbers that show
it\'s different.

MS. DILLEY: So, I think, again, we\'re trying to get \-- and obviously
the challenge will be in articulating it what that looks like and not
getting into the topics discussion once we\'re there, but, trying to
articulate the changing and evolving different marketplace, whatever
term we end up with.

And we\'ve got a couple of different aspects of that, and I\'m sure
we\'ll get more into that when we do the text, but, I wanted to see if
(a) there\'s anything else that people want to mention in terms of the
environment piece of it, C basically, that category and we want to move
on and just take a step back and make sure people \-- was there anything
that\'s blatantly missing that you thought, you know, the logic flow
doesn\'t work because I just don\'t see this piece in there anywhere or
anything like that, again, to move through the logic flow leading up to
the topics discussed.

Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I don\'t, but, I wish we could have an agreement
that if perchance as we go through this document some subject does come
up that somehow we missed \-- I don\'t know how that could happen \--
the thought that it\'s not in the outline doesn\'t exclude us making
some reference to it.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. No, it\'s a working outline. I mean, it\'s basically
just do we have the right logic flow, are people comfortable with that,
are the big pieces there, and you know, again, the challenge will be in
actually creating text that everybody\'s comfortable with.

But, if you\'ve got at least an approach I think that is significant
progress where we were before this meeting so it\'s a step in the right
direction. With your caveat, I\'m sure if we said, oh, my gosh, how
could we have missed that, well, we come back and refine it. Okay.
Anything else?

So, I\'m assuming that at this point in time people are pretty
comfortable with the logic flow of the outline and the text. Obviously
we need some \-- we\'ll need some nice transition language that people
read to go into the topics discussed, but, I\'m assuming that we can put
the summary aside and the outline aside for now and move into the actual
text.

So, then we can pick up Pat\'s, the side-by-side piece that starts \--
it\'s a paragraph and comment and introduction is at the top of the
table. And we have about an hour before we \--

DR. HERDT: Just so \-- this says introductory sections of the committee
report realizing the promise called opportunities and challenge?

MS. DILLEY: Correct. Sorry. That\'s at the very top. You\'re absolutely
right and then the paragraph line has introduction.

DR. LAYTON: Can I suggest, everybody, this has \-- the one that we\'re
working from has eight pages with only a couple of lines on the eighth
page.

MS. DILLEY: So, just make sure \--

DR. LAYTON: Make sure we\'re on the same page.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, so we can reference the pages, etc.

DR. LAYTON: And these are done by paragraphs so if you wanted to number
the paragraphs, I didn\'t put numbers on the tables because I\'m not
real good at that, but, if you want \-- and I didn\'t want to imply
anything with numbering so that\'s why it\'s just broken up by
paragraphs.

MS. DILLEY: Just two comments before we start in on this. The one is,
obviously a key piece of this is we need to pin down the terminology
because that\'s obviously in this section or the page before that talks
about who the committee is and its charge and I think if we could not do
that before lunch, because one of the things we want to do is go back
and maybe do it right after lunch, but, go back to the other two reports
we submitted to the Secretary and check on the terminology there so we
don\'t spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel. Maybe we can \-- if
it\'s not exactly right for this report we can fine tune it.

But, at least we can start with something we\'ve already discussed. So,
okay. So, we don\'t need to start with that and, again, maybe do that
after lunch. The second, I just want to go back to Michael\'s suggestion
that it would be extremely helpful if people offered alternative
language. When we comment on something or rather than saying, you know,
this doesn\'t work for me to say well, what does work for you and try
and move it forward, okay.

So, Greg, process?

DR. JAFFE: Yeah. I mean, I didn\'t comment on it before when Michael
said it, but, I think when people have proposed language I think that\'s
fine. There are some things in some of these texts that I didn\'t
understand and to ask me to propose language when one doesn\'t
understand what one\'s trying to get at \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: \-- is an impossible task to do. After one understands what
we\'re trying to get at then I think that we\'ll come back and talk
about it. So, I just wanted to make it clear that \--

MS. DILLEY: Sure.

DR. JAFFE: \-- somebody saying they don\'t understand something is not
\-- shouldn\'t be looked upon as an appropriate comment. It\'s different
to say I don\'t like something or something like that.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, and to me that\'s different than saying this doesn\'t
work for me. I mean, it\'s more \-- you know \-- I just don\'t
understand this is, okay, then let\'s try and clarify it.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Again, I think it\'s, you know, if you can focus in and
say I don\'t understand this

paragraph \--

DR. JAFFE: Right.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: \-- and say specifically, you know, what in this is not
clear to you.

MS. DILLEY: And you\'ve done that, I think, in some of your comments.
That is particularly helpful to hone in on what the particular confusing
sentence or term is.

Okay. Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Do you want just \-- you know, I\'m a hopeless
inveterate editor.

MS. DILLEY: We have a lot of those on this committee.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Do you want to spend time doing that or do you just
want to spend \-- you know, I always try and make sentences shorter so I
can either give you those or sometimes \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, as we all know, one person\'s edits can be substantive
change so I guess if you really \-- it would be helpful to really focus
on those areas that are substantive. If you think it may flow, possibly
may have a substantive implication then let\'s throw it on the table. If
it\'s strictly editorial then I would say, you know, a comma or a
semi-colon or something like then for sure let\'s \-- I mean, I know
that\'s taking it to an extreme, but, if it\'s working language to try
and explain it then we\'ll try and keep those to just having that sent
up to the facilitators.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: We\'ll give it a go and see how we do.

DR. LAYTON: But, they\'re all important.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

DR. LAYTON: So, I\'d like to get them in and get this \-- get it back
out before we get to January 4th and 5th so that we make sure that there
wasn\'t something that my edit was not substantive.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I actually sent all mine to you over the weekend.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, \--

DR. LAYTON: Carol, I don\'t think I got an attachment with your
document. And it could be that my system just didn\'t script it so I
want to make sure \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I\'m also notorious at forgetting to put \--

DR. LAYTON: But, you guys may have gotten it. My system may have skipped
it.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I got mine late Friday.

DR. LAYTON: My system may have skipped it.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I know why. I was forwarding a document to you and
you forwarded it.

DR. LAYTON: That was it because you had a bad e-mail for me.

MS. DILLEY: All right. So, anybody want to dive in? Greg?

DR. JAFFE: The documents that\'s entitled Realizing the Promise:
Opportunities and Challenges." I guess, is that the proposed title of
the whole paper? Is that just a leftover placeholder that we\'re not
really going to cross out and come to?

MS. DILLEY: Do you want to see \--

DR. JAFFE: I guess I\'m not sure what that title means and what it\'s
supposed to refer to. I don\'t have a proposed title for this paper but
I don\'t like the paper being called "Realizing the Promise:
Opportunities and Challenges." At least, alone, that\'s not descriptive
enough for me.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. If we can come up with a title that people \-- that
it\'s been there for a while I think so it\'s been kind of more like a
past work but we need a title so if we can come up with a title.

DR. LAYTON: Can I just recommend we delete that, just draw a line
through it for right now and the title will be something we\'ve got to
work on? So, nobody gets offended. It was from an old document. It
hadn\'t disappeared and I stuck it at the top to distinguish it from any
of the other tables.

MS. DILLEY: All right. So, we deleted that.

DR. LAYTON: So we deleted it.

MS. DILLEY: You had added a text.

DR. LAYTON: There were no comments on the first opening introductory
paragraph. Are we comfortable with the word introduction at the top of
that? Okay. Great.

First paragraph down.

MS. DILLEY: I believe this is Randy\'s.

DR. LAYTON: Randy wrote \-- and I will tell you what his change is for
the second paragraph. He inserted between the words, "processors and
shippers," he changed that to "commodity processors, handlers and
exporters, environmental and consumer groups." So, he actually changed
the word. Instead of commodity processors and shippers he changed it to
commodity processors, handlers and exporters, and then he continued with
the rest of that sentence. That is the change there.

MS. DILLEY: Alison?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I guess I wasn\'t really sure what was meant exactly
by international plant genetics research as being one of the nineteen
members representing the international plant genetics research.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: We had a \-- up until this past meeting someone who was
involved in this for quite a long time was someone who worked from
CIMMYT but he\'s no longer on the committee.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: So, well, at least make it researchers because \--

DR. LAYTON: Researchers, you\'re right. It\'s a person, not a thing.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Right.

DR. LAYTON: Thank you. Good comment.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: And then environmental groups.

DR. LAYTON: Environmental and consumer groups. I think Mardi is
considered probably one of the environmental side and Carol and Greg
would be the consumer side so we were trying to represent them. Are you
comfortable with that kind of reference?

DR. MELLON: Sure.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yes.

DR. LAYTON: It was Dave Hoisington. Did I say that right? Hoisington. I
know I always get it wrong. Hoisington who was the international plant
genetics researcher and so I guess it would be researcher. Carol, yes,
ma\'am?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I think environmental and consumer organizations
would be a little bit better thing. We\'re not just *ad hoc*.

DR. LAYTON: Got it. Was everyone comfortable with Randy\'s edit? Can we
accept his edit?

IN UNISON: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: He probably referenced participant was there anyway so
people want to see who was on the committee.

DR. LAYTON: Yeah, I think we did that in past ones, right?

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. We did that in previous reports.

DR. LAYTON: We did, but, I think we should \--

MS. DILLEY: Alison, did you have another comment? Greg?

DR. JAFFE: So what\'s a handler?

MS. DILLEY: Someone who has \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Somebody that\'s sent out by public officials to
make sure they don\'t say something not right.

DR. LAYTON: Jerry, are you a handler?

MR. SLOCUM: It\'s an elevator. You know, it\'s the system that handles
grain as opposed to a shipper.

MS. DILLEY: So, storer or \--

MR. SLOCUM: Somebody who touches it.

MR. OLSON: Grain handlers.

DR. JAFFE: That\'s what I\'m trying to get at. I mean, \--

DR. LAYTON: But you can be a cotton handler too.

MR. SLOCUM: It\'s way more than grain.

DR. LAYTON: It\'s more than grain.

DR. DYKES: I think he means for the word commodity to modify all three
of those words.

DR. LAYTON: Yes. So, it\'s commodity processors, handlers, and
exporters.

DR. JAFFE: But then we even need a semi-colon and somehow the commas and
stuff aren\'t working here.

DR. LAYTON: Let me just \-- okay, semi-colons. We\'ll add semi-colons
and I\'ll check with Randy to make sure it is commodity processors,
handlers and exporters. And I\'m pretty sure it is, okay. Good catch.

MS. DILLEY: Josephine?

DR. HUNT: Just a question really regarding the members being listed
within this document somewhere. Would that be an appendix? How does that
work?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

DR. LAYTON: You do it as an appendix of members.

MS. SULTON: For people who want to write text who may not have pads
I\'ve got some. Raise your hand.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any other comments on that? Okay. So, the next
paragraph down, I think that goes over into the next page too.

DR. HUNT: If I could just make one comment. This is actually referring
back to one of the previous versions of this, whereas the title, which I
understand now is not a title anymore, we mentioned the word promise and
in other areas in the text we referred to potential so there appears to
be a conflict, an inconsistency.

MS. DILLEY: An inconsistency.

DR. LAYTON: Actually, the word promise is on the top of page 2, second
line, almost at the end and I assume that\'s where you wanted to change
it to potential. Is that correct?

DR. HUNT: Well, it\'s just that in the previous document it was always
potential and when I saw this I thought we needed consistency on that.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: If I could comment just on my recollection from the last
meeting that this concept of realizing the promise, opportunities, and
challenges was, I believe, a suggestion that has been made for capturing
a portion of the introduction, the part after the very formal part, that
I believe was made by Daryl at the meeting last time; that there was
sort of a compilation of a couple of thoughts that got amalgamated
together. Whether it\'s potential or promise, but, that was \-- you know
\-- that was the intent that was at that point to sort of cover one
chunk of the introduction.

Whether that still fits all of your needs is \-- needs to be revisited.

MS. DILLEY: Also, I think Josephine\'s point was just because this
isn\'t the title or whatever we end up with as the title.

DR. LAYTON: But, I would ask Josephine, on that sentence that begins
besides this introduction this paper discusses the promise of
biotechnology, do you want to change that word, potential, to potential,
top of page 2? Second line at the end.

DR. HUNT: If we\'re going to use potential we should use potential all
the way through. If we\'re going to use promise we should use promise
all the way through.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. But, if we have no title now which would you prefer?
Potential?

DR. HUNT: Potential, yeah, sure.

DR. LAYTON: Thank you. Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Duane and then Carol.

MR. GRANT: I like promise, but, it\'s not a big deal. That\'s not
exactly why my card was up for. I wonder if this is the place where we
want to add a line, if this is a paragraph where we want to add a line.
If you go to page 2 where we talk about a series of topics discussed and
so on, if we want to add a line there in that paragraph saying that some
topics were intentionally excluded from this report and that\'s where we
would list insects, anything else that we stumble onto as we go through
this to say that we \-- you know \-- they were discussed and they were
set aside.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, that probably makes sense because that second \-- that
middle paragraph is all about the term biotechnology so that defines the
scope and it would logically follow that you further define what was
discussed and what wasn\'t.

MR. GRANT: I would think so.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay.

DR. LAYTON: So, in here, somewhere in that, between each topic was
initially identified and the topics included were not of equal and have
some topics were intentionally excluded from this discussion?

MR. GRANT: Yes. I mean, that would be whoever does the wordsmithing
needs to find the right place to stick it in, but, I think that\'s the
appropriate place to put it.

MS. DILLEY: Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yes. I wanted to go back to the potential and
promise. I\'d like that to be when we suggest potential benefits and
possible concerns and the opportunities and challenges ahead.

MS. DILLEY: So, let me just understand how that reads. This paper
discusses the potential benefits and concerns \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And possible concerns.

MS. DILLEY: And possible \-- potential benefits and possible concerns
of?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Biotechnology.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Modern biotechnology or whatever it is.

MS. DILLEY: To get the right terminology in there.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: And new opportunities and challenges ahead.

MS. DILLEY: Ahead.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I was trying to make it parallel, but, we can drop
the range of.

MS. DILLEY: You\'re trying to capture more of a range of what was
discussed in this paper so setting up what the reader\'s about to read.

Greg?

DR. JAFFE: I don\'t have exact language for this, but, and my proposal
is actually to postpone discussion of this paragraph until we\'ve
completed the report or have a better sense of the report.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

DR. JAFFE: But, I don\'t think the sentence beside this introduction,
this paper discusses, whether we use Carol\'s words or the words that
are here, I don\'t think it captures what this report actually has. In
my mind it doesn\'t. It talks more about the discussion we had and
we\'ve had a discussion about the potential benefits and concerns about
biotechnology. I don\'t think this paper again is going to spend very
much time on that and this comes out as suggesting that that\'s what
this paper is about.

I don\'t think we\'re going to talk about the opportunities and
challenges. I mean, talk about these topics. And that\'s the main point
of the paper. So, I think I would rearrange this paragraph and put some
of the final sentences up earlier and then put \-- I don\'t \-- this, to
me, is supposed to be the topic sentence of what this paper is about and
I don\'t think this captures it and I don\'t have language to actually
put it in yet, but, I propose that we don\'t put it in yet until after
we have a better feel for what the paper is.

And I would suggest moving these other things. We have more making this
paragraph on the committee discussed the opportunities and challenges.
We discussed the potentials and we came up with a series of topics. That
discussion led to a series of topics and this paper is an elaboration of
those topics with some background to put those in context, something
along those lines instead.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. May I suggest, Greg, drop the besides this
introduction, capitalize this and instead of paper \-- it\'s not the,
it\'s this \-- to drop this paper and it\'s the committee discussed.
Make it \-- and the range of potential benefits and possible concerns
and the opportunities and challenges ahead for modern biotechnology or
whatever we have it and briefly \-- and then a period maybe.

And then a series of topics discussed. I don\'t know how to fill that
in, but, that\'s where you\'re talking about. That seems to be about
committee work.

DR. JAFFE: Many, many months. I don\'t think we briefly discussed them.
I mean, we elaborated. We spent months and months discussing them. What
this is is this is a brief written \--

DR. LAYTON: Synopsis.

DR. JAFFE: \-- synopsis of those discussions.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I think you\'ve made a very good point about this
paragraph being simply that we\'ll need to come back to.

DR. LAYTON: When we get to the end.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: When we get \--

MS. DILLEY: And hopefully it mirrors the outline because, I mean,
supposedly that\'s how it fits together cohesively.

DR. JAFFE: Well, the outline\'s only about \-- the outline\'s only about
the introduction. This paragraph I actually think discusses the whole
\--

MS. DILLEY: The whole range.

DR. JAFFE: \-- paper.

MS. DILLEY: You\'re right. You\'re right. And you\'re right that we\'ll
probably need to really pin this down when we\'ve got more of the rest
of the text flushed out.

Pat, do you have anything?

DR. LAYTON: No, I\'m sorry. I\'m trying to get that down.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, we know that that middle paragraph also is the
terms that we need to pin down and we\'ll do that after lunch. Did you
want to say something?

DR. LAYTON: I was just going to say I did compare. This is almost word
for word, with the exception of about three words, the paragraph or the
term used in the tracing and labeling, global traceability and labeling
document. I just wanted to give you that background if that\'s where we
took it if we didn\'t create this, that whole block.

DR. HERDT: This is the one that starts in this paper the term
toxicology?

DR. LAYTON: Yes. Yes.

DR. HERDT: Are we talking about that now?

DR. LAYTON: She wants to come back to that.

MS. DILLEY: You can if you want.

DR. LAYTON: What did you want to do?

DR. HERDT: I don\'t know. You know, I mean, we\'ve been dancing around
it. I mean \--

DR. LAYTON: Do it. Just jump in.

MS. DILLEY: I didn\'t know it was different so if it\'s not that
different then let\'s just go ahead and talk about it.

DR. HERDT: All right. I should have put this in the comments when I was
doing comments, but, it seems to me that before you get to the one, two,
three, genetics is not mentioned here at all and the central thing here,
I mean, what we\'re talking about is we\'re changing the genetics of
these living organisms. And I don\'t see that at all.

In this paper the term biotechnology is used to refer to a range of
tools, including traditional breeding that makes that alter genetic
composition of living organisms. Don\'t you have to have genetics in
there?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I just \--

DR. HERDT: Am I missing something?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Just one check I want to make with people. I think the
first sentence is exactly a sentence that was adopted by the committee
in its previous paper so you can certainly change the definition if you
want to, but, that was a sentence that the committee had worked on
fairly hard to come up with a consensus statement.

I don\'t know. I just sort of want to flush that out before \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, Bob, do you have a way of modifying that? I mean, do
you have suggested language to

\-- I\'m not \-- I didn\'t hear. Bob, say it again. I guess I didn\'t
get it. Where you wanted genetics, changing the genetics of living
organisms? Is that \--

DR. HERDT: We\'re altering the genetic composition of living organisms.

DR. LAYTON: But, breeding techniques don\'t necessarily do that and
nature itself does it.

DR. HERDT: Breeding techniques don\'t, do they?

DR. LAYTON: I would actually have to say that I don\'t think it alters
the genetic composition. It may move one gene from another gene, but,
the genes are all out in the plant community. I mean, in that particular
\-- I mean, that\'s like \--

DR. HERDT: Well, okay. Take it away and just read it as it is. It refers
to a range of tools including traditional breeding techniques. Okay. So
we know that traditional breeding techniques, however you define that,
we include that and something else \-- and something else. What\'s the
other \-- what\'s the something else? I mean, to alter living organisms
to make modified products. Improve plants or animals. I don\'t know what
improved means. Develop microorganisms for specific uses. I mean, to me,
this does not identify anything about what we\'re talking about.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: The second sentence does.

DR. LAYTON: Yes.

DR. HERDT: The paper focuses mostly, but, not exclusively on a subset of
products, namely those produced through genetic engineering or
recombinant DNA process. Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Is it better to use that as a lead-in or what? I mean, does
that help?

DR. HERDT: I mean, it does, but, \--

MS. DILLEY: This is why it takes so long for us to land on it. If you
can think of the organization of those statements that can improve what
we have here we need to wrestle with that.

Mardi, do you have a comment? And then Carol.

DR. MELLON: What about just in place of the word tool in the second line
of the paragraph substitute gene transfer technologies. So, the term
biotech would be a range of genes includes traditional breeding
techniques that altered the genetic da, da, da, da, da.

Now, obviously biotech refers to more than gene transfer technologies
but it certainly does include them.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Why don\'t you just call it genetic technologies?

DR. HERDT: Yeah. You could have \-- you could just put genetic tools.

DR. MELLON: Genetic tools?

DR. LAYTON: Yeah.

DR. MELLON: That would be even shorter like that.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Would you then drop that genetically altered living
organisms because I like that particular phrase.

DR. HERDT: Yeah, yeah. If you have genetic tools before you come to the
numbers then you don\'t need it.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I think it\'s a little less direct than what Bob
suggested earlier.

MS. DILLEY: Carole Cramer?

DR. CRAMER: I guess I just wanted to remind the committee of the whole
point of this first sentence was to say that biotechnology is extremely
broad and that genetic engineering is a very small subset of what we
consider biotechnology. So, that was the context of this is to say
there\'s a whole bunch of applications of biotechnology. We\'re focusing
on one subset.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, that\'s a good point. It\'s actually and then we also
need to land on a term that we use somewhat consistently throughout the
report. So, Bob and then Carol.

DR. HERDT: Well, I agree, but, aren\'t those tools used for the purpose
of changing the genetics?

DR. CRAMER: Not always.

DR. HERDT: Or diagnosing the genetics.

DR. CRAMER: Mutation is a biotechnology.

DR. HERDT: I believe \-- are we including fermentation of modern
biotechnology?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: No. That\'s modern, but, this is

\-- this first sentence talks about biotechnology, not modern
biotechnology.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: The definition of biotechnology is the application of
technology to living organisms.

DR. LAYTON: Absolutely.

DR. HERDT: Yeah, so, then just leave it at that.

DR. DYKES: Are you okay if we say we make it genetic tools?

DR. HERDT: I\'m okay if we use Alison\'s definition and then you say \--

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: But, we\'re actually saying in this paper we use the
term biotechnology to do something. So, I don\'t know. I mean, that is
the general definition of biotechnology, but, if we \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Say it again.

DR. HERDT: And it says this paper focuses mostly on. That\'s okay. And
then you\'ve gone into what you\'re focusing on.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Biotechnology is defined as the application of
technology to living organisms.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: And then you drop the rest of that and say this
paper focuses mostly on?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

DR. MELLON: On genetic technology.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: In this paper the term biotechnology is and the
definition that you say and then drop the rest of the sentence and say
this paper focuses mostly.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Yeah, I would almost drop in this paper. I think if
you\'re going to use the general definition of biotechnology you can
just say that biotechnology is the application of technology to living
organisms. And then maybe this paper focuses on.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: So you can drop the one, two, and three.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi?

DR. MELLON: Well, I think if we\'re going to use the big, broad
definition of biotechnology is any practical use of living organisms
then we have to say that in this paper is really focused on genetic
technology and we need to get in the idea that the genetic \-- that
biotech \-- that biotechnology in the context of genetic technology
includes traditional breeding, but, we\'re not really talking about
that. We are even further, you know, further down in the weeds talking
only about the set of technologies, you know, that are genetic.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I think the second sentence says that, Mardi.

DR. LAYTON: So, what Mardi was suggesting was this paper focuses mostly
on genetic technologies.

DR. JAFFE: But, the focus is on genetic engineering.

MR. OLSON: Focuses on products produced for genetic engineering. We
don\'t need the "mostly but not exclusively subset" on that sentence. It
needs to be crossed out. This paper focuses primarily on products
produced through genetic engineering or recombinant DNA processing
primarily on these product.

DR. LAYTON: So, say that again, Ron.

MR. OLSON: This paper focuses, and you cross out most all the way to,
this paper focuses primarily on products produced through genetic
engineering and recombinant DNA derivatives.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Primarily on products produced through.

DR. JAFFE: Is it products or organisms?

MR. OLSON: I just said products but we can change products to some other
name if you\'d like.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Well, it says on organisms and derivatives and products
derived from those organisms.

DR. JAFFE: Yeah, I have a problem with that final phrase.

MS. DILLEY: Then what would you suggest?

DR. JAFFE: I would delete that phrase. I think we\'re talking about \--
I don\'t think that phrase should be in that sentence. I think it just
should say the paper focuses primarily whatever on organisms that are
produced through genetic engineering or recombinant DNA processes.

MS. DILLEY: So, organisms, not product?

MR. OLSON: I think it should be products, not organisms. I think it
should be products because then you\'re bringing the consumer side if
you\'re talking about products.

DR. JAFFE: Well, my problem is later on when we get into the discussion
and things like that products are sometimes seed and sometimes finished
food products. We have to somewhere put into this definition what we
mean by products because then we use the products, products \-- when we
get down to the next one, products of modern biotechnology referred to
these organisms. And we\'re talking about them as \-- therefore,
organisms, to me, are seeds. Organisms aren\'t strawberries.

DR. LAYTON: Oh.

DR. JAFFE: Organisms are things that are reproduced \-- that can
reproduce on themselves. That\'s my understanding of an organism. It\'s
something that\'s reproducible. It can \-- you know \--

DR. LAYTON: But, a seed can be viable or non-viable.

DR. JAFFE: I understand that. Products can be both organisms and not.

DR. LAYTON: Why all products because we\'re talking about both.

DR. JAFFE: Well, somewhere else we have to \-- maybe we need to define
the product we have because we use the word products to mean both at
different times and you don\'t know which one you mean.

DR. HERDT: You have a very broad definition of product.

DR. JAFFE: Right. You want to keep the products in there, but, when you
say derivatives of the product you just have to at some point then \--

MS. DILLEY: Explain that.

DR. JAFFE: Distinguish the different kinds of products you\'re talking
about here and then you have to distinguish them later or come up with a
different term for the different ones.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Could somebody write on the big sheets of paper up
there where we are on this? I\'d offer to do it, Paul, but, my
handwriting is terrible.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: I think the concept of product is that it is something
commercially or it is something that can be traded for, bought, or,
sold.

DR. MELLON: Right.

DR. LAYTON: Is that the term product to everybody? It can be traded for,
bought, or, sold. If it\'s not one of those things it\'s not a product.

MS. DILLEY: But, we use products in here differently than that.

DR. LAYTON: Well, that\'s what I\'m trying to find out. And maybe when
we use products differently from that we actually have the term \--

MS. DILLEY: But, I think you\'re offering organism as the alternative,
right?

DR. DYKES: Trade for, bought, or sold?

MS. DILLEY: Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I was just going to suggest that I think we\'ve
agreed to the first part of the next sentence and it might help us
figure out the last part. This paper focuses primarily on products and
then we got \--

MR. DEMORGAN: Isn\'t that Greg\'s questioning though?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Well, I think what he\'s suggesting is we\'re going
to have to define what products. Is that right, Greg?

DR. JAFFE: Yeah. I mean, here, this first step talks about it\'s living
organisms and I\'m trying to \--

DR. HERDT: We then say this paper focuses primarily on organisms
produced through genetic engineering or recombinant DNA processes and
\--

DR. JAFFE: That follows in the first sentence.

DR. HERDT: Yes and derivatives of those organisms.

DR. LAYTON: You could say the products that

are \--

DR. JAFFE: Or produced from those organisms there.

DR. HERDT: And products produced from those organisms. Does that work?

DR. LAYTON: That\'s good. Can you capture that?

DR. HERDT: Well, \--

DR. LAYTON: This paper primarily focuses on?

DR. HERDT: Organisms produced from \-- what we have here \-- produced
through genetic engineering or recombinant DNA processes.

MR. DEMORGAN: Not on products.

DR. HERDT: Not on products.

DR. LAYTON: Organisms and \-- wait a minute. Produced through genetic
engineering or recombinant DNA processes. At some point in time in the
past we thought there was but I think that had to do with \-- I don\'t
remember.

DR. HERDT: We can come back to that.

DR. LAYTON: We can come back to that.

DR. HERDT: And \--

DR. LAYTON: And?

DR. HERDT: And products derived from those organisms.

DR. MELLON: And products that either are or are derived from those
organisms. But, then the products or the organisms are the products like
\--

DR. LAYTON: Yeast.

DR. MELLON: \-- right, or corn? So, either they are or they\'re derived
from those products so that would include the oils that are modified.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: From those organisms.

DR. LAYTON: Derived from those organisms. Okay.

MR. DEMORGAN: Biotechnology is the application of technology to living
organisms. This paper focuses primarily on organisms produced through
genetic engineering or recombinant DNA processes and products that
either are, or are derived from, those organisms.

DR. HERDT: Now can we focus on GEA recombinant DNA?

DR. LAYTON: Are they the same or different? Carol?

DR. CRAMER: I use them interchangeably.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, I think you use recombinant DNA to make
genetically engineered organisms. And, so, to me, I mean, you can do
recombinant DNA and not make genetically engineered organisms.

DR. JAFFE: That is true.

DR. VILKER: I think, to me, RNA technology is a subset of genetic
engineering tools, but, not necessarily a subset of recombinant DNA. The
ability to manipulate RNA processing within a living organisms is
separate from recombinant DNA technology. So, I\'m just offering an
opinion that genetic engineering is a more \--

DR. LAYTON: Is a broader term.

DR. VILKER: \-- is a broader term and recombinant DNA is recombinant.

DR. LAYTON: So, you would suggest deleting recombinant DNA and leave it
as genetic engineering. Is everybody fine with that?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I just make one comment on that to think about which
is to say to make sure that there are enough touchstones on this paper
for other readers, that all the terms, that all the words that might be
relevant to this plug in. That\'s the one question that you need to
think about, whether it\'s worth putting them both in with one in
parentheses or deleting one. It\'s entirely up to you.

DR. JAFFE: We need to define genetic engineering, I guess is the
question.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I think \--

DR. JAFFE: Or a better term the author may know.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Well, that\'s true. Yeah, well, we could. I think
there\'s \-- you can do down the path of then defining \--

DR. JAFFE: Everything.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: \-- everything and I don\'t know that that\'s the intent
of the introduction.

DR. JAFFE: Fine.

MS. DILLEY: Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yeah. I think we\'ve just about gotten there, but, I
think we have to insert the term modern biotechnology in there because
that\'s what we\'re doing is differentiating between biotechnology and
modern biotechnology, aren\'t we?

DR. JAFFE: Well, I think the sentences are great. Now we have to get to
what terms we want to use that\'s not going to be different. We have to
define the terms we want to use because we\'ve just described the focus
of the paper.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: I think we\'ve done a good job of describing the focus of the
paper. Now we need to define how we\'re going to define \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Well, then I think we ought to just use genetic
engineering and drop the rDNA because then we\'re going to come down and
talk about definitions, how we use the terms and we can probably deal
with it there.

MR. DEMORGAN: So, is there anybody that wants to argue to keep more rDNA
or raise the issue?

MS. DILLEY: So that picks up from in that last sentence of that
paragraph in this report the terms and then we\'ve got to pick which
terms we actually are going to use.

MR. OLSON: Do we need the term processing in there?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Not any more.

DR. LAYTON: Genetic engineering and you\'re saying processes is
redundant.

DR. HERDT: Because engineering and processes are redundant.

MR. OLSON: I\'m just wondering, on the previous one I\'ve got about 20
more words crossed out on the previous one. I don\'t know if that\'s
called editing or we\'re talking about substance here, but, the previous
paragraph, I think there was discussion of parking the \-- there\'s a
lot of places here where why don\'t we just cross out some of the
adjectives and adverbs and stuff like that and just shrink this down,
just get to the meat of the thing. I think that\'s more appropriate for
what we\'re doing.

DR. LAYTON: Well, on that paragraph I want to park it for now and come
back to that one. I think that in some cases I think if we cross out or
shorten sentences we probably need to bring it out.

MR. OLSON: I think I\'m trying not to destroy anything, but, I think we
can make it flow a little easier.

DR. LAYTON: Absolutely.

MR. OLSON: The next sentence in that it says in this report. I think you
can just cross that out. We\'re already in the report so people know
that so you don\'t need to say that.

DR. LAYTON: Should we say the committee uses the terms?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I think it follows from this paper.

DR. LAYTON: This paper. Okay. Okay. Cross that out, in this report.
Capitalize "the."

DR. HERDT: Pat, on the right-hand side, the AVE\'s added in here, I
think is an improvement because we just made genetic engineering a
central point here, we can\'t have it in parentheses in the next \--

DR. LAYTON: So, Alison\'s \-- you\'re suggesting that we take Alison\'s
substitute, potentially with its caveat of we don\'t need in this
report?

DR. HERDT: Right, right.

DR. LAYTON: Yes, ma\'am?

DR. MELLON: I think we can\'t use the word biotechnology derived because
biotechnology is defined as \--

DR. HERDT: I\'m sorry, you\'re right. I agree.

DR. MELLON: That has to be deleted.

DR. HERDT: I was focusing on the \--

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Drop biotechnology derived. Okay. So, what I have
here, Alison, \-- oh, I\'m sorry, Josephine, I didn\'t see your card go
up. I\'m sorry.

DR. HUNT: I have a general comment about consistency. Once we\'ve got
the terminology there are we actually stuck with the same terminology
that make sense throughout the whole document and my comment also
mentioned it would be a good point to say if those terminologies are
used and give an example so that people understand when we say
transgenics and we don\'t know it\'s genetically engineered or vice
versa but for the sake of consistency of our terminology throughout the
document.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: We said that one of the things I said initially was that
we recognized that once this was agreed to we would need to go back and
do a scrub of the document to make sure that the terms are used
consistently throughout.

DR. SLUTSKY: Yes, but, she\'s making a good point because I mean if
you\'re going to use, for example, genetic engineering, let\'s just say
that\'s the term you\'re going to use, that\'s going to conjure up, you
know, specific meanings to different readers because these are all kinds
of terms of art to a certain extent.

As one who\'s unfortunately been involved in defining some of these
terms *ad nauseam*, you know, it\'s hard to define them. So, somewhere I
would agree that somewhere you could say we\'re using the term genetic
engineering and, you know, you will also find, you know, when referring
to the same kinds of organisms and products you will also see the terms
recombinant DNA methodologies or transgenics used, genome.

MS. DILLEY: But, you\'re talking about \-- you\'re defining two
different things. You\'re saying terms used outside of this report refer
to some of the same things. In this report we\'re going to be using \--

DR. SLUTSKY: Would that define \-- I mean, I don\'t know, my feeling is
at least if you\'ve defined things you\'ll have a lot more time to spend
on other things.

DR. HERDT: Josephine, could I ask, are you saying just use one term?

DR. HUNT: I\'m saying you should use one term for consistency of the
document, but, reference in the introduction other terms that other
people may be more used to hearing.

DR. HERDT: Fine. Fine.

MS. DILLEY: This is the Secretary.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: That\'s a good addition.

DR. SLUTSKY: And the Secretary\'s heard, you know, these referred to in
any different number of ways so he may read this and say, oh, genetic
engineering, that\'s this when in fact you mean it more broadly.

MS. DILLEY: So, other terms are \-- that\'s why we, for purposes of this
report we\'re using blank and then stick with it. That\'s what you\'re
suggesting.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: But, you\'re okay with leaving it as four terms that we
will use?

MS. DILLEY: No, that\'s the question.

DR. HERDT: That\'s her approach. She wants to use one term.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. There had been this question that was raised
before about trying to have at least a little bit of flexibility so that
the report reads a little bit better than just having exactly one term
that had been discussed at various points in the future. You could say
that we will use these two terms interchangeably just so it doesn\'t
sound \-- not a big point, but, \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: No, it is a big point because we have to have a \--
I agree that we need that caveat that other people who use these terms
may define these differently, but, if you have to use modern
biotechnology or genetically engineered every time we need to make
reference to it sometimes it pops up three times in the same sentence
and it just, you know, it clinks, so, for the purposes of just
readability I think we\'ve got to have a couple of alternatives there
unless it\'s wrong.

MS. DILLEY: So do we have two that we could use, say to add to the list?
You want to take biotechnology derived out, right?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: But, we\'ve got products of modern biotech,
transgenic, or, genetically engineered.

MS. DILLEY: Alison?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I have a problem with modern biotechnology because
that to me includes marker-assisted selection, a lot of different
techniques.

MS. DILLEY: Can we use genetically engineered and transgenic, both?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, and even there you get some people who will
argue that transgenic has to be intraspecies and that GE could
potentially not be so, but, \--

MS. DILLEY: But, we can suspend that whole thing and say for our
purposes in this report we\'re using these terms interchangeably? I
think if we don\'t then we could take a lot longer to go back and forth.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. The terms genetically engineered and transgenic are
used interchangeably to refer to these organisms and/or their products.

DR. JAFFE: That was fine until we get to the "and/or their products." I
just \-- I think you need to \--

MS. DILLEY: Stop at organisms?

DR. LAYTON: We\'ve already done it right there.

DR. JAFFE: No, that\'s what the paper focuses on. That\'s not the
definitions of what we\'re going to use, for the term we\'re going to
use. I can say the paper focuses on genetically engineered organisms and
the products of those organisms.

The question is what are we going to \-- but, the question is what are
we going to use when we get into the text what are we going to use to
describe what those \-- what we\'re talking about. So, we can say
genetically engineered organism or transgenic organism, but, when we
talk about the products are we just going to talk about that organism as
a product or things derived from that organism as a product.

MS. DILLEY: We need to be more specific than that?

DR. JAFFE: You need to be more specific in the text.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, I think that\'s fine. I don\'t think we can come up
with a genetically engineered organisms and transgenic organisms and use
that throughout because it\'s going to be different. You may say
transgenic animals, or, you may say a transgenic plant. Or you may say
\--

DR. LAYTON: A transgenic seed or transgenic \--

MS. DILLEY: But, if you just leave it at genetically engineered and
transgenic are used interchangeably period.

DR. JAFFE: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: And then later on in the report you just have to be more
specific to your point.

DR. JAFFE: Okay.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: So we\'re getting rid of to refer to these organism, is
that what you\'re suggesting?

DR. JAFFE: No, that\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s however flows from that sentence where we say others
use terms such as genetically modified organisms, whatever range of
looking at different terms that are out there you want to add and then
in this report we\'re using genetically engineered and transgenic for
\-- you know \-- these terms are used interchangeably in this report.
But, that\'s basically the point is we\'re going to use both of those
terms and they\'re being used interchangeably in this report.

DR. LAYTON: So, let me just make this clear. So, when we get to the
point of under new issues, the first one, as biotech products developed
in other countries are in export to the United States \-- this is just
an example, I\'m going to get there \-- at some point in time we\'re
going to substitute for biotech products, which was one of the ones that
we had I think originally, we\'re going to make that consistently the
word \-- we\'re going to figure out what we mean right there and put it
in, right? I just want a process check.

So, we get there we\'re going to figure it out and we\'re going to say
what it is and we\'re going to move on. Yes?

DR. JAFFE: The buzz that I heard this morning was you weren\'t going to
do that in each instances. We were just going to assume that was done.
I\'m happy to do it in these instances but I think if we\'re not going
to do it in each instance I think we need to understand what would
replace that.

DR. LAYTON: My concern is product organism. That\'s where I am because
sometimes we talk about it as a product. Sometimes we talk about it as
an organism and you \-- and that\'s why I\'m trying to make sure where
we are.

DR. JAFFE: I don\'t know what\'s going to be put in there.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, I think that\'s really going to depend on each
case whether because of the ambiguity in the language up to this point.
I think people around the table are going to know what the context is
for each one but we have to make sure we\'ve got it right.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, we need to do a check. Okay. Are we making
assignment on a sentence to be derived on what other terms others use?
Is somebody going to write that over lunch?

DR. HERDT: Why don\'t we just say other terms are used.

MS. DILLEY: Rather than putting a whole roster of terms.

DR. HERDT: I think what you have now is in this report the terms
transgenic and genetically engineering are used interchangeably. Is that
where you are?

DR. LAYTON: Yes.

DR. HERDT: Period.

DR. JAFFE: No, no, you have to refer to the sentence before it.

DR. MELLON: We haven\'t said what it refers to.

DR. JAFFE: It has to refer to something.

DR. LAYTON: Organisms produced through genetic engineering and products
that either/or are derived from those organisms.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And those terms are used to refer to those organisms.

DR. LAYTON: And/or products derived from those organisms. I\'m just
trying to figure out if we\'re referring back to that sentence and
that\'s an "and."

MR. GRANT: We\'re just going to have to see how you use it in the
context because \--

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. GRANT: \-- I mean, some products, it will be very awkward to call
some highly processed products genetically engineered organisms.

DR. DYKES: Did we get rid of the term products in modern biotechnology?

DR. LAYTON: Yes.

DR. DYKES: I\'d like to withhold judgment on whether I agree with that
or not till we see how it flows in the rest of the document because I\'m
with Duane. I don\'t necessarily want to see things referred to as
genetically engineered organisms. I don\'t think that\'s what we
commonly refer to the mass so to lock in now that we\'re going to be
limited to two terms to describe all that I wouldn\'t agree with.

DR. HERDT: We have products, products derived from genetically
engineered organisms.

DR. DYKES: I still \--

DR. HERDT: We haven\'t excluded them.

MS. DILLEY: I think \-- I mean, I think that\'s fine, Bob, but I think
it\'s just that we\'re trying to get down to two terms rather than six
terms used in the document so if we ultimately decide we need three
terms then we\'ll see how it goes. But, I think the point of what we\'re
trying to do is limit it so that we\'ve got some consistency in the
document and it won\'t always be genetically engineered organisms. It
will be genetically engineered transgenic animals or it may be plants or
it may be seeds or it just depends on the context within which we\'re
using that term.

DR. DYKES: All I want to make a point is I just want to wait. I don\'t
want to get to later to say no, you can\'t change that because back on
Monday we decided so I\'m not there on Monday.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, for, now if we could just give it a go on
genetically engineered, but, that doesn\'t mean we have to be
exclusively limited to that. I don\'t want to back ourselves in a
corner. We\'re just trying to see if we can use two terms rather than
the wide number that we have right now.

DR. JAFFE: I still don\'t like that last phrase, to refer to those
organisms for their products.

MS. DILLEY: Say it again. I didn\'t hear you.

DR. JAFFE: What the comment was.

MR. DEMORGAN: What Alison said. So, does anybody have a problem with
what Abby refers to these \--

DR. JAFFE: The parentheses, for their products.

MR. DEMORGAN: \-- organisms, parentheses, their products?

DR. CRAMER: And this is just editorial. It flows from the other
sentence.

DR. JAFFE: Yeah.

DR. DYKES: Isn\'t what we had in here originally what we used for
definitions in the previous paper?

MS. DILLEY: Yes. We started with that. We just modified it a bit.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: Okay. If we can go with this and see how it serves us while
we\'re going through the rest of the document in editing. Josephine?

DR. HUNT: We still haven\'t forgotten about the other definitions we
sometimes used?

DR. LAYTON: Okay. I wrote it down potentially, globally other terms are
used to describe these techniques.

DR. JAFFE: It\'s not technique.

DR. LAYTON: The technique may be the wrong word. I couldn\'t come up
with a better word.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Globally other terms are used.

DR. LAYTON: Globally other terms are used to \-- globally other terms
are used?

MS. DILLEY: And then the question is whether we go ahead and list them
or you just \-- you know \--

DR. LAYTON: And I used the word globally because I think it does vary
regionally around the world.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Would it go in between the organisms and the terms?
We use the terms genetically interchangeably.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, probably in the middle there.

DR. LAYTON: I think it goes better after the term genetically at the
end. Globally other terms are used and that\'s the end of the paragraph.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Are sometimes used.

DR. LAYTON: May be used.

DR. DYKES: Frequently.

DR. JAFFE: Without the such as it means nothing. I mean, if you say such
as then people would say, oh, I\'m European reading this \--

DR. LAYTON: I\'m just trying to make Carol happy.

DR. HUNT: What\'s the concern with putting such as and GMO\'s and a
couple of other examples?

DR. JAFFE: Because otherwise the whole part of it is you\'re trying to
tell somebody if you know this term we\'re generally using this other
term in the same way. If you don\'t put the terms down then \--

DR. LAYTON: I\'m okay with that.

DR. HUNT: GMO\'s.

DR. LAYTON: Genetically modified. You want to spell that out.

DR. JAFFE: I think you want to use part of modern biotechnology because
that\'s what the industry uses a lot so, I mean, \--

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: Anything else on the definitions or terms? It\'s an
excellent place to take a break. So we have an hour and 15 minutes for
lunch and the suggested place for lunch is the cafeteria.

(Discussion off the record)

(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken at 12:03 p.m.)

[A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N]{.underline} 1:20 p.m.

MS. DILLEY: Hopefully everyone had a pleasant lunch.

DR. LAYTON: This announcement is to assure the public that we will be
starting at 3:30 with public comment. However, you must sign up outside
at the table. There is a sheet labeled "public comments" so if you need
to make public comment we need to have you sign up on that sheet before
we start our public comment period. Thank you very much. And written
comments must be handed in as well as making oral comments. Thank you.

MS. DILLEY: And we\'ll have that public comment period right at 3:30.
So, just picking up where we left off, we did a couple of things. We
added in the introductory section, the first two paragraphs that we
tabled. The third big paragraph which is going to be a synopsis of what
the committee discussed until we have a report a little bit more
undeveloped before coming back and fine tuning that. We have a working
definition of what were our scope and definitions we\'re using so we\'re
going to try and stick to those as we move through the report and adjust
if necessary.

And then we started \-- so that\'s where we left off. What we hope to do
then is with the backup of having worked through the outline at least
with the first pass we\'ll continue to go through the document and make
some comments and adjustments to the text and also in referring to the
outline kind of see where there was some additions or modifications,
where we insert that, and even people had actual language to draft and
add to those places that followed some of the comments we had earlier,
that\'s even more helpful.

So, as well as if we have comments and reconfigure if you could write
those down and pass them up this way. We\'re trying to keep a master
copy so that in the next iteration of the report after the meeting we
can capture all the comments and produce another draft that captures
where we are.

So, we hope to move through much of that introduction as possible.
Ideally, all of it today and then we\'ll break no matter what where we
are at 3:15 to take a break. We\'ll see how we\'re going. We\'ll break
at some point. Don\'t worry, I won\'t keep you here until five o\'clock
without a break. That has been used successfully in motivation before.

So, we\'ll do that and after the break we\'ll have a public comment
period at 3:30 and then if we don\'t have an hour and a half of public
comment we will use that time to continue working on the document we
have proposed and hopefully we\'ll get to overall discussion of how
we\'re going to approach the topics of discussion before we actually get
into editing. There were some general comments made about how to
approach about doing that section and we want to talk about those first
before we actually get to the line by line review.

Any questions or thoughts about the agenda for this afternoon? Okay. So,
the place where we left off, I believe, was that third block on page 2
of the introduction. The past decade and the next decade. Just looking
at the historical context, please. This may be where some of the
comments that we talked about earlier such as some of the comments about
other things were happening, not just trace specific genes, but, some
other things that people had mentioned to provide some context as well
as Carol having a placeholder in here for consumer, the products,
benefits to consumers or something. I know I put a placeholder in here
for some of the things you had had.

If there are any other pieces, but, we\'ll also have it in the text you
have in front of you. Pat?

DR. LAYTON: I had a suggestion for dealing with the broader context of
those early discussions during that. In the first paragraph perhaps at
the end a statement such as in a broader context development of
transgenic crops has supported a broad base of genetic research and/or
breeding such as marker-aided selection that have supported increased
agricultural productivity.

DR. JAFFE: Where are you?

DR. LAYTON: Third paragraph over the next decade \-- over the past
decade.

DR. JAFFE: Right.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. And earlier this morning there was discussion about
the broader context of that it wasn\'t just sticking a trait in that
caused increased productivity or changes. It was that broader scope of
research and moving things from one variety to another variety and a lot
of that genomics and marker-aided selection and, so, while you were
discussing that I tried to come up with a sentence and I felt it fit
into that paragraph, perhaps at the end of that paragraph, after the
sentence, because the last sentence is the initial improvements in these
new varieties have been largely directly toward meeting farmers\'
productivity and agriculture management needs and most of the new
varieties were developed with the intent that they be incorporated into
existing undifferentiated commodities strains intended for food, feed,
and other end uses.

And then I thought we could add a statement there, in a broader context
development of transgenic crops has supported a broad base of genetic
research and/or breeding, i.e., marker-aided selection, and I have that
in parentheses, that have supported increased agricultural productivity.
And just as a suggestion to try to just conceptually lay out a framework
that it\'s not just the transgenics, it was the fact that we\'re
focusing on and have done this transgenic development of transgenic
research that has also allowed us to do other things that has helped
with productivity as a suggestion.

DR. MELLON: I would just say that Carol and I also \--

DR. LAYTON: Came up with something?

DR. MELLON: \-- came up with a similar thing and so I\'m not sure \--

MS. DILLEY: In the same spot or different spot?

DR. MELLON: In the same spot. And Carol hasn\'t really read this, so,
she does not have to take any \-- she doesn\'t have to take any
responsibility.

DR. CRAMER: I wrote something and handed it to her and then she \--

DR. LAYTON: She edited it.

DR. MELLON: Well, I don\'t claim it. These things might be too long a
sentences to do orally, but, "advances in transgenic technology have
been embedded in a broad research milieu to enhance breeding and
germplasm improvement, assessment tools, and crop design have led to
substantial increases in agricultural productivity."

DR. LAYTON: I like that.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Read it again.

DR. MELLON: "Advances in transgenic technology have been embedded in a
broad research milieu that through enhanced breeding and germplasm
improvement, assessment tools, and crop design have led to substantial
increases in agricultural productivity."

DR. LAYTON: Any sentence that has that milieu word in it I really like.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. CRAMER: For both Pat and Mardi\'s sentence we can\'t limit it to
advances in transgenic technologies because really what we\'re saying is
the advances in biotechnology which is some of it has nothing to do with
transgenics, but, just our ability to follow gene expression so advances
in agricultural biotechnology or advances in biotechnology flop.

DR. LAYTON: Well, biotechnology we\'ve now defined as the application of
technology to living organisms.

DR. CRAMER: Right. So, if we put in a broad biotechnology research
milieu.

DR. LAYTON: Yes. Yes.

DR. CRAMER: And then that includes traditional breeding and all the
other techniques, the whole deal.

DR. LAYTON: So, perhaps Paul could write that up and then we\'ll look at
it.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: And for Josephine, your question was which other end uses
are there which are not food base uses and wouldn\'t need segregation
from food and fibrous grains and the only thing I have to answer that
was potentially fiber or energy.

DR. HUNT: Because what I was doing was I was referring to the last three
words in this paragraph where we said all other end uses and it wasn\'t
clear to me what other end uses because they weren\'t speaking of food
which would not have been required to be segregated from the food and
feed.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, there are a thousand products that are made from
corn, not all of which are food. You know, the inner structural fibers
of tires are corn based in some tires. You know, there\'s a huge number
of products that people have developed from, you know, alternate uses is
a major \-- is a major deal for research in the Agricultural Research
Service for example.

DR. LAYTON: I think we can make codings (sic) on this one.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, I interpreted it the way Josephine did too and
I don\'t think we\'re arguing that corn can\'t be used for something
other than food and feed but the way it read to me was that you develop
this crop for something other than food and feed and it\'s un-segregated
and it\'s just out there and \--

MS. DILLEY: Do you need to segregate is the question.

DR. HUNT: \-- now it\'s going to be used, for, I don\'t know, lubricants
or something.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Now I understand.

MR. OLSON: I agree with that too. It\'s been approved for food and feed.
It may be used for something else but it was intended to be out there so
we don\'t have to worry about how it says IP and stuff like that.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: But, couldn\'t you just end it after
undifferentiated commodity strains? Because you covered all of the
things. I have one suggestion while you\'re on that. The initial
improvements sentence and the initial improvements and these new
varieties were designed to meet farmers\' productivity and agricultural
management needs.

DR. LAYTON: Instead of had been largely directed towards meeting it was
designed to meet.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Uh-hmm, for two reasons. One, it\'s just more direct
and I\'m going to try to take adverbs out if possible.

DR. LAYTON: Good idea. How about our farmers, are you comfortable with
that?

MR. GRANT: Yeah. I mean, I don\'t have an objection. Designed, intended
for.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Intended is fine by me. It\'s a better word.

DR. LAYTON: Than design?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yeah. Or intended.

MR. GRANT: Intended to or intended.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, that sentence now reads the initial improvements
in these new varieties were intended to meet farmers\' productivity and
agricultural management needs and most of the new varieties were
developed with the intent that they be incorporated into existing
undifferentiated commodity strains.

MS. DILLEY: Michael, do you have a comment on that?

DR. DYKES: Yes. Well, I\'ll comment on that since I had another one as
well. I don\'t know if we want to \-- I\'m fine with that sentence as it
is. I was just going to suggest that maybe we rewrite agricultural
management needs may be just be agricultural weed and pest management
needs. That\'s what the first of them was. Weed management and pest
management.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, farmers\' productivity and?

DR. DYKES: Agricultural weed and pest management needs.

DR. LAYTON: To me pest is weed but that\'s because I\'m into integrated
pest management as weeds.

DR. DYKES: Well, maybe just leave it as is. Just leave it as becuase I
just wanted to maybe put a finer point on it.

DR. LAYTON: Do you want pest in there?

DR. DYKES: I think it\'s fine without it.

MR. OLSON: I would say in grain, grain pest management is insects and
bugs. It\'s not weeds.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. OLSON: In grain it\'s not weeds.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, agricultural management needs covers both?

MR. OLSON: That\'s fine.

DR. DYKES: I\'m okay with it. I would add corn, soybeans, cotton, and
canola.

DR. LAYTON: Corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola. That\'s the first
sentence.

DR. DYKES: Yes.

MR. OLSON: Do we need to put other key commodities?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Key commodity is better.

DR. LAYTON: And I have a question. Is that rapeseed or canola? Because
\--

MR. OLSON: It\'s canola.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: It\'s canola.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. And we call it canola.

MR. OLSON: Do we need to say key commodities? We can \-- biotech
varieties such as corn, soybeans, corn, canola. Just take out key
commodities out. We don\'t need to say as well at the end of the
sentence. We could just leave that out.

DR. LAYTON: So, biotechnology derived varieties such as \--

MR. OLSON: Such as corn, soybeans, canola.

DR. LAYTON: \-- corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola.

MR. OLSON: Have been introduced on some. And you cross as well at the
end. We don\'t need the extra words in.

DR. LAYTON: And then one word I heard was to make two sentences out of
that very long sentence that were intended to meet which was to end
after needs and then delete and and capitalize most. Is that bad or
good?

DR. JAFFE: Could we have a process question? Could we go sentence by
sentence. You keep jumping around here and then some of us are making
comments on the first sentence before you edited that and we\'ll get all
the comments on one sentence and move onto the next sentence. We\'re
doing \-- maybe sort broader questions on the paragraph and broader
issues and then move.

DR. LAYTON: I\'ll do the broader issues first and, you\'re right, I
jumped.

DR. JAFFE: Then we\'re just jumping.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. First sentence.

MS. DILLEY: So, now we\'re back to the first sentence or the last
sentence. So, over the past decades \--

DR. LAYTON: Yes, Michael? Greg?

DR. JAFFE: On the first sentence I had both edits. I would suggest it
read over the past decade transgenic varieties, because here we have
this "modern biotechnology derived," and at least for the next few I\'m
going to keep suggesting those to make sure I understand what our
definitions mean. So, over the past decade, delete successful, just say
transgenic varieties of key commodity crops or however people change it,
but, I\'m just reading what I have here, such as corn, soybeans, or,
cotton have been introduced into the U.S. agriculture and were adopted
by large numbers of American farmers period. And delete the remainder of
the sentence.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Read it again please.

DR. JAFFE: Over the past decade transgenic varieties of key commodities
such as corn, soybeans, and cotton have been introduced into U.S.
agriculture and were adopted by large numbers of American farmers
period.

MS. DILLEY: Is this to your point earlier, Greg, this morning about
distinguishing between domestic and global?

DR. JAFFE: Part of it\'s just an edit that you\'re mixing tenses and
you\'re talking about things that happened in the past and then you say
are being increasingly adopted and the things that happened overseas are
just beginning now, or at least that\'s what the last sentence suggests.
But, if you want to have a sentence, I\'m not opposed to having a
sentence about what\'s happening abroad, but, I don\'t think \-- the
sentence, I think, is too long. The tenses were not correct. So, the
attempt here was to correct the tenses.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. JAFFE: And, so, I made a proposal to delete that part. But, I\'m
open to adding it back in in a different form.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, that first sentence, any other thoughts on that?
Okay.

DR. DYKES: Well, are we commenting \-- what are we doing, commenting on
Greg\'s comments?

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. We\'re trying to work that first sentence so we\'ve
had a couple of different changes to that and Greg has just offered the
most recent modification to that sentence.

DR. DYKES: So now we\'re going to refer to these things as transgenic
varieties? That\'s where we\'re going?

MS. DILLEY: I think if we\'re trying to use this terminology we talked
about this morning, if it just doesn\'t work and we need to add to
another term then we\'ll do that, but, right now if it fits then like
substitute and stay consistent with the two terms we\'re trying to use
interchangeably.

DR. DYKES: I liked the way we had it originally, modern
biotechnology-derived varieties. Which is why I made the caveat I did
earlier this morning, I didn\'t want to get locked in to just these two
examples and then come back to them all during the report.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: You know, we may need to go back there because this
is real basic question. I think we have to decide what we\'re going to
use before we can go forward. I thought we had decided it this morning,
but, if that\'s not the case then we just got to \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, yeah.

DR. LAYTON: Michael did pull that.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I know but we can\'t \--

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, we\'re trying to get some consistency and we also just
need to land on the terms that people are comfortable with.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I just raise one question. Was \-- I know there was
some concern from some people wanted products of modern biotechnology as
a term, that it not be used, but, was that specifically because of the
ambiguity over the word products?

DR. JAFFE: For me it was.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: As opposed to biotechnology derived \-- modern
biotechnology derived varieties or something?

DR. JAFFE: I don\'t have a problem using products of modern
biotechnology. If we defined that for organisms then we just use it in
the context of when we\'re talking about organisms. My problem was that
we used it sometimes in the context of organisms and sometimes in the
context of food or things derived from it and that\'s where my problem
was when in other places in the text I had confusion about that. But, I
don\'t have a problem with that being one of the terms we\'ve decided to
define.

I just think we need to define it.

DR. DYKES: I\'m fine when we\'re talking about organisms we refer to
organisms. In this case, I don\'t think we\'re talking about organisms.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I think I actually raised that because that\'s an
ambiguous term to me, but, Bernice, you\'ve had some experience with
this definition. Is modern biotechnology, is that now genetically
engineered crops?

DR. SLUTSKY: All I can tell you is that the international community
spent how many years, Elizabeth and Michael? And the term modern
biotechnology is the term that, for example, could have deleterious
uses. It\'s a term that Biotech Protocol uses. The U.S. government
sometimes uses it. And it has a definition associated with it and \--

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: And what is the definition? I mean, is it genetically
engineered or something else?

DR. SLUTSKY: Well, it\'s \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Close.

DR. SLUTSKY: \-- close. And that is it has to be transferred genes
between unrelated species.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It does have species?

DR. SLUTSKY: Yes. But, I mean, that was done not just for scientific
reasons, so, but, it\'s not a term that\'s unfamiliar. It\'s a term that
we often use. We always, for example, from the government\'s perspective
we always use \-- put modern in front of biotechnology to kind of, you
know, make a demarcation between the technologies and the
biotechnologies at large and the more \-- you know \-- the newer
technologies associated with genetic engineering and DNA methodologies,
genome mapping, you know.

MS. DILLEY: So, if we added that, if we added parts of modern \--

DR. CRAMER: We haven\'t finished this discussion. I mean, some of \-- am
I the only one that\'s bothered by the word modern which is in ten years
from now what we\'re doing now might be considered ancient and that\'s a
transient term so if you\'re saying \-- you know \-- if we look at this
document in ten years and you\'re calling it modern biotechnology
that\'s a temporal thing that changes and it seems like if you\'re going
to pick a term that you\'re trying to have a definition to have modern
as the piece of it even though it\'s clearly been accepted and already
integrated semantically bothers me.

DR. MELLON: Me too.

DR. SLUTSKY: Sure, it\'s had a lot of acceptance, so, yeah.

MS. DILLEY: I guess the \-- so the question is whether we can still come
up with the terms that we can use interchangeably in this and we\'ve got
genetically engineered and transgenic is used interchangeably and we\'ve
got different perspectives on the use of modern biotechnology. So,
that\'s what we need to come to grips with.

MR. CORZINE: Abby?

MS. DILLEY: Leon?

MR. CORZINE: See if this helps this or not because you\'ve used modern
because you\'re talking about over the past decade and I would worry a
little bit but over the past decade varieties derived from modern
biotechnology. You say it that way. And I don\'t know if you even still
need to put in, I suppose maybe you do, the key \-- work in the key
commodities such as corn, soybeans, and cotton such as \--

MR. OLSON: You can just put such as.

MR. CORZINE: Such as.

MR. OLSON: You don\'t need to call it a key commodity.

MR. CORZINE: Yeah, there you go. Have been rapidly adopted by American
farmers and they are being increasingly adopted by farmers around the
world or in other countries.

MS. DILLEY: I guess the question in my mind is whether or not we\'re
talking about a broader scope or we\'re coming back to our more specific
scope that we talked about earlier and whether we want to use that term
as well. So, because the way we defined biotechnology is broader than
when we were trying to focus on the particular, a slice of that. Does
that make sense?

DR. LAYTON: I think the issue here is, as I understand what I\'ve heard
these folks say, is for this sentence to use the word modern
biotechnology do we have to go back to what\'s on the wall under item 2
and have the words, the terms, modern biotechnology, genetically
engineered, and transgenic are used interchangeably to refer to these
organisms?

DR. JAFFE: Yes. If you use it you\'ve got to put it up there.

DR. LAYTON: So, the key is are we comfortable adding modern
biotechnology and having now three words that we\'re going to use
interchangeably to mean the same thing?

MS. DILLEY: And still have the full range of perspectives. We have it
bothers me, I like it, and I don\'t care.

DR. HERDT: Does anybody object to what you\'re asking?

DR. LAYTON: Yeah, does anybody object? And I think what I heard Greg say
was as long as we work on the product side of it he\'s not objecting to
it. Carol, do you have a problem with the whole thing here?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Carol replaced \--

DR. LAYTON: The other Carol.

DR. CRAMER: The \-- I have a problem semantically. But, it also is well
accepted and integrated in the documents and has \--

DR. LAYTON: And ten years from now this document won\'t be around.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: So the suggestion is \-- one suggestion on the table is to
reword it to use modern biotechnology and therefore change our
terminology to include modern biotechnology as well. That\'s the
proposal on the table.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Greg, I thought you objected to using modern
biotechnology to refer either to organisms or products. You\'re okay
with that?

DR. JAFFE: I don\'t care as long as we define. I don\'t have a problem
using modern biotechnology. I have a problem using it in this particular
sentence. I only deleted it there because it wasn\'t a term we talked
about before lunch. I was saying that if we use the word products
provided by modern biotechnology we have to be \-- we have to define
what we mean by products. Are we talking about organisms, are we talking
about things derived from organisms?

MS. DILLEY: And this sentence reads using \--

DR. JAFFE: But, we\'re not using the word products here so I\'m not
worried about it here.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. So these are varieties we\'re referring to and we\'re
using modern biotechnology.

DR. JAFFE: Variety.

MS. DILLEY: Variety.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So let\'s go the first sentence again. Was everybody
comfortable then, over the past decade successful modern biotechnology
derived varieties so far?

DR. JAFFE: I think if you define successful.

DR. LAYTON: Successful is going to be deleted. You don\'t need
successful.

MR. CORZINE: I think it reads all right because you put varieties
derived from \--

DR. LAYTON: Modern biotechnology.

MR. CORZINE: Right.

DR. JAFFE: That\'s fine.

DR. LAYTON: Varieties derived from \--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then what happens to key commodities?

DR. LAYTON: I know.

MS. DILLEY: Key commodities lost and it reads such as.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: What about varieties of modern biotechnology such
as?

MS. DILLEY: Varieties derived from modern technology such as and then I
think canola was added.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: Wait a minute. If you have a BT canola, for example, \-- I
don\'t even know if it exists \-- is that a variety?

MR. CORZINE: It could be in a variety, but, it\'s not a variety.

DR. LAYTON: But, I don\'t see the difference between the word canola and
corn. That\'s why I asked if we were talking about rapeseed or canola.

MR. CORZINE: It\'s canola. Canola.

DR. LAYTON: Are those the same two things to you all?

GROUP IN UNISON: No.

DR. LAYTON: What are they to you that\'s different?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: One is high erucic and one\'s low erucic.

MR. GRANT: One is edible and one\'s industrial.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: All canola is rapeseed.

DR. LAYTON: All canola is rapeseed, but all rapeseed is not canola. I\'m
sorry, that\'s the way I learned. So that was the reason why all corn is
corn but not all \-- so is it rapeseed or is it canola?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rapeseed.

DR. LAYTON: It\'s rapeseed. I\'m sorry. I think we should go with
rapeseed. Would the Secretary know what \-- he would know what rapeseed
is. And then it\'s a variety of rapeseed.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, can you give that to us again?

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Over the past decade varieties derived from modern
biotechnology such as corn, soybeans, cotton, and rapeseed have been
introduced in U.S. \-- and this was a question, is in U.S. and we\'re
okay with that \-- agriculture and rapidly \-- and adopted by large
numbers of American farmers.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Just a comment. I think if you were to leave in
commodities and say commodities such as and get rid of key if you\'d
like then the question of whether it\'s rapeseed or canola vanishes
because canola is a commodity and corn is a commodity.

DR. LAYTON: And soybeans are a commodity.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

DR. LAYTON: It\'s when you take out the commodity that\'s the issue.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

DR. JAFFE: Plus, even commodities \-- people understand what canola is,
but, they may not understand what rapeseed is.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

DR. JAFFE: I mean, I\'m sure the Secretary understands it, but, if since
we\'re writing to a broader audience.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Varieties derived from modern biotechnology \--
varieties derived through modern biotechnology of commodities such as
corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola. Yes, ma\'am?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Developed using derived from? I don\'t know about \--

DR. LAYTON: Developed using modern biotechnology.

DR. BUSS: Or you could say with the past decade modern biotechnology has
been used to develop varieties of commodities such as corn, cotton, and
canola.

DR. LAYTON: That is passive. Is that passive? Okay. I do want to figure
out what we were going to end it in. Do we agree with Greg\'s stopping
of the all being increasingly farmers in other countries as well because
I think that\'s addressed in the next paragraph anyway. And, so, it\'s
really going to be have been introduced in U.S. agriculture and \--

DR. BUSS: I was going to suggest actually just saying have been
introduced and adopted by \--

DR. LAYTON: Introduced and adopted.

DR. JAFFE: I said by large numbers of American farmers.

DR. LAYTON: And largely adopted.

THE GROUP IN UNISON: No.

DR. LAYTON: No. Adopted by \--

DR. JAFFE: By large numbers.

DR. LAYTON: \-- large numbers.

MR. CORZINE: You might want to put a period after introduced in U.S.
agriculture and then say this has been or they have been rapidly adopted
by American farmers and are. I think we need to include the recognition
that it has been increased around the world.

MR. GRANT: I like Leon\'s suggestion.

DR. JAFFE: I thought that was a separate sentence. You just said the
U.S. farmers and then a separate sentence on when or if they\'ve been
adopted. You said they\'ve been introduced in the U.S. Are you going to
say \-- you have to say they\'ve been introduced in those countries or
are being introduced. You\'re talking historically here about what
happened in the past ten years. You\'re saying they have been introduced
in the U.S. and they\'ve been rapidly adopted.

But, then you\'re trying to say here and are being increasingly meaning
recently. You\'re using a different tense. If you want \--

MS. DILLEY: You\'re right.

DR. JAFFE: \-- have a sentence you should have a sentence saying more
recently they have been introduced in foreign countries and are being
adopted there, but, in the same sentence.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Are you okay if we say that?

DR. JAFFE: In a separate sentence.

DR. LAYTON: In a separate sentence.

MS. DILLEY: You guys aren\'t disagreeing with it. Substantive content.
It\'s just the way we\'re framing it, phrasing it two or one.

MR. CORZINE: Right. You drop out the \-- just stop after introduced.
They\'ve been rapidly adopted by American farmers and adopted by farmers
in other countries.

DR. JAFFE: No.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, but, that sounds like they\'ve been introduced in the
U.S. but they\'ve adopted elsewhere.

DR. JAFFE: They\'ve been introduced in the U.S. and other countries then
say it, but, you\'re adding a \--

MS. DILLEY: He\'s trying to be consistent about introducing and
adopting. Okay. And you\'re agreeing. So, it\'s just right now.

DR. DYKES: If I can, my suggestion is introduced in the U.S. and other
countries is accurate.

DR. LAYTON: Introduced in the U.S. and other countries?

DR. DYKES: Uh-hmm. And then you might comment what Leon was making which
makes it correct now.

DR. JAFFE: Just say, you can say been introduced in the U.S. and other
countries have been adopted by farmers period. Is that what you want to
say?

DR. LAYTON: No.

DR. DYKES: Well you\'ve got two sentences. You go back to your comment
about two sentences. Introduced in the U.S. and other countries and then
whatever Leon had there. I don\'t remember what you had there, Leon,
but, whatever you had would be applicable then because you now got them
introduced in the other countries.

DR. LAYTON: So what was your second sentence?

DR. DYKES: Leon, what was your other sentence?

MR. CORZINE: What was my sentence?

MS. DILLEY: It had something about \-- okay, now you divided it up into
it\'s been introduced in the U.S. and other countries. The second
sentence, if I\'m following you, is that it\'s been adopted by growers.

MR. CORZINE: Rapidly adopted by American farmers.

MS. DILLEY: So that\'s how we\'re dividing up the sentences right now.

MR. CORZINE: And farmers in other countries \-- and increasingly \--

DR. LAYTON: And increasingly by farmers in other countries.

DR. JAFFE: I mean, I would still \-- I think you get rid of the rapidly
increasing and just say they\'ve been adopted by farmers in the U.S. and
other countries.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Great.

DR. JAFFE: Increasing suggests forward. Again, your tenses are wrong and
\--

DR. LAYTON: Right.

MS. DILLEY: I didn\'t hear any disagreement with what you just said.
Okay.

DR. LAYTON: We\'ll handle that. Is there anything on the next sentence?
The new \-- the initial improvements in these varieties. What we wrote
was the initial improvements in these new varieties were intended to
meet farmers\' productivity and agricultural management needs period.
Most of the new varieties were developed with the intent that they be
incorporated into existing, undifferentiated commodity strains period.
And then finally we were going to add a sentence.

Potentially we liked the one that Mardi and Carol had come up with.
Advances in transgenic technology had been embedded in a broad
biotechnology milieu that through enhanced breeding and germplasm
improvement, assessment tools, and crop design has led to substantial
increases in agricultural productivity.

DR. MELLON: That should be research maybe.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I don\'t have a problem with the sentence but it
doesn\'t seem to quite fit right there.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, we might want to look at another \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Probably other than general interest seems to clank
a little bit there.

DR. DYKES: I\'m with Carol. I like the sentence. I just wonder if it
doesn\'t fit better in another part.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

DR. BUSS: I think it actually fits better at the end of the second
paragraph.

DR. LAYTON: I think you\'re probably right.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Let\'s hold on that placement because that\'s at the
end of the next paragraph, great, but, it sounds like we don\'t have any
\-- Greg, you have a comment about this?

DR. JAFFE: No. I was going to comment but not on that though.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. JAFFE: On the sentence that we went quickly through.

DR. LAYTON: Back one? The one about most or the one before that?

DR. JAFFE: The one that starts with most.

DR. LAYTON: Most of the new varieties were developed with the intent
that they be incorporated into existing undifferentiated commodity
strains. Okay, Greg?

DR. JAFFE: One, I would suggest to leave the word most. I\'m not sure
which ones are and why we\'re not saying some new varieties there.
That\'s just a question I don\'t know, are there some of them that
weren\'t developed for this reason and that may be the case but I\'m not
aware of that. It\'s just that we\'re talking about commodities here.

DR. LAYTON: Just for clarification.

DR. JAFFE: It\'s just a question of clarification. And I would delete
with the intent that. I mean, I guess as a lawyer comes in. With the
intent, I don\'t know whether they had that intent or didn\'t. I mean,
but, I mean, to say were developed to be incorporated into it, I\'m not
sure when they were developing this that was their intent at the time.

MS. DILLEY: So do you say developed and incorporated?

DR. JAFFE: No, the word developed to be incorporated into existing
undifferentiated commodity streams, I\'m just not sure factually whether
that\'s a correct statement that they were developed with that intent at
the time.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. We\'ll take out intent. Alison, did you have a comment
on that?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Yeah. Actually it related to the most and actually
the sentence before that there have been varieties and looking at you,
like high laurate canola and FlavrSavr^®^ tomato. They may not still be
on the market but they were not developed for that particular purpose.
And, so, and it used \--

MS. DILLEY: To use many or you\'re just asking that that statement \--

DR. JAFFE: We\'re just talking about commodities here. We\'re not
talking about tomatoes.

DR. LAYTON: That\'s a commodity.

DR. JAFFE: Well, okay.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Most foods \--

MS. DILLEY: So "most of the" is a good definition.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: And actually the sentence before that used to say
largely directed and I think now it says they were all. The initial
improvements in these new varieties I think now reads as if all of them
were designed to \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: The FlavrSavr^®^ was really developed to meet the
need of producers because it could be \--

DR. LAYTON: Picked earlier.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: \-- yes, picked earlier, harvested more easily and
\--

DR. MELLON: Transported.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: \-- transported more easily.

DR. LAYTON: That was a farmer productivity issue I thought.

MR. CORZINE: I don\'t think you\'re limited to that because I think
there\'s a consumer benefit there too as far as \--

DR. LAYTON: Okay. I\'m just trying to \--

MR. CORZINE: There\'s a difference of opinion.

DR. LAYTON: Let\'s back up. So, were largely intended?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Can we try to talk one at a time so we can \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Carol, what were you saying?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I just said put that largely in there and qualify
that over a product that ought to be best intended to meet producer
needs. Include many made it to market in a reasonable way strikes me as
having the mat running the elephant (sic).

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, you\'ve got high low rate canola too and there
was high oleic soy, I think also, is that correct?

DR. DYKES: High laurate canola was there, high oleic soy is common.

MS. DILLEY: Can somebody read that sentence for me because I\'m
definitely lost what it said now? It said the initial improvements in
these new products \--

DR. DYKES: They were there. They were there. I\'m sorry.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Can I make a suggestion that might get us over it?
The varieties that have been adopted were intended to meet.

MS. DILLEY: So, that\'s how this sentence starts. The varieties that
have been adopted were intended to meet?

DR. LAYTON: Were intended to meet.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: This gets us over the hump of the oil and the
tomatoes.

DR. LAYTON: By implication you\'re saying then, Carol, those other, the
laurate and the oleic have not been adopted to date?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: They haven\'t been as far as I know.

DR. LAYTON: And FlavrSavr^®^ wasn\'t either? So, that\'s why we can say
it that way and it\'s truthful? Alison, you\'ve still got your card up.
I don\'t know if that means you\'re \--

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: No.

MS. DILLEY: So, now that would read, the varieties adopted were intended
to meet farmers\' productivity and agricultural management needs. Most
of the new varieties were developed to be appropriated into existing
undifferentiated variety strains. Ron?

MR. OLSON: There\'s a flavoring out there that\'s designed for soy milk.
We actually make it. So, it wasn\'t designed for the farmer, it was
designed for soy milk. So, I would argue that\'s not a farmer need.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And it\'s transgenic because it\'s Roundup Ready^®^.

MS. DILLEY: So, to take that into account do you want an extra sentence
or do you want to overhaul that sentence to reflect that?

MR. OLSON: Well, that\'s why you get back to largely or something like
that. There are examples that are out there today that are not \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: How about primarily?

MR. OLSON: Primarily works. Yeah, something that just allows it to have
an exception or two exists.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Go back to the original and put primarily, back to
primarily.

DR. LAYTON: Were primarily intended?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yes.

MR. OLSON: That works.

DR. LAYTON: Or primarily intended.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: That works for me if it does for everyone.

DR. LAYTON: But, you don\'t want to \-- we can still leave initial
improvements?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Can someone re-read this?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: The new varieties were primarily intended to meet
farmers\' productivity...

DR. LAYTON: And agricultural and management needs period.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Right.

MS. DILLEY: Leon?

MR. CORZINE: I think we\'re a little bit backwards there as we move
forward, Abby, a little bit here because I think we\'re highlighting
productivity and that\'s not necessarily the case. Out on the farm the
ag management needs are, I would start with where we are on that page
with agricultural management needs for environmental and productivity
increases or improvements. Because that\'s lost there and that\'s a big
reason why a lot of folks, for example, point to Roundup Ready^®^
soybeans or environmental concerns more than productivity concerns.

So, if you put \-- if it read starting on that page, and agricultural
management needs \-- I\'m not sure if needs to improve or environmental
and productivity improvements.

MS. DILLEY: Are you looking for broader things other than farmers\'
productivity and agricultural management needs because it\'s an
environmental consideration for agricultural management?

MR. CORZINE: Well, because it\'s a management issue, but, it\'s a
management issue of the environment in productivity, both, okay. And
this just talks about productivity.

MS. DILLEY: No, this talks about farmers\' productivity and agricultural
management needs.

MR. CORZINE: Right.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s still there.

MR. CORZINE: Well, if you\'re going to say productivity \-- agri
management needs, I think it\'s \-- and then you identify that, if you
go agri management needs for environmental \-- environment and
productivity improvements.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, what you want to do is take the word farmers out
of this and go towards to meet agricultural management needs for
productivity and the environment?

MR. CORZINE: For environmental and productivity improvements.

DR. LAYTON: For environmental and productivity improvements.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I\'m going to object to that because I think it
changes the way the \-- the whole meaning of the sentence and to insert
environmental there. What we\'re emphasizing is that the product \--
there were management, farmer oriented input oriented purposes for the
new varieties and \--

MS. DILLEY: I wonder if it\'s a broader range of

\-- I mean, I don\'t know, you could go one way or another, I guess.
Either elaborate on what you mean by agricultural management needs
because I think what you\'re saying the environment\'s kind of buried in
there, but, so are other things like cost and input. I don\'t know, that
whole mix of things that are agricultural management tools and I guess
the question is how much we key those out or how much we consolidate.

MR. CORZINE: Well, I would say \--

MS. DILLEY: Maybe that\'s a different question in the making.

MR. CORZINE: It is given, it is documented. It isn\'t that we\'re just
trying \-- some are trying to just highlight productivity increases and,
in fact, in many cases there are questions with Roundup Ready^®^ beans
that actually had reduced productivity early on with some of the
varieties and it was more of an environmental concern because of using
more environmentally friendly chemicals and using no till practices that
people went ahead and adapted the technology and in many cases reduced
productivity.

MR. GRANT: I would agree with Leon perhaps I think in to say otherwise
infers that we make decisions as producers based on one single criteria
and that\'s simply not the case. You make your decisions based on a
multiple number of criteria, one of which is environmental issues and
sometimes, depending upon your location, that can be the overriding
criteria or there\'s trade-offs and picking up the environmental
benefits from growing ground up ready beans makes up for the loss or
perhaps an environmental benefit plus the added ease of production, you
know. So, it\'s a blend.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: And you have to put the word costs in there because
it also \-- you know \-- the environmental benefit also came with some
cost benefits.

MS. DILLEY: I mean, I think \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Some costs.

MS. DILLEY: I think there\'s \-- okay, so, let\'s divide this out
because I think there are different points that are being made. What I
hear Duane and Leon saying is you need to un-bundle the agricultural
management needs a little bit more so that productivity is not the
overwhelming thing that stands out here.

There are other things that you\'re trying to get to so there\'s cost
and there\'s environmental improvements and there are some other things,
I don\'t know.

So, it\'s whether you lay those out, and Carol, you bring up another
issue in terms of talking about some of the \-- the other side of it in
terms of costs, etc. So, you can\'t say everything in one sentence. I\'m
just trying to figure out what we say in this sentence in terms of other
than productivity interests do we need to un-bundle those a little bit
more and lay those out.

Plus, you had your hand up.

MR. KREMER: Yes. I guess I would go the other way and, to me,
agricultural management tool you don\'t need. I don\'t know if it\'s the
greatest word in the world, I won\'t argue that, but, I like
agricultural management tools, but, agricultural management, in my
opinion as a farmer, is everything we\'re talking about here, including
productivity, including environment needs, including costs, including
time management. So, I would strike everything else and just call it
agricultural management tools.

MS. DILLEY: Agricultural management tools. Okay. What do you think,
Leon?

MR. CORZINE: The thing that I think is important is that in numerous
places, in this instant and others, we talk about productivity and most
farmers that I talk to, the biotech products were adapted very much for
the things Russell mentioned, but, the environment is a very big part of
that and we have clear examples where productivity was not increased and
in some cases reduced, but, they used the product for environmental
reasons and it wasn\'t always a cost savings either.

Generally, they\'re structured so it\'s about a wash on costs generally.

MS. DILLEY: So what do you think of going back? And I can understand why
if it\'s productivity and ag management tool it sounds like
productivity\'s the overwhelming thing that\'s driving this so if you
put it into the way Russell suggested to say agricultural management
tools \--

MR. CORZINE: Tools is a good term.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. LAYTON: So, it\'s intended to meet agricultural management tools.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Intended to meet?

MR. CORZINE: That doesn\'t sound right.

MS. DILLEY: To provide agricultural management tools? To provide
agricultural \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: To improve. Intended to improve \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Provide and improve agricultural management tools.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. CORZINE: And that\'s okay and it may be good to point that out, but,
then I think we want to be careful that everywhere we keep throwing
productivity and it isn\'t my point is this is not a productivity issue
necessarily.

DR. CRAMER: Could somebody read the final sentence?

MS. DILLEY: Well, let\'s see if we can, shall we.

DR. LAYTON: I think I have the \-- the varieties \-- the new varieties
were primarily intended to improve agricultural management tools.

DR. DYKES: What does that mean? What does that mean to the Secretary?

MS. DILLEY: That the first round of product were primarily providing
enhanced agricultural management tools.

DR. DYKES: Is he going to understand what an enhanced agricultural
management tool is?

MS. DILLEY: Absolutely.

DR. DYKES: Oh, yeah.

MS. DILLEY: Well, this way you give the next sentence is to follow that.
I mean, we\'re not going to get it all right in the first sentence. So,
the question is \-- Carol, you can answer.

DR. CRAMER: I\'d like to throw out the word sustainability and see what
people does because that is encompassed in the field, the concept of
agriculture being compatible with the environment and couldn\'t you just
say \--

DR. LAYTON: You mean agriculture wasn\'t sustainable before 1995? Don\'t
go there, Carol.

DR. CRAMER: I just thought, you know, productivity and sustainability
from the point of view of environmental compatibility.

MS. DILLEY: So, we\'ve got a sentence and we obviously have a paragraph
so, hopefully, collectively, that makes a point in terms of variety in
agricultural and management tools. And then the next sentence reads,
most of the new varieties were developed to be incorporated into
existing undifferentiated commodity streams.

DR. DYKES: It makes no sense.

MS. DILLEY: It makes no sense.

DR. DYKES: No.

MR. GRANT: You know what, I mean, I actually don\'t have a problem
leaving productivity and agricultural management needs in there as long
as we recognize Leon\'s point and farther into the text, assuming we
ever get there, we talk quite a bit about the environmental benefits of
these traits abroad.

DR. LAYTON: It is a new issue.

MR. GRANT: Right. We talked about the need for USDA peer review studies
to flush those out.

DR. LAYTON: Would it help if we just swap them? Those agricultural
management tools and farmers\' \-- and productivity?

MR. CORZINE: Well, that was my point in the beginning, to get the
management up there, but, if you\'re going to use the word productivity
in there you need the word environment or environmental.

DR. DYKES: I think the point of this is so many of these have not \--
they weren\'t \-- they weren\'t adopted for productivity enhancement as
Leon\'s comment is making. They were adopted for other reasons, ease of
management, environmental issues, a whole series of things. It made \--
it changed the way you produce soybeans. It didn\'t necessarily and they
weren\'t marketed to increase ten bushels per acre on productivity. That
wasn\'t why farmers adopted it.

Now, that may happen as an indirect result of not competing with weeds
for moisture and nutrients and other things, but, they were an enhanced
way, an enhanced management tool for weed control in soybeans to change
the way soybeans were produced.

MR. CORZINE: I think if maybe you include just the three pillars
because, to Carol\'s point, there is in most cases there was a cost
savings. I mean, people who took the three pillars of environment, cost,
and productivity, those are the three, and, again, you keep hitting on
productivity is my point and I think put it in parentheses or put it
where it makes sense, but, I think this management tools for the
improvement of the environment, and maybe you could put profitability, I
don\'t know, that\'s another term you could use.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, how about this. Toward meeting \-- to meet \-- to
improve ag management tools \--

MR. CORZINE: How about to provide ag \-- new agricultural management
tools for.

DR. LAYTON: For.

MR. CORZINE: For environmental.

DR. LAYTON: For environment.

MR. CORZINE: And productivity improvements.

DR. LAYTON: How about costs? Environment costs and productivity
improvements.

MR. CORZINE: It improves productivity, you generally increase
profitability.

DR. DYKES: Profitability increases productivity and costs.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Profitability takes up both terms.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, I heard for environment and profitability because
profitability includes productivity.

MR. CORZINE: Yup.

DR. LAYTON: Are you comfortable with that, Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Oh, not really, but, I want to go on.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. We have one more shot at this in January.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: It\'s only one paragraph.

MS. DILLEY: Jerry, does that make more sense then?

MR. SLOCUM: Yeah, it makes more sense.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: And then was the last sentence okay, most of the new
varieties were developed to be incorporated into existing and
undifferentiated commodity streams?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I would drop most of it and just start with the new
varieties.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And I\'m sure exactly where that statement is, but, do
we want to talk about that statement? Did anybody have any additional?
I\'m not exactly sure where it goes, but, advances \--

DR. MELLON: Why don\'t we wait till we find where it goes.

MS. DILLEY: \-- in transgenic technology have been embedded in a broad
biotechnology research milieu.

DR. MELLON: I would just say, even though I wrote it, at least that part
of it, I don\'t like it because it\'s too abstract. It just doesn\'t
seem to say \--

DR. CRAMER: Mardi, how did I write it, if you wrote the last part?

DR. MELLON: You wrote the enhanced breeding, germplasm improvement and
\--

DR. CRAMER: How did I start the sentence? It was simpler, right?

DR. MELLON: Yeah. It was simpler and, so, it talks about the \-- what
I\'m saying is I can\'t write a new sentence right now and I don\'t want
to take us all through it.

DR. LAYTON: And we\'ve got to find a place where we\'re going to put it
so let\'s \--

DR. MELLON: I still like concept, but, a lot has happened that is not
directly attributable to transgenic and, but, I would like it to be
somewhat clearer and, but, I can\'t quite do it.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. We\'ve got time.

MR. GRANT: We have six more pages so we can probably find a place, I\'ll
bet.

DR. DYKES: You\'ll have sufficient time, I believe, Mardi.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, there\'s both a placeholder and a key point
somewhere. We\'re going to stick it in somewhere. Does anybody have any
further comments on that? We\'re not editing the sentence. We know we
need to work on it. Okay.

So, then we come back to the next paragraph and this was \-- I think it
builds on the previous one in terms of rapid adoption, perceived
benefits from these products and continues to elaborate on that point.
And there are a few comments on the right-hand side that go to that
paragraph.

Okay. Ron and then Duane, then Greg.

MR. OLSON: Okay. I\'ll take Greg\'s. I don\'t think we can make a
perceived benefit indication. I\'d cross off the first two lines and
just start in the United States numerous products have reached the
market containing ingredients derived.

MS. DILLEY: I think all the work you did in that previous paragraph,
maybe we can drop that.

MR. OLSON: Have reached the market or you can put ingredients have
reached the market.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, in the United States. Now, is that going to be
U.S.? That was one of our general comments to decide. The first time we
use it we should spell out United States and thereafter we\'re going to
go U.S.

DR. SLUTSKY: I think that it\'s proper to do that. United States and if
it\'s an adjective you can say U.S. Isn\'t that smart?

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

DR. SLUTSKY: Say in the United States.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Then we\'ve got to go in the United States. Okay. So
in the United States.

MR. OLSON: Numerous products containing ingredients derived have reached
the marketplace.

DR. LAYTON: Numerous products containing ingred

\-- containing what kind of ingredients?

MR. OLSON: Ingredients derived co-mingled from commodity streams have
reached the market.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: And then I think that\'s that.

MR. OLSON: Yeah. I mean, we don\'t want to jump all over, but, the very
last sentence kind of says things twice. Transgenic varieties found in
the marketplace have, in general, not been aimed specifically and have
not typically been provided. You can cross out general and not been
aimed specifically at consumers. You can just say transgenic varieties
thus far in the marketplace have not typically provided marketing
advantages to consumer product retailers.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I have a change there, but, I\'ll take yours.

DR. LAYTON: There was a double negative about \-- above that. I hope
somebody\'s going to have that fixed.

DR. HUNT: Yes, I pointed out the double negative. I don\'t understand it
when it doesn\'t read too well, so, I have a suggestion. Have the
consumer products currently in the marketplace \-- controversy, or,
however you pronounce it.

DR. LAYTON: Duane, did you have a comment on that first sentence or
we\'ll come back to that?

MR. GRANT: I did. On the very first sentence, which I think Ron wanted
to take out, unless we had agreed to take it out earlier, the one that
starts with rapid adoption, had we stricken that earlier?

DR. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. GRANT: We had. I was out of the room evidently. Okay.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: You didn\'t want it struck?

MS. DILLEY: Now we start that sentence in the United States.

MR. GRANT: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: We talked about adoption earlier.

MR. GRANT: I believe unless we put it back in I believe we took out the
reference to rapid adoption earlier, didn\'t we?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. GRANT: And one reason I went along with that is because we went
ahead and said it again in the next paragraph which I do think is an
important point of the history in the last ten years. There have been
rapid adoption within the U.S. by producers.

MR. OLSON: So we could say rapid adoption by farmers in the United
States.

MR. GRANT: Yes, the United States is strong evidence. I don\'t like
provides an indication. I think it\'s a little more than an indication.
It\'s strong evidence or is evidence. You don\'t have to use the word
strong. Just is evidence that farmers have received benefits from these
products.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Period?

MR. GRANT: Yeah, period. And then I think I agree that Ron is right in
breaking out the sentence that talks about these products being in the
market. I would like to take the sentence that refers to global planting
up and take it right below what has happened in the U.S. So, we have a
statement about what\'s happening in the U.S. and then you have a
statement about what\'s happening globally.

DR. LAYTON: On that double negative one. Wait, you have to finish that
one and then I\'ll have a suggestion, so, let\'s wait.

MS. DILLEY: So you\'re taking out the first two sentences and now we
have rapid adoption by farmers in the United States provides \--

MR. GRANT: Evidence that farmers have received benefit from these
products period. Received or perceived. Received.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I think the fact that farmers have adopted them probably
means that they\'re believing that they\'re receiving benefits. That was
the point of acception.

MR. GRANT: Right. Actually, I like the word perceived. I mean, there\'s
controversy out there whether or not there has actually been benefits by
producers.

MS. DILLEY: Right. They perceived benefits and then you ended it there?

MR. GRANT: From these products period, yes.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, rapid adoption by U.S. farmers provides an
indication they have \-- that they \--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Evidence.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Provides evidence.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Can I turn that around and just say farmers have
perceived benefits from these products and rapidly adopted them. Just
say it\'s an active.

MR. GRANT: That sounds good to me, Carol.

DR. LAYTON: Farmers have perceived \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: And adopted them.

DR. LAYTON: \-- benefits from these products and have rapidly adopted
them.

MR. SLOCUM: But, farmers have realized benefits from these products.
Before we plant them the first time we perceived there were benefits but
once we planted them we realized their benefits and we continue to
plant.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I\'m going to let you and Duane fight that one, I\'m
going to stay out.

MS. DILLEY: Greg, do you have a comment?

MR. GRANT: Well, we\'re talking about the past ten years and so we\'ve
perceived a benefit and we rapidly adopted it, but, \--

MR. SLOCUM: We perceived a benefit and we rapidly adopted it and we
realized the benefits. They\'re not perceived benefits. They\'re
realized benefits of what\'s in the field today.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or they wouldn\'t be used anymore.

MR. SLOCUM: That\'s right.

MS. DILLEY: Greg, you had a comment and then Josephine.

DR. JAFFE: It was on these couple of sentences. I mean, I was
comfortable with what Ron said, but, I\'m \-- but, if they wanted to be
deleted, but, I\'m also comfortable with keeping them in. I mean, what I
think would make sense to me, and based on what Leon was saying, farmers
in the United States have perceived \-- because we\'re talking about
farmers in the United States \-- farmers in the United States have
perceived benefits from these products \-- from these transgenic
varieties and have rapidly adopted.

Farmers in the United States have perceived benefits from these products
and rapidly adopted them. I would put some sort of comma and put with x
million acres of corn, y million acres of soybeans, and z million acres
of cotton grown in 2000 and A, or, something like that, especially if
we\'re going to keep the second sentence in which talks about one-eighth
of the global world goes to Randy\'s comment.

We should be putting in numbers for the U.S. if anything, so, I would
write the first sentence, so taking what Duane said, but, put a comma
and then put \-- and that shows that they\'re rapidly adopted. That\'s
your proof. I mean, your proof is you\'ve got 70 million acres of corn,
40 million acres of soybeans, or, I mean, you could put percentages, you
could put numbers, but, I think if you\'re going to say rapidly adopted
I\'d like to see a number there.

DR. LAYTON: Can you try to repeat what you just said while Paul writes
it down?

DR. JAFFE: The farmers in the United States have perceived benefits from
these, I would want to say transgenic varieties, and rapidly adopted
them, comma, with x million acres of corn, y million acres of soybeans,
and z million acres of cotton grown in 2000 and I don\'t know if say
2005 or 2004, whatever the USDA says it is. I don\'t care if it\'s
millions of acres or 85 percent of acreage, however you want to do it,
but, I think \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Can have rapidly adopted comma planting x and x and
x?

DR. JAFFE: Yeah, something like that. Then have the second sentence
which says, in addition, transgenic crops are currently planted globally
on one-eighth of the world\'s crop land. Then it sort of makes sense.
You have a number for the first one and have a number for the second
one. But, that\'s what Randy\'s comment was. It\'s a U.S. report but the
U.S. number lead it.

That\'s what I would do for the second sentence.

MS. DILLEY: So, say the second sentence again.

DR. JAFFE: In addition, and then just take where it says transgenic
crops are currently planted.

DR. LAYTON: Globally.

DR. JAFFE: Globally on one-eighth of the world\'s cropland.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

DR. JAFFE: Then I would put for the third sentence, and this is what Ron
was trying to get at, food produced using those transgenic crops as
ingredients has been marketed worldwide period. And that gets to my
issue of products. You were using products in a sort of new undefined
way.

DR. LAYTON: Daryl?

DR. JAFFE: And I had a fourth \-- I had a proposal for the fourth
sentence, but, then \--

DR. BUSS: I just have a question of clarification. I wasn\'t quite sure
how to interpret Randy\'s comment. His comment was reject the reference
and focus on usual citation. Was he disagreeing with the reference at
the bottom and so what should it be?

DR. JAFFE: He\'s saying cite the primary source, not some article, but,
cite the primary source.

DR. BUSS: So, it wasn\'t clear to me whether the data \-- in other
words, is it in truth not one-eighth, or is it by reference citation?

DR. JAFFE: No, I think he\'s just saying don\'t cite \-- cite the actual
people who put out the data and do not cite \--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Get with ISAAA.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, that\'s what he\'s saying.

DR. JAFFE: Yeah, not cite something citing them.

DR. DYKES: And also this transgenic stuff like Mexican maize was not
about global acres planted. It was about another issue so I think taking
that one sentence out, that\'s out of context.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, now we have three sentences proposed on the table.
Duane, did you want to comment on Greg\'s?

MR. GRANT: Yes. Greg said he\'s all right with this so I just would like
to express, I guess, a wish that you use percent of acreage planted
versus number of acres planted just to put it in context. Number of
acres doesn\'t mean anything to somebody who doesn\'t know what the
total is.

MS. DILLEY: Percentage of acreage.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The ERS website or \--

DR. JAFFE: USDA has an acronym for it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay. I have realized or perceived benefits. Yeah,
we\'ve got back and forth on that one.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or realized.

MR. SLOCUM: Realized.

DR. DYKES: My thought is it\'s been happening for ten years so I know
it\'s not perception any more. I mean, you might not agree with the
decision but somebody somewhere is realizing something or they wouldn\'t
do it. They\'re realizing a benefit to some mechanism.

DR. JAFFE: I guess I\'m comfortable with making the leap between
adoption and actual benefits. There may be actual benefits, but, what
we\'re trying to \-- this paragraph, what bothered me at the beginning
was this idea that adoption means that they realized benefits. It
doesn\'t mean that they perceived them because they bought them. Whether
in fact they got them, some farmers may have and some farmers may not
have.

One year they may have gotten benefits, one year they may not have
gotten benefits. Maybe there weren\'t any pests around that year and
they didn\'t get a benefit. So, it\'s one thing to say I think farmers
are very smart people. They wouldn\'t put their money in something that
they didn\'t think was beneficial to them. Whether in fact it was
beneficial may depend on a host of other factors based on the individual
farmer.

So, I\'m uncomfortable. It\'s one thing to say these are the benefits
and the technology. I\'m comfortable saying that. And I\'m comfortable
saying farmers have adopted these. I\'m comfortable saying that they
perceived that they\'ve gotten benefits. But, this sentence, you\'re
trying to put all three of those into a loop as sort of one makes
evidence of the other and I\'m not sure those are the case for all
farmers all the time.

MR. SLOCUM: But that doesn\'t say all the farmers all the time.

DR. JAFFE: Well, but you\'re saying that. You\'re saying \--

MR. SLOCUM: No.

MR. CORZINE: Well, yeah, but, the deal is the record speaks for itself.
I mean, we\'re talking about these benefits have been realized. On a
farm, just like any other business, the percentages would not stay where
they are. And surely that speaks to what Jerry mentioned. So, it\'s more
than perceived because \--

DR. LAYTON: Leon, I wonder \--

DR. JAFFE: They may not stay there a long time.

MR. CORZINE: No, it may not. Where\'s the curve?

MS. DILLEY: I wonder if this is the same kind of thing as ag management
tools where maybe you need a little bit more like have perceived and
realized a variety of benefits and then the adoption follows from that,
that even if you had different perceptions but you\'re realizing
benefits basically the adoption, and the percentage of acres planted,
demonstrates exactly what you\'re saying.

But, you may have grown it one year for one potential perceived benefit
for productivity but maybe you\'ve got a different one in terms of cost.
I don\'t know. It doesn\'t make the direct link as closely, but, maybe
that doesn\'t help.

Ron? To this?

MR. OLSON: I go back to why do we need to say that there\'s benefits.
The basic point is that we\'ve adopted more acres. Why do we have to
give reason why we\'ve adopted more acres.

DR. LAYTON: So farmers in the U.S. have adopted these transgenic \--

MR. OLSON: Rapidly adopted.

DR. LAYTON: Rapidly and plant them on x percent acres of corn, y percent
acres of soybeans, and z percent acres of cotton.

MR. OLSON: Because you didn\'t get into why \--

DR. LAYTON: We don\'t have the issue that Greg had.

MR. OLSON: Are you also going to talk about globally have adopted?

MS. DILLEY: Michael, are you okay with this? Leon? Does that make sense
to you?

MR. CORZINE: Sure.

MS. DILLEY: Of rapidly adopted and so just go right to rapidly adopted
these transgenic varieties.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Is that okay with you, Carol?

DR. CRAMER: Yeah. I actually have even a simpler one which you could
actually bring in the next one which is in the United States farmers
have rapidly adopted these products and numerous products derived from
these commingled commodity streams are on the market. That\'s it. So you
then incorporate both of them.

DR. DYKES: And then you give the numbers.

MR. CORZINE: I like that better.

DR. DYKES: Yeah, I do too.

DR. JAFFE: Say it again.

DR. CRAMER: In the United States, farmers have rapidly adopted these
products.

DR. DYKES: That would be varieties.

DR. JAFFE: These varieties.

DR. CRAMER: These varieties. Transgenic varieties and numerous products
derived from these co-mingled commodity streams are now on the market or
on the market.

DR. JAFFE: Numerous food produced from these.

MR. SLOCUM: Well, there\'s food and feed.

MR. CORZINE: There\'s more than food.

DR. CRAMER: Numerous products derived.

MR. SLOCUM: Food and feed.

DR. LAYTON: Food products we\'ve used in the past. Check the wording.

MS. DILLEY: Say it again, Carole. There\'s too many people talking. Say
the sentence again.

DR. CRAMER: Well, it\'s been changed it 16 times. In the United States
farmers have rapidly adopted these transgenic varieties and numerous
products derived from these commingled commodity streams on the market.
And that was pulling from the other side that\'s already there.

DR. DYKES: You did a good job, Carole, I must say.

DR. CRAMER: Actually, I wrote that like 15 editions ago.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, I know, but, you have to go through the pain and agony
before you agree on something. So, in the U.S. farmers have rapidly
adopted these transgenic varieties and numerous products derived from
the commingled commodity streams that are now in the market. On the
market.

DR. CRAMER: You don\'t even need the now necessarily.

MS. DILLEY: Are on the market. We just said numerous products. We
didn\'t say food or feed.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Food and feed okay?

DR. DYKES: Yeah.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: And then the next one, Paul, you have down at the end is on
the market and then x, y, z percentage of acres.

DR. LAYTON: And then the 1-A, international.

DR. DYKES: I thought we took the reference back to the ISAAA reference.

MS. DILLEY: We did, but, then there\'s another sentence in there that
says planted globally on one-eighth of the world\'s crop then, right?

DR. LAYTON: That\'s right. You want the global planting too?

DR. DYKES: I agree with Leon. I\'d go back to \--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, no, everybody\'s agreed to that.

DR. DYKES: Oh, everybody\'s agreed to that. I stand corrected.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Go back to ISAAA. ISAAA probably comes out with the same
result. I don\'t know if they computed it as one-eighth of the crop land
but one might be able to refer to ISAAA for the same statistic.

MS. DILLEY: I think we can all agree on the three sentences and then,
Greg, you said you had a suggestion for a fourth.

DR. JAFFE: Well, I was going to make a process suggestion. Having been
to a number of international meetings, I didn\'t know we were going to
do this level of editing at this meeting, it would be really helpful if
we could have a projector and a screen and type in the edits and
everybody look at them. That\'s what you do at international meetings
and it is much faster than everybody trying to copy these words down or
do it there and re-cross things out.

MS. DILLEY: Absolutely.

DR. JAFFE: And if there\'s a way tomorrow to have that. If this is our
continued MO for the next day and a half it would be much more
efficient. There\'s a screen right there. If we can get the projector
and I\'m sure even some of us will take turns at the computer doing some
of this.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I would like to find out at the break if there\'s
something we can do. I don\'t know if it is \-- if we can\'t do it at
this meeting we will certainly arrange to do it at the next meeting.

MS. DILLEY: We can try. We\'ll try and do that. I mean, you\'re right.
We hadn\'t expected to get this done this way either, but, I think it\'s
really helpful because this is the first time collectively as a
committee we\'ve gone through the introduction.

DR. LAYTON: Absolutely.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Next. So, you had \--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When we get to the double negatives I\'ve got a
question about that. I don\'t like the way we had it.

MS. DILLEY: I thought \--

DR. LAYTON: No, Josephine\'s solution doesn\'t work. That\'s my problem.

DR. HUNT: Why doesn\'t it work?

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Wait a minute. I thought, Greg, you had done a logic
flow of four sentences and \--

DR. JAFFE: I don\'t know where we are yet but I think we \-- if I can
figure out where we are I\'d be happy to give it. What are we doing now?
We have three sentences to make a paragraph in and of themselves.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Maybe we can go back to where we are and see. To the
best of my knowledge what this says at this point is in the United
States farmers have rapidly adopted these transgenic varieties and
numerous products derived from these co-mingled commodity streams are on
the market period. Currently in the United States x percent, y percent,
and z percent of these crops are being planted and worldwide transgenic
crops are currently planted on about one-eighth of the world\'s crop
land. Check reference.

DR. LAYTON: That\'s where we are.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: That\'s where we are.

MS. DILLEY: And your sense was it went well and if it doesn\'t \-- Bob?

DR. HERDT: These commingled commodity streams. What is these referring
to?

DR. LAYTON: Transgenic varieties.

MS. DILLEY: The rapidly adopted transgenic varieties.

DR. CRAMER: It unfortunately refers to the previous paragraph.

DR. JAFFE: Previous paragraph.

DR. CRAMER: I\'d like to point that out.

DR. JAFFE: Commodities stream. I\'m assuming that\'s what it refers to.

DR. HERDT: You don\'t need the these. Transgenic and then transgenic
commingled.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Okay. So, are we \-- Greg, do you want to add a
sentence or are you willing to a double negative?

DR. JAFFE: I\'m not sure what is supposed to follow next so I don\'t
know what to comment on that.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Well, then \--

DR. JAFFE: Somebody tell me, what are we doing next?

MS. DILLEY: Well, those three sentences have now replaced the first half
of the paragraph up to the referenced, the footnoted reference, and the
cropland. So, now we\'re to the second half of that paragraph. However,
products currently in the marketplace have met with controversy, I think
was the proposal for the moving \--

DR. JAFFE: Okay. And I have a \-- I guess I did have for that sentence
at least.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Have met with controversy or have met controversy?

DR. LAYTON: Do we even need that part of the sentence? That\'s what I
was going to suggest is that we actually don\'t do that part of the
sentence and just say some products having countered resistance either
from consumers or major food manufacturers or retailers period. Don\'t
do the however.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Just a however.

DR. HUNT: In principle, I could agree with that but the word all it\'s
the reactions of the food manufacturers and the retailers are not
coupled with what the consumers are thinking.

DR. LAYTON: And/or?

DR. HUNT: No, because how we\'re reacting is dependent on how the
consumers are reacting, it\'s reflecting the consumers, and that\'s not
coming over in the sentence. It\'s saying two separate things.

MS. DILLEY: Just aggregate it.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, some products have encountered resistance from
consumers, yes? Carol?

DR. HUNT: I have a suggestion on the next page. Either from consumers or
from food manufacturers and retailers based on consumer perception. That
was just to try and get back on the table that the two go hand-in-hand.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, could we just drop the first part of that and just
start, do what you just said. Some products have encountered resistance
either from consumers or from food manufacturers or retailers based on
consumer perception and the sentence is very simple?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yeah, except I think it\'s not quite right. There
has been resistance to some food \-- to food products made from
genetically engineered or transgenic crops.

DR. LAYTON: I was not saying that.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Oh, I know, but, I\'m suggesting that because there
has been consumer resistance to some food \-- to food products made from
genetically engineered crops\-- food processors and retailers have
chosen, have chosen not to adopt them in some markets.

DR. LAYTON: That\'s what Josephine\'s correction was. Okay.

MS. DILLEY: How do you say that different, Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Because I\'m saying because of the consumer
resistance processors and retailers haven\'t adopted them and what I was
troubled by was the either from consumers and manufacturers based on
consumer reception. Consumers have resisted them in some places and
processors and retailers have responded. I think that\'s an easier
structure than saying their reaction to consumer opinion either from
consumers or from food manufacturers or retailers based on their
perception of what consumers want.

So, I was trying to turn it around and say that processors and retailers
have been reluctant to adopt new products in markets where they perceive
consumer resistance to them.

MS. DILLEY: Does that sound like what you\'re saying? Okay. Then maybe
we just need \--

DR. HUNT: That\'s essentially \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- to get the language down there.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Food processors and retailers have been reluctant to
adopt food products made from transgenic crops in markets where there
has been consumer resistance to them.

DR. LAYTON: Have been reluctant to adopt food products.

DR. HUNT: Can we read this again?

DR. CRAMER: Can someone read us the final \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Sure. What I heard was food processors and retailers
have been reluctant to adopt food products made from transgenic crops in
markets where there has been consumer resistance to them.

MS. ZANNONI: I think that\'s too strong. Is it resistance to some
products or is to the psychology in general? This looks like they
pinpointed certain products so they had issues where I think it\'s more
a general technology resistance.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: But what they rejected is the products. You know,
the processors and retailers haven\'t offered products. If you want to
say where there\'s been resistance to the technology is okay with me.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, that\'s better.

MS. DILLEY: To the technology?

MR. CORZINE: Is that what you\'re starting off with?

DR. LAYTON: Do you still have the sub-products?

MR. CORZINE: Since you\'re starting.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Michael, read it again.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. Food processors and retailers have been reluctant
to adopt products made from transgenic crops in markets where there has
been consumer resistance to the technology.

MS. DILLEY: Was that after some products currently in the marketplace
have met with controversy or it replaces all that?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: It would replace the entire sentence here.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I wasn\'t disagreeing with you, I was trying to turn
it around so that \--

DR. HUNT: No, it was the same thing.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Daryl to that. Greg and then Daryl.

DR. JAFFE: I mean, I think I\'m fine with that sentence although I still
don\'t like the sentence before that. That sort of \-- that\'s what it
says, I mean, from our outline, that these products \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: And that raises \--

DR. JAFFE: There\'s some controversy around them and those are good
examples of the controversy. I don\'t think you can start with that. I
don\'t think you have to say \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: That\'s a good point.

DR. JAFFE: \-- that introduction of transgenic seed varieties and the
foods produced from those crops have met with some controversy.

MS. DILLEY: Right. You need a transition.

DR. JAFFE: You need a transition to make sense. So, that\'s my
introduction of transgenic seed varieties and the foods produced from
those crops have met with \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Sometimes met with.

DR. JAFFE: Have sometimes met with controversy.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Or controversial.

DR. JAFFE: Sometimes controversial. That\'s right.

DR. MELLON: Shouldn\'t you say that in the global context?

DR. DYKES: Yeah, I think you got \-- I\'m where Mardi is. You can\'t \--
if you read this and don\'t think it\'s about the U.S. I don\'t think
that\'s necessarily true.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I hate to be kind of agreeing with Michael but I do.

DR. LAYTON: Is it in a global market?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: In global markets.

DR. LAYTON: In global markets.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: In some global markets.

DR. LAYTON: In some global markets.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Or in some markets.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Some markets worldwide.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Add another word, in some markets there\'s been
resistance.

DR. JAFFE: And then since you read that I think you can\'t just say the
end technology. I feel the wording was when genetic engineering.

DR. LAYTON: Genetic engineering technology.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Okay, genetic engineering.

MS. DILLEY: You\'re right, you\'ve to be consistent.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. In some markets.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Start with food processors and retailers have been
reluctant to adopt \--

MS. DILLEY: He\'s got that.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Developed from transgenic crops.

MS. DILLEY: No, it was adopt.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Adopt food products developed from \--

DR. LAYTON: From transgenic crops in markets.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: \-- transgenic crops in markets where there has been
consumer resistance to genetic engineering technology.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: The sentence before it then.

MS. DILLEY: Is a transition sentence. You know that?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yeah, okay, I thought you had it.

DR. LAYTON: I thought, you know, in some markets there has been some
resistance.

DR. JAFFE: Introduction of transgenic seed varieties and the foods
produced from those crops have met with controversy in some markets
globally or you might want to add something, especially globally or in
global markets or in some markets, some global markets, I don\'t know,
in some markets.

Introduction of transgenic seed varieties and the food produced from
those crops have met with or met with controversy in some global
markets.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Okay. Then I think if you take that \-- then you can
take some words out of the sentence, the next sentence that starts food
processors and retailers and just say processors and retailers have been
reluctant to adopt the food products in markets where there\'s been
controversy. You don\'t have to repeat developed from transgenic crops.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Got it. And that reads food processors and retailers
have been reluctant to adopt food products in markets where there has
been some resistance to genetic engineering technology?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yeah. You\'ve already said about the transgenic
seeds and the food produced from them in the preceding sentence.

MS. DILLEY: So you can just say \-- adopt it.

DR. HUNT: So they\'re not selling any food products in those markets?

MS. DILLEY: No, adopt.

DR. LAYTON: You\'ve got to add the word transgenic.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: All right. Daryl and then Michael.

DR. BUSS: Well, I was going to raise the question of actually Randy in
his very last comment. And that\'s where he said question that retailers
have resisted the products per se which is the language we\'ve been
using or have resisted sourcing them because of the mandatory
requirement for labeling. I just didn\'t want that to float by without
thinking about it.

DR. LAYTON: Yes. I actually marked that.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I obviously \-- I agree with that, but, I think
there\'s a problem within producing the labeling issue at this point and
I prefer that we address it as a separate sentence somewhere a little
bit further down. I just think it complicates that.

DR. LAYTON: Or could I suggest this. Or do you simply state see global
traceability for a detailed discussion?

DR. BUSS: No, not in the introduction.

MS. DILLEY: So, I mean, unless anybody else has a comment we will have
to get Randy\'s comments when he sees it in another go-around.
Unfortunately we don\'t have the benefit of him in this conversation.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I think we\'re going to address it.

MS. DILLEY: Later on. I mean, if we don\'t I\'m sure Randy will bring it
back up. Michael first had a comment.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I make \-- yeah.

DR. HUNT: I just had a brief discussion on the word adopt in the second
line there. You don\'t have adopt since products were introduced \--
food products.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Market, sell.

DR. HUNT: Introduced.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Introduced is a better word.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I raise just one other possibility to accommodate
Randy\'s comment to say that they often been reluctant or sometimes been
reluctant because in some instances they may not have been if the issue
was not a labeling one.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: But, labeling is a reflection, I would argue, of
resistance.

DR. LAYTON: That\'s a chicken and the egg, isn\'t it?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: And I\'m not saying \-- well, I want to talk more
about labeling. I just think this paragraph has already got all it can
carry.

MS. DILLEY: Michael, did you still have a comment?

DR. DYKES: I was just going to \-- I was going to comment on the dot but
they already fixed that, but, I do think the point Randy\'s raised
somewhere\'s got to be factored in here because this is just a stand
alone says it\'s because of technology and I\'m more where Randy is. I
don\'t think it\'s \-- I don\'t think they care about the technology in
one place and not care about it in another place.

I think it\'s because they don\'t have to label the products.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: But, that\'s a reflection that if you label them
people will buy them. That\'s a resistance to the technology.

DR. DYKES: I\'m not arguing the point. I\'m just saying if you read it
as it stands there it just says they rejected technology in places. The
food processors and food retailers reject it in some places but don\'t
reject it in others.

DR. BUSS: This is product driven.

DR. DYKES: Right.

DR. BUSS: As opposed to the other issue of labeling.

DR. DYKES: Right. Right. You\'re talking about market conditions,
consumer preferences, whatever, but, it\'s \-- you\'ve got to make that
distinction that ties to that to get that.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: So, why not go back and say there\'s been
controversy and that\'s been reflected by requirements for labeling and
then the food processors and retailers won\'t adopt it where there\'s
either resistance or a requirement for labeling.

MS. DILLEY: Maybe we could \-- I mean, because I don\'t think you guys
are disagreeing with each other that all these issues are important and
what Randy\'s raised is important. It\'s just a question of where we put
it. So, if we can circle his comments and make sure that they get picked
up somewhere but that we\'re just not putting them here.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I want to talk about labeling a little further on in
the introduction.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. You know \--

MR. GRANT: I don\'t think it would be accurate either \-- actually, I
don\'t think Randy\'s observation\'s accurate. It\'s been only where
mandatory requirements for labeling are in effect. I got firsthand
experience with a company who resisted the products where no labeling
was required whatsoever so \--

DR. LAYTON: Isn\'t that what wheat is in the U.S.?

MR. GRANT: This wasn\'t wheat, but, \--

DR. LAYTON: But, I mean, right now, aren\'t \-- I mean, I\'m asking a
naive question is, don\'t I have bread that doesn\'t have Roundup
Ready^®^ in it because of this issue right now?

MR. GRANT: Oh, I don\'t know. That\'s \--

MS. DILLEY: That has nothing to do with the conversation. You know what,
we were really close to finishing up this paragraph. Let\'s try to hold
onto our stuff into this paragraph. Okay. Anything else on this? So, now
we\'re \--

DR. JAFFE: Down to the last sentence.

MS. DILLEY: \-- down to the last sentence which begins transgenic
varieties thus far. Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thought Ron edited that one.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Ron, sorry, but, can you edit that again and that was?

MR. OLSON: I\'m just trying to keep things short. Transgenic products
thus far in the marketplace and then I crossed out having not been aimed
specifically at consumers and just put transgenic products thus far in
the marketplace have not typically provided marketing advantages for
consumer product retail.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: It\'s more than that. They haven\'t provided
benefits to consumers. You don\'t get \-- a retailer doesn\'t get a
benefit from them.

MR. OLSON: No.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I don\'t want to buy.

MR. OLSON: Right.

DR. LAYTON: So, could we add to consumer product retailers or consumers?
I\'m sorry, I don\'t understand what this editing does.

DR. JAFFE: Keep it the way \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Well, \--

MS. DILLEY: Is it trying to make a better sentence so it retains the
points which are market and generally not aimed specifically at
consumers and not provide \-- and one of the things you were trying to
do, Ron, is just clean up that sentence?

MR. GRANT: I think he was trying to make it shorter, not \--

MR. OLSON: I think its\' the fact that the variety wasn\'t developing
specifically doesn\'t necessarily \-- I don\'t think the two are linked.
Either get rid of one of them or make two sentences out of it if you
want, but, the fact that they weren\'t targeted to consumers doesn\'t
mean that the retailers are rejecting it.

DR. JAFFE: Ron, I think you should make it two sentences. I do see that
one in one sentence, it says that transgenic varieties thus far in the
marketplace have in general not provided specific or direct benefits to
consumers period. And then you can say in addition, they have not
provided marketing advantages to consumer product retailers.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Oh, that\'s good.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: If I can, I\'m just trying to think about past
discussions that the committee has had and the idea that there haven\'t
been consumer benefits has been a point that was at least challenged by
one member of the committee who isn\'t here and I mean, I wondering if
we can find a way to formulate that that\'s not going to cause a longer
discussion.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I\'m prepared to have a longer discussion.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I thought Greg got it by saying direct or direct
benefits to consumers, not to argue that there haven\'t been benefits to
the general public.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Actually, the other thing that actually was said I think
in some of the issues it talks about, you know, benefits that consumers
can see at the point of sale.

MS. DILLEY: But, we talk about it in that section. That\'s \--

DR. JAFFE: Going back to the thing that we do with farmers that
transgenic varieties thus far in the marketplace have not in general
been perceived by consumers as beneficial. I mean, perceived by
consumers as providing direct benefits.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: We said they were developed to provide benefits to
farmers and then the flip side of that they weren\'t developed to
provide benefits to consumers.

MS. DILLEY: Michael, you had a comment?

DR. DYKES: Yeah, I was just going to comment on this whole session. We
have talked about food in here and we look at the four crops we\'re
talking about a vast, vast majority of the purposes is for animal feed
so if you read this without any context you\'d think that the whole
story here is about food and I think going to the Secretary of
Agriculture it is important to point out that we\'ve said nothing about
the whole feed side of this which is corn, soybeans, animal feed crops
primarily.

So, I think we need \-- if we\'re going to put all this stuff, the food
and the food retailers, and food processors we need some statement in
here about the feed aspects of these commodity crops.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: In the resistance and the global marketplace I think
it applies to the feeds as well as the food products.

MS. DILLEY: So, what happens around the world then. Michael, if you can
come up with a sentence on the feed because I don\'t see any
disagreement that we need to integrate some kind of comment on the feed.

DR. JAFFE: I think that would go in the previous sentence when you talk
about the acreage and adopted globally, the last sentence of that could
be the majority of these commodities go to animal feed or something like
that. I mean, they would fit more in that paragraph than this paragraph
that starts talking about the food, marketplace, consumers, retailers.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: I think it would fit better in the previous paragraph.

MS. DILLEY: Does that make sense, Michael?

DR. DYKES: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: The placement?

DR. DYKES: We\'ve got to get the feed or otherwise you read it and
there\'s controversy, nobody\'s buying it.

MS. DILLEY: Leon, let\'s get you and then Mardi.

MR. CORZINE: I guess I question why we even need that last part because
what are we trying to do here because we can argue the rest of the day
as far as consumer benefits and not consumer benefits. You know, you can
talk about quality improvements. You can talk about all those things and
some of those are direct improvements and some in the marketplace, you
know, I\'ve got places where my \-- the consumer of my product and what
he\'s developing wants a specific transgenic variety.

So, you\'ve got the \-- what I\'m pointing out here, Carol, is that
there are two sides to this point so why \--

MS. DILLEY: Wait a minute, Carol, let him finish and then Mardi next.

MR. CORZINE: So, why are we \-- why are we even addressing that right
here is my question because if you\'re going to include one side you got
to be including the other. Otherwise, to get \-- because we\'re getting
of bounds.

MS. DILLEY: Well, wait a minute. Can I take a run at that and then Mardi
was next and then Carol.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I\'ve got a generic.

MS. DILLEY: Can I just try and answer his question? The flow of this is
we talk about the rapid adoption of some of these products and then the
transition sentence was the product \-- some of these \-- these have
been \-- these products have also met with controversy and then we talk
about what that looks like, what that has looked like and some of that
has been internationally in terms of not adopting in those markets where
consumers are resistant to.

So, it\'s trying to flush out that full picture. If we\'re not getting
\-- if we haven\'t done the right part up front then that\'s where we
need to capture what we think we\'re missing.

I think we just did catch the grain part of it, which is helpful. Here,
I think we\'re talking about there\'s been rapid adoption and a lot of
things have \-- a lot of benefits have been realized and perceived and
it\'s moving forward and there\'s also been some markets where it
hasn\'t been a real smooth adoption from the retailers\' end.

So, we\'re trying to weigh that out. And, so, that\'s how we bring it up
here. I just wanted to, in terms of my sense of it.

MR. CORZINE: My point is if we\'re adding what we\'ve already added here
\--

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

MR. CORZINE: \-- you already have that in there, that it covers just
what you said, so, this is just kind of added verbiage that will be
controversial as far as around this table.

MS. DILLEY: I think Mardi and then Carol.

DR. MELLON: I just want to note that if we\'re going to indicate that
the commodity crops are used for both feed and food we\'re talking about
kind of where most of the benefits, perceived benefits lie. It is, you
know, the standard case that they lie primarily, you know, at the farm
level with those farmers, you know, who choose to purchase them.

If we\'re going to talk about feed we have to say that these aren\'t any
cheaper. They\'re not any more nutritious. They don\'t have any
advantages for the feed customer any more than they do for the food
customer. They weren\'t intended to do that. Or, at least that\'s my
understanding. Because they were Roundup Ready^®^ does not make them any
better as, you know, in a food for pigs or feed for a cow.

MR. GRANT: Just a point in fact, if I could and then I\'ll be quiet,
but, to go back directly to that is my customer, and I\'ll call him a
customer, Carol, because he is, a customer of salvage corn requires me
to plant Roundup Ready^®^ because of the benefits that he perceives
which is weed-free in silage corn for dairies. Our milk production
frankly is what he sees.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Weed free?

DR. DYKES: He just buys corn.

MS. DILLEY: Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Thank you, Duane. We have a difference and I thought
we\'d agreed earlier that customers are who you sell your crop to.
Consumers are the people who buy food in the stores and when we say
consumers we\'re talking about people who buy food.

Let me try a sentence that I think flows from the preceding one and I
think will be okay. We talked about where there has been consumer
resistance to genetic engineering technology. The resistance stems from
consumer perceptions that genetically engineered food provide them no
direct benefits or no direct benefits to them.

DR. LAYTON: Read it again, Carol.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Resistance stems from consumer perceptions that
genetically engineered foods provide no direct benefit to them and
provide them no direct benefit. Offer them no direct benefit. And
there\'s an awful lot of data from the Eurobarometer Studies that show
that in Europe it\'s not a fear of the risks, but, the perception of an
absence of benefit that drives the opposition.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Alison?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I\'m not sure that I agree that that\'s what is \--
so, if we made a product that had a consumer benefit you think it would
have acceptance? I think people are opposed to the technology like
Golden Rice should be really welcomed than as something with a consumer
benefit.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Well, Golden Rice is not what \-- I don\'t need any
more vitamin A.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, you don\'t, but, I guess \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Well, Golden Rice is not out there because there\'s
really not a profit that keeps anybody from providing it and I\'m
talking about \-- we\'re talking about urban or markets primarily in
Western Europe and somewhat in Japan. These are places where consumers
aren\'t buying them and they don\'t want them in part because there\'s
no benefit.

Now, you\'ve raised a question and I think is really part of it. For
years I\'ve argued that the day that comes that there is a product with
a direct consumer benefit I\'ve always said if the FlavrSavr^®^ had
tasted like the tomatoes in my backyard that I would have given you five
dollars a pound for it and a great cheerleader for the technology.

Because it was focused on input traits, consumers perceived there are no
benefits to them from them. We don\'t need to go into this now, but, I
really wonder now if a product comes along with a great open obvious
consumer benefit whether the \-- how long and whether \-- how long it
will take and whether you will ever overcome the reluctance, the
resistance that some people have to the technology now.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Resistance stems in part.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: The resistance stems in part from consumers\'
perceptions that genetically engineered foods are for them no direct
benefits.

MS. DILLEY: Anything \-- what I\'d like to do is I have almost ten after
is maybe a couple of comments if people have them and then we\'ll take a
break before we have public comment at 3:30. So, I believe with that the
last sentence of that paragraph.

MR. DEMORGAN: Well, the only question is whether Ron\'s edit to the
existing one, you know, have not typically provided marketing advantage
to consumers, product retailers, that now at the end.

MS. DILLEY: As the last sentence. So, that\'s now an addition not
typically providing marketing advantages to consumers, product
retailers.

MR. OLSON: I mean, consumers don\'t have marketing benefits. It\'s the
retailers and manufacturers that have the marketing benefits.

MR. DEMORGAN: Right. That\'s why it should be added there.

MR. OLSON: But, take out the word consumer. There\'s been no marketing
\--

MS. DILLEY: to product retailers. Okay.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Oh, okay.

DR. DYKES: Marketing benefits to private retailers.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. DEMORGAN: Transgenic varieties thus far in the marketplace have not
typically provided marketing advantages to product retailers.

DR. DYKES: Consumer product retailers.

MS. DILLEY: No, just wanted that out.

MR. OLSON: Yeah, but, I thought that marketing advantages to consumer.
Oh, that\'s one word. Sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That defines the kind of products.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Food retailers?

MR. DEMORGAN: Food retailers.

MS. DILLEY: To food retailers then?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Yeah, that\'s better.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. JAFFE: There\'s a paragraph about food products primarily.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So we deleted consumer product and put food.

MR. DEMORGAN: I don\'t know if you want to carry what Duane said but
there are examples. I know there are some directly.

DR. LAYTON: Oh, not typically.

MR. DEMORGAN: A caveat of some sort.

DR. LAYTON: To food retailers. Okay.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Before we break, because it will help me think about
it while we\'re getting ready to go back to it, I\'m not sure what the
next paragraph means and I think it\'s just my stupidity.

DR. JAFFE: It\'s a single sentence. It\'s a long sentence.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Yeah. I think in the conversation we talked about it
briefly. We kind of skipped over this a little bit. In this morning\'s
discussion we had talked about the fact that part of the outline was if
you look at an outline the marketplace has responded to that some
markets want these and that some markets don\'t and there are different
kinds of products and so it\'s the whole \-- I think it goes into how
the market has been able to segregate or not segregate where it needs,
etc., etc.

But, this is \-- unfortunately it\'s Randy\'s point and he\'s not here
to describe more effectively but it\'s basically that the marketplace
\--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I\'d be willing to put it in brackets and wait until
we can have Randy defend it because \-- you know \--

MS. DILLEY: Some people may want to \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: \-- it doesn\'t go along with what we said before.

MS. DILLEY: I mean, again, this is a historical context and kind of
flushing that out. I think he thought it was important to have some
comments about the marketplace and if others have a perspective on that
we can talk about those, but, if it\'s only Randy\'s point then we wait
until the end of week when Randy is here.

Greg?

DR. JAFFE: I mean, I think the concept was that you had \-- I mean, the
idea of this part of the introduction was that these products have been
around for decades, it was adopted by farmers, there has been some
controversy about them. There has been some difficulty in acceptance in
the marketplace but at the same time the marketplace has also
incorporated some of its own methods to address them.

And I don\'t think this paragraph at all does that, but, I think that
one sentence of just a lot of good ideas strung together making one
sentence, but, I think the concept, and I agree with it, was to say \--
you sort of said there\'s been controversy in the marketplace about
this, but, what I think Randy and others wanted to say is that, but, the
market has also been \-- some response by the market to that, be it
organic and non-organic products and, you know, GE and non-GE. There has
been some segregation. There has been some labeling. There has been some
IP.

I think the concept was just to sort of identify that there\'s been some
response to the controversy by the marketplace in the last ten years. I
don\'t think this sentence \-- I think it\'s so far from it that I
don\'t think it\'s worth trying to edit it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Let\'s not edit it, but, just the point taken and I
think you\'ve described it very well and Ron\'s shaking his head so
that\'s a good thing. So, okay. Yeah, we just need to get the text right
so we weren\'t going to do that before we broke. You just wanted
clarification and I think we\'ve got it. Why don\'t we take a break and
then we\'ll come back at 3:30 for public comment and see if we have \--
how much public comment we have and then we\'ll pick this back up.

DR. LAYTON: And, please, if you have public comments please sign up
outside so that I know you have public comment.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken)

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, at this point in time we have no
public commentors signed up. Public comment period does last for about
an hour and a half. I would propose, therefore, to turn the meeting back
over to our facilitators and at about 4:30 I will check yet again to see
if a public commentor has arrived during the public comment period and
just verify that we\'ve not missed any.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So the proposal is to pick back up the conversation
and then check at 4:30 to see if there are any public commentors since
that\'s still within the time frame of public comment designated.

So, let me suggest a couple of things to use our time until 5:00 in
addition to checking for public comment is while I know it can be
somewhat challenging to stay in a conversation that proceeds along
let\'s look at it this way, we\'re halfway through the outline for the
introduction. So, two thumbs up for that.

And what I would suggest is that for the next, say, 45 minutes we
continue talking about the introduction. We basically have two big
sections of the introduction to discuss. It\'s basically talking about
what is the future of ag transgenic products including the following
categories. So, try and capture those and using examples that you think
are appropriate and within that time frame, five to ten years, having
defined our scope as "technically feasible to go to market."

And then we need to spend some time talking about \-- and also we should
talk about A, which is in parens, but, the group in the conference call
had talked about not going to \-- not having a discussion, it\'s all
negative, of potential benefits or risks because we\'re talking \--
because that\'s more of a conjecture, a conversation that requires
conjecture on some of these new projects so stay away from that and
mostly just talk about the categories of products with a couple of
examples.

And then we should talk a little bit about this, the C portion of the
outline, which is products entering into the new environment so trying
to flush out that piece of it in a little bit more detail and that
follows onto the four points on your side-by-side on page 5.

So, see how far we can get with that over the next 45 minutes and then
we also would like to take some time to set up the discussion for how we
get into issues, kind of a mega-discussion of a preparatory discussion
in terms of approach and what that looks like and some comments that are
more global that we want to spend some time talking about so we can
hopefully get those addressed and then we\'ll be very well set up I
think tomorrow to dive into looking at the statements specifically.

So, that\'s what we\'d like to do, propose to do for our time, our next
hour and a half. Any questions about approach, how to allocate time?
Okay.

So, now at the break we had finished the historical context piece, the
big chunks of historical context and now we\'re transitioning into
talking about future agricultural \-- future transgenic products and \--
okay, so this is the course of order. Any questions about A under the
future products in terms of not adding in this section benefits or risks
and then, if not, we can move into the broad variety of products and
then get that whittled down to the categories and the examples that
you\'d like to see.

So, any questions about A and, if not, then we\'ll shift into the
starting off with that second block which is why it isn\'t possible to
predict and then the examples. But, I just wanted to make sure \-- yeah?

DR. HUNT: Paragraph \-- we talked about this before the break, what\'s
happening with that?

DR. LAYTON: I\'m going to work on it tonight.

DR. MELLON: I thought you said that that \--

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, I mean, I think we had before the break we talked
about the fact that we now understand the concept of what we\'re trying
to do. The products have been out there for a long time. We\'ve talked a
little bit about that in the text before and that the market has
responded to the variety of different perspectives on those current
products and then that\'s more in a bullet point so we need a transition
sentence and then listing those out.

I think we were going to work on those before we came back to reviewing
them. We didn\'t want to edit this particular paragraph, but, wanted to
try to take another run at a paragraph.

DR. HUNT: Okay. So, we\'ll come back to that tomorrow and address it?

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, well, \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: We\'ll come back to it. Whether it will actually be
tomorrow or we\'ll get something after this meeting, another one, a
revised version to look at, we\'ll have one soon.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. I\'m not sure we\'ll be able to get back to it
tomorrow. We\'ve got 27 statements that we need to make sure that we\'re
clear on what those statements say, so, I think we\'ve got a concept
there. We need to take another run at an edited version. Okay.

MR. DEMORGAN: So, is it I heard Mardi said either/or. It\'s going to be
tomorrow though?

MS. DILLEY: I would say no.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah, there may very well \--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bernice, did you have one?

DR. SLUTSKY: It\'s just a sentence.

DR. LAYTON: Are you willing to take that task on or not?

DR. JAFFE: No.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

DR. JAFFE: It\'s a Jewish Holiday, I\'m sorry. The answer is no. I
didn\'t mean to be flippant about that.

DR. LAYTON: Oh, sorry. Okay. I didn\'t know. I know there was one last
week.

MS. DILLEY: When we talked at the break it was a sentence and then a
bullet, sort of how to market the use. It\'s to develop tools to adjust
to these different perspectives on these products and then it listed out
a couple of different and it\'s actually contained in that sentence. It
just needs to be rewritten to clarify it.

Carol, yes? So, if we have license at least to take a run at that then
you\'ll see it in the next iteration along with these other sentences
that we worked on this morning.

DR. LAYTON: I\'ll try.

MS. DILLEY: So, the short answer is we\'re not going to edit it as a
group tomorrow but you will see it again in the next iteration of the
document. Okay.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: And you\'re welcome to participate in the redrafting of
that if you\'d like.

DR. HUNT: Thank you kindly.

DR. LAYTON: My e-mail is.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, now we\'re starting to describe the products and
product categories that we envision over the next five to ten years and,
again, we emphasize where we left that discussion off in terms of scope,
that they\'re technically feasible to go to the market. And, so, we came
up with we have the list there in broad point on page 4 which are
different kinds of categories of products and then we have specific
examples in some. We have a specific example of an outline so if we can
just hopefully move through that fairly quickly to make sure that we are
on target with that with the categories and the examples that would be
helpful.

Any comments on the categories and/or examples?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Are you on \--

MS. DILLEY: Page 4, second \--

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Paragraph A?

MS. DILLEY: A, yes.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: And I know Randy\'s comment was made with regard to
commercialized. We modified the definition a little bit in terms of what
we would include as examples, but, maybe you want to comment on that.
Carol and then Greg.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: The strawberries and bananas which Randy already
noted.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I just make a comment about that particular one? I
know that when we were gathering data from companies about particular
products that would likely make it to market within the next five to ten
years there was a specific reference to a transgenic delayed ripening
banana and that was from a company that at the time we got that
information was not represented on this committee but now is.

MS. ZANNONI: I\'ll take it off \-- take it out. Take out that banana.

MS. DILLEY: So, as an example, the extended shelf life to come in to be
technically feasible in the market you\'d take it off?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: So it\'s not a product that\'s at the stage of being
technically feasible to go to market?

MS. ZANNONI: Within the next ten years, no.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, that was the bananas. So, are there any crops
under extended shelf life that technically would be able to enter the
marketplace within five to ten years that anybody\'s aware of? Because
if they\'re not then we should take this category off.

DR. DYKES: The category of extended shelf life? Is that your question?

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. Alison?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: There is from Arcadia Biosciences but they\'re using
mutagenesis and screening and so I assume that doesn\'t cover this.

MS. DILLEY: Right. Okay. So, let\'s take out that category then. Greg?

DR. JAFFE: I guess I was trying to edit the introductory part of the
sentence, but, starts to fall here. So, I had a couple of suggestions.
One, for where it says modern biotechnology derived products, I guess I
would just lose the word products and put transgenic plants or animals.
I guess I would just put, well, maybe not transgenic, we\'re talking
modern technically derived plants or animals as opposed to products.

I went to the marketplace over the next decade and then I would say new
transgenic varieties. I guess you\'re trying to add there that may be
possibly be technically \-- I guess I\'m trying to find out we had a
discussion this morning about \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: \-- what we\'re going to put there.

MS. DILLEY: Technically feasible is going to work.

DR. JAFFE: And I was coming up with language \--

MS. DILLEY: It was technically feasible to go to market.

DR. JAFFE: I don\'t think people are going to understand what that
means. I mean, I don\'t think outside this room anybody is going to
understand what that means.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Well, let\'s define it. I mean, \--

DR. JAFFE: In order to describe \--

MS. DILLEY: \-- is that the right approach and if it is, I mean, you
need to define that, but, if it\'s not then what would you offer as an
alternative? I think that was the scope we were trying to use.

DR. JAFFE: I was trying to say be technically ready for regulatory
approval or for regulatory review. I don\'t know. I was trying to \--

MR. SLOCUM: What\'s the distinction? Whether we\'re going to be able to
do it or not or whether it\'s going to make the marketplace or not?

DR. BUSS: Whether we\'re able to do it.

DR. JAFFE: I think \--

MR. SLOCUM: I don\'t know what we\'re debating.

DR. SLUTSKY: Aren\'t you saying everything else being equal, both
regulatory and market forces, these could be ready to enter the market.
You\'re at the point technically in terms of their development that they
could enter the marketplace but there are other factors that \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Or that they could enter the final process for
regulatory approval for commercialization, whether they will enter that
process or not.

MS. DILLEY: There are factors other than technical that are \--

DR. JAFFE: That\'s what I was trying to say, technically ready for
regulatory review or something like that.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi, do you have a suggestion?

DR. MELLON: Yeah. What about transgenic plants and animals in advanced
stages of development likely to be technically ready for market within
five to ten years?

MS. DILLEY: Transgenic plants and animals \--

DR. MELLON: In advanced stages of development likely to be technically
ready for market within five to ten years.

MS. DILLEY: Reaction to that? Transgenic plants and animals in advanced
stages of development likely to be technically ready for market in five
to ten years. That\'s trying to distinguish between \-- Michael, you
have a reaction to that?

DR. DYKES: Yeah, I think that\'s okay, I guess, for some of these like
crops containing a number of transgenic traits incorporated into the
same plants stacked traits. Those have been in the market for the last
several years and this year there\'s one with three traits stacked in
one, so, I don\'t know, but, I mean, I don\'t think that fits here.
That\'s already happened.

MS. DILLEY: But, yeah, I think the question was are there going to be
more of the some of the same types of products as well as new traits or
are we justifying new traits? So, to me, that\'s the question you\'re
raising.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Or is it the number of stacked traits?

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

DR. DYKES: Maybe I think there would be more traits stacked, but, I
mean, it isn\'t the fact that stacking is going to be a new thing. And
your comment about shelf life, I would like to check on that and get
back to you because as I read shelf life I\'m thinking fruits and
vegetable crops, but, I think shelf life also can refer to stability and
especially stabilities of oils like soy bean oil.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, I think that\'s fine. I mean, as long as we can come
up with examples.

DR. DYKES: I\'ll get back to you.

MS. DILLEY: Sure. Okay.

DR. DYKES: Of an example.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. CRAMER: I agree that there are \-- there are people that increase
the ascorbic acid for longer shelf life in plant food.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. I think the point \-- I don\'t think we\'re not
trying, you know, too quickly take things off. It\'s just that we want
to be sure that if we talk about a category that we\'ve got some
examples that we feel confident that category is relevant within a five
to ten year time frame. So, if you can come up with some examples
that\'s great.

MR. DEMORGAN: I just typed it in. It\'s not \-- nobody\'s really
explained where this fits. So, I just put it on line 7.

DR. LAYTON: I actually thought Mardi\'s transgenic plants or animals in
advanced stage of development were going to be up and like where you\'ve
got modern technology derived plants or animals.

MS. DILLEY: And then paraphrase that.

DR. LAYTON: Yeah.

MS. DILLEY: So, Mardi, you offered a way to articulate that. Any
additional comments? Greg, did you have a comment on that?

DR. JAFFE: Yeah. I\'m still not comfortable with that language.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. JAFFE: In my view, I mean, when somebody says it\'s technically
ready for market I think that it\'s technically ready for market. To me,
that means it\'s gone through its regulatory approvals already. I don\'t
think that\'s what we were talking about this morning and, clearly, I\'m
not comfortable with that, saying that unless we said a few of these
might be technically ready for market that\'s what we\'re saying. I\'m
not comfortable just saying all these new products might be ready for
that.

MS. DILLEY: Right. No, I think we come back to your language that you
had when we talked about it in the outline. We\'re about to present a
range of things, some of which may be \-- some or none of these may
reach \-- actually reach commercialization, wasn\'t it?

DR. JAFFE: The first part the sentence does that. It says it\'s
impossible to predict which of these went to the marketplace. I\'m very
comfortable with that.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: And then we could say a few or some that might, but, \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Do you mean technically ready to enter final regulatory
processes or something like that?

DR. JAFFE: That\'s what I thought we were talking about this morning
when we said \--

MS. DILLEY: No, it\'s a broader range of issues. It wasn\'t just
regulatory. It was for other considerations, but, it wasn\'t just
regulatory.

DR. JAFFE: But, like I said, I understand, but, he was saying that they
would be \-- that the stage that these products would get to in ten
years is being technically ready for regulatory approval, that didn\'t
separate that it still might be the market, may not be ready for them,
and things like that.

As of when you say technically ready for the market, to me, that means
you\'ve done the regulatory approvals. The only question then is do you
want to market it. I thought we were saying \--

MR. GRANT: Hold on, hold on. How about just a suggestion and technically
ready to enter into the regulatory system?

DR. JAFFE: That would be \-- yeah, or, yeah, that\'s what I\'m saying,
technically ready for regulatory review or something like that.

DR. DYKES: Doesn\'t the current language say new products may possibly
enter. I mean, I don\'t think any of this is absolutes. I mean, I don\'t
understand what we\'re debating here. I mean, it\'s caveat-ed. It\'s not
saying write it down, these will happen with the 8.5 year time frame. It
just says it may enter the market. Conversely, they may not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There\'s so many examples of new products.

DR. DYKES: New products might, they might not.

MR. GRANT: But, we were responding to Randy\'s note that we needed to
apply a sharp razor here and only focus on things that could actually be
or will be. He put in capitalized letters commercialized in the next
five to ten years.

DR. DYKES: You\'ve got to read the rest of Randy\'s notes so you don\'t
take that out of context. You\'ve got to read Randy\'s notes in total
and look at the list and I think what he\'s referring primarily to is
the strawberries and bananas. I think what he\'s saying, let\'s be
realistic about what we put on the list in terms of "may." If we don\'t
think there\'s a possibility let\'s delete them. If we still think they
may then let\'s leave them on there.

MS. DILLEY: We\'ve got a couple of cards up so let\'s go with the cards.
Daryl and then Ron and then Carole.

DR. BUSS: I think sort of further along on that point I guess I would
suggest chopping that first sentence into two and getting rid of the
while at the front and just say it is impossible to predict exactly
which new modern biotech products will enter the marketplace over the
next decade period. Examples of new products that may possibly enter the
market may include. I think there\'s enough caveats there that anyone
would agree that you\'re not predicting with any certainty. You\'re just
throwing out some examples.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Ron?

MR. OLSON: Mine is a lot like Daryl\'s. I think it\'s impossible to
predict which products will be ready to enter the marketplace over the
next decade and some possibilities include. That\'s it.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Carole Cramer.

DR. CRAMER: Yeah.

MR. OLSON: You don\'t have to stay technical or anything. It is
impossible to predict which new modern biotech derived products will be
ready for the marketplace over the next decade. Some possibilities
include.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: The only caveat with that was that products was changed
to plants and animals I think was the way it worked out to.

MR. OLSON: Yeah, yeah.

MR. DEMORGAN: Strike that?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh-hmm, all the rest.

MR. DEMORGAN: All the way down to the \--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To the first bullet.

MR. DEMORGAN: All the way down to the bullet?

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Isn't possible to predict exactly what you mean by
biotechnology derived plants and animals that will be ready for
marketplace in the next decade. Some possibilities include and then you
list the categories and examples. Okay. Okay.

Any changes to the bullet points? We\'ve got a placeholder on the
engineered shelf life, but, anything else on the others? Carole Cramer?

DR. CRAMER: I just sort of \-- to finish why I had my card up before is
I agree with the language but I want to remind you that why we started
with this whole section was the whole idea of capturing the promise of
biotechnology and there are certain things, certain benefits that can
come to agriculture for which this is the technology that is uniquely
suited and, so, part of our goal in this was that we didn\'t want just
to highlight the concerns, but, actually say there may be some real
benefits that come from that.

So, as we look through this list, all of those \-- all of that that we
have developed is now reduced to these little bullets. So, think about
it from that point that we do want to make sure that we\'ve captured
some unique benefits, that there\'s some potential for some unique
benefits to the marketplace and not try to dissipate it too much or
insist that it is ready for market and through regulatory approval in
this time frame.

MS. DILLEY: So, any categories that are missing, any modifications to
explanatories, explanations? Go ahead, Bob.

DR. HERDT: I\'m sorry. I missed why Greg wanted plants or animals rather
than products because \-- or did you?

DR. JAFFE: I did.

DR. HERDT: You did. Okay. Can you explain? I mean, because it seems to
me \--

DR. JAFFE: Normally when it says modern biotechnology derived products a
lot of times people think of foods that are derived from modern
biotechnology from the crops. I wanted to distinguish. That\'s my
problem. Sometimes using the word products and sometimes products are
varieties and sometimes products are the ingredients that came from
those varieties and so I wanted to distinguish those and here we\'re
talking about crops, plants, animals, so, I wanted to just be more
specific to avoid that.

DR. HERDT: Okay. Good.

DR. JAFFE: That was the reason.

DR. HERDT: Thank you.

MS. DILLEY: No comments on the \-- Greg?

DR. JAFFE: Two comments. One on crop resistance to pests that have not
heretofore been effectively addressed through conventional breeding
methods. I\'d rather just say probably just some pests and give the
examples. I don\'t know what we\'re talking about here, but, it\'s sort
of evaluating either one that couldn\'t get through conventional
breeding methods, I don\'t know whether that\'s \-- you know \-- I\'d
much rather have us visit the example of one where we can have a history
of us trying for conventional breeding methods.

A lot of times it may be a better way to do it, it may be a faster way,
but, this suggests that this is the only way it could be done in those
instances. It\'s giving a qualification that we\'re not giving in the
other ones. So, I\'d rather us give an example like the other ones in
this instance here. So, that\'s my comment on that one.

And then crop engineered to produce compounds for industrial uses, I\'m
not an expert in this area by any stretch of the means, but, two of
these examples, at least to me, reading them don\'t sound like they are
that. There\'s crops engineered to produce compounds for industrial
uses. There\'s crops having improved processing attributes.

But, it sounds like you\'re not producing a compound for industrial uses
but that the attributes in the corn or in the thing itself, so, it
doesn\'t seem to me like I think of it as similar to the pharmaceutical
or when they\'re talking about crops engineered for industrial uses
you\'re producing an enzyme in the crop that you\'re extracting out and
that example doesn\'t sound to me what that is.

And, similarly the third one, are modified for improved utilization is
biofuels. Again, it sounds like it\'s in the crops. So, I don\'t \-- at
least my reading of it and \--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sometimes they do.

DR. JAFFE: \-- those aren\'t necessarily examples of what is the heading
there.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Let\'s take them one at a time because you referred to
bullets with examples with another bullet so go back to the first one,
crops resistant to pests. And I think Ron had me add \-- is this the
whole category of disease resistant as well and so we don\'t have any
examples currently in here so one is the language introducing this
category and then the other examples are specific examples?

I mean, we could have a disease one with an example.

MR. OLSON: Well, one is a resistant weed.

DR. LAYTON: A chestnut, blight-resistant chestnut.

DR. DYKES: About Greg\'s comment \-- excuse me, go ahead.

MR. GRANT: Blight resistant potatoes.

DR. DYKES: I thought, Duane, \-- I mean, I thought, Greg, I thought your
concern was that mentioned that not heretofore addressed the
conventional breeding, not that there would be crops for resistant
disease.

DR. JAFFE: Right, I think those were examples, right. Take away that
language and just quote examples.

DR. DYKES: Well, that\'s where I was going to that I think there are
some that have been done, cyst nematode \-- soybeans for example. We\'re
doing those with conventional breeding so there are examples of where
it\'s been done with conventional breeding which is why I think that
distinction is made in there.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: In other words, that there have been some pests for
which it\'s not been possible to do it via conventional breeding.

DR. DYKES: There\'s been some that it has been done through conventional
breeding so we\'re trying to give examples of both sides to explain why
that\'s in there on this particular example.

DR. JAFFE: Are we saying that the next five to ten years we\'re not
going to have crops resistant to pests that could be done through
conventional breeding or chemicals? I mean, BT\'s, other kinds of
things. Some of the BT\'s that may be better done or differently done
through genetic engineering. This is just the only ones that are going
be done are the ones that can\'t be done through conventional methods.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: First of all, I think that\'s sort of a prudent point of view
that makes it difficult to put some things in there and, I think, it
seems to me, we\'re trying to make a proof here as opposed to just
listing the ones that you guys mentioned. I think that would be great to
put in there.

MS. DILLEY: So, now \--

MR. DEMORGAN: Greg, is what I\'m doing is striking the rest of the
language?

DR. JAFFE: I guess.

DR. CRAMER: Actually, no, because I think there\'s a couple of points we
do want to make. One is that there\'s certain things like viral problems
for which we have no breeding strategies but we actually have strategies
and we currently have squash out there that utilize these strategies
that provide \-- so they couldn\'t be done through typical ways.

So, there is actually one point if we\'re talking about for the plum pox
is that we really have the ability and we\'ll be bringing to market
hopefully real disease resistance for which classical breeding doesn\'t
do it.

But, I don\'t think that\'s all of it so how about just a simple thing
like crops resistant to pests including those for which their resistance
was not attainable through typical breeding. So, it is broad.

MS. DILLEY: You could do it either that way or could you just say crops
resistant to pests and then under those sub-listings or examples
including some of which cannot be addressed through conventional means
and then you\'d have the viral whatever, the example, Michael, that you
had.

Others are, I don\'t know, fusarium resistance. An example of one that
could be produced a different way but that\'s also another product. I
mean, I think what I understand in terms of the category I don\'t think
you want to be resistant. You don\'t want to be restrained to one type.
You\'re trying to flush out the varieties.

So, the category itself is the crop resistant to pests and then you go
into the detail, you\'re saying, with sub-categories.

DR. JAFFE: Can we say pest and disease?

MS. DILLEY: Pest and disease. Pest and disease.

DR. JAFFE: I mean, I understand the viruses. I don\'t pests is \-- I
mean, viruses is pests.

MS. DILLEY: Pests and diseases.

DR. JAFFE: Diseases. Maybe that\'s also part of it.

MS. DILLEY: Crop resistant to pest and disease. Okay. It\'s a big
category and then we\'ve got examples of your point, Carole, as well as
other kinds.

MR. DEMORGAN: Carole suggested specific language including those for
which resistance is not attainable and then listing the examples.

DR. JAFFE: I think she was saying attainable through conventional \-- I
think instead of saying conventional methods because somebody might be
\-- not just breeding, but, chemical or other kinds of things I assume.

MS. DILLEY: I thought that was underneath the category.

DR. LAYTON: No, you put it underneath a category, Carole.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. I thought we were \-- okay. All right.

DR. JAFFE: Strike that part.

MS. DILLEY: Because that I think is a more restrictive category if you
include the clause in the category, the name of the category, then
you\'re only talking about crops resistant to pests and disease that
could otherwise not be done through any other means.

MR. DEMORGAN: Including those for which.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. But then what do you do with fusarium wheat, then you
say, by the way, this is not \-- this could be done through other
methods? It doesn\'t \-- I don\'t know, to me it doesn\'t \--

DR. BUSS: It\'s not attainable through conventional methods. In other
words, it can\'t be successfully done.

DR. LAYTON: We\'re not there yet.

DR. HERDT: I think the point is that it\'s been tried unsuccessfully
through conventional methods and it hasn\'t succeeded. So, the hope is
using biotechnology to succeed.

MS. DILLEY: I understand that. I understand that. I just thought that if
you put it in \-- okay, if I\'m the only one that\'s in trouble then
it\'s just me. But, I thought it was more restrictive to put the clause
in describing the category but if it\'s not then okay.

DR. LAYTON: I want to withdraw chestnut blight resistant because I
don\'t know that. Were we at the point of technically ready for
regulatory approval?

DR. JAFFE: This is in ten years.

DR. LAYTON: In ten years. Okay. Then I\'ll leave it.

MS. DILLEY: Leon, you had a comment?

MR. CORZINE: Abby, I think maybe I\'m where you are because I don\'t
understand the need for the rest of that phrase because we\'re talking
about if you look at what these are under, these may possibly enter the
market, it doesn\'t matter in the broad sense of that category whether
it could be done under conventional means or not. Right?

MS. ZANNONI: Quite frankly, why would companies do both if they didn\'t
establish in a conventional \-- I mean, there\'s no common sense to
that.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Changes. Could you make that include just some for wheat
resistance is not attainable?

DR. CRAMER: Actually, they want to dump the whole thing. I don\'t want
to fight for it.

MR. CORZINE: Just put pest and disease.

DR. CRAMER: I think that\'s okay.

MR. CORZINE: Stop.

DR. JAFFE: That\'s my original. That\'s what I suggested originally.

(Discussion off the record)

MR. DEMORGAN: So strike that?

DR. JAFFE: Yes.

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, do we have that category title and some examples
that everybody\'s comfortable with? Okay. Were there any other
categories that needed \--

DR. JAFFE: The other one of mine which was the \--

MS. DILLEY: Oh, yeah, right.

DR. JAFFE: \-- the compound uses.

MS. DILLEY: You\'re right. So that was the second bullet on the next
page, right? Crops engineered to produce compounds.

DR. LAYTON: Before we do that do we want to deal with the stacked traits
thing or did work. Right, you all talked about that before.

DR. DYKES: I thought we left it in there because that they were going to
be \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: For an increasing number of stacked traits, was that
what was going to be different?

MS. DILLEY: I thought it was an increasing number of \--

DR. DYKES: Increasing number of crops containing \-- you\'ve got the
number twice.

MS. DILLEY: Well, what\'s increasing?

DR. DYKES: I think leave it as it is.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. As is.

DR. DYKES: That\'s probably okay.

DR. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Are we back now on crops engineered to produce compounds or
industrial uses and Greg had made a couple of different comments.
Josephine?

DR. HUNT: I have a comment about \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Let\'s do this bullet first and then we\'ll come to
you. So, Greg, you had a couple of things. You had both the examples and
how they were phrased as well as how you were labeling that category.

DR. JAFFE: No problem with the label of the category. My question is
whether \-- there are three examples there. My layperson\'s reading of
two of those three examples suggest that they\'re not really examples of
the category, but, I might be wrong about that, but, they suggest not
that the crop isn\'t engineered to produce the compound, but, the crop
has \--

MS. DILLEY: Has that.

DR. JAFFE: \-- that compound in it. In other words, it\'s a processing
aid in the compound as opposed to this suggests similar to producing
pharmaceuticals that something\'s be extracted from it.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: But, would it be better to change the category and say
crops engineered for particular industrial uses?

DR. JAFFE: If that\'s the category we want. It\'s a different category,
right?

MR. DEMORGAN: So, Michael, go from crops engineered to?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: For particular industrial uses.

MS. DILLEY: That is a different category then.

DR. SLUTSKY: Unh-unh, it\'s a larger category.

MS. DILLEY: Well, but, I thought Greg was saying you\'re producing
crops, some components of which are used for industrial purposes. Isn\'t
that what you\'re saying?

DR. JAFFE: I didn\'t know \-- people say PMP then PMIP. Was this trying
to get PMIP\'s or not? If it was, it seems to me the examples weren\'t
accurate. But, if it was trying to get at \--

DR. SLUTSKY: But, the way Michael has suggested revising it, it would
include both PMIP\'s or whatever the heck it is and the examples given,
I think.

DR. JAFFE: But, do we want one category or two categories. One for \--

DR. MELLON: Why don\'t we have two categories. I mean if you have crops
that are engineered for each compound, industrial uses like those
produced in useful enzymes and then crops, you know, modified for use
for industrial uses, you know, for example, crops modified for use in a
biofuel.

DR. LAYTON: I have a question on that one. If I\'m \-- at one point in
time I knew I was working in a breeding program that was looking at ways
to make it more diesel-like and you just had to press it out and go with
it. Is that \-- and that\'s a bio-fuel. Is that modified food
utilization or is that producing a useful oil?

DR. MELLON: If it\'s the same oil you\'re going to produce otherwise
it\'s modified for production. It makes it easier to produce, easier to
extract, easier to do whatever you\'re supposed to do.

DR. LAYTON: Then it\'s not easier to \-- I mean, you\'re just pressing
\-- it\'s a different oil.

DR. MELLON: Well, if it\'s a different oil \--

DR. LAYTON: It\'s a different oil

DR. MELLON: \-- then it\'s a different product.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So, it goes under number 1. It\'s not an enzyme.

DR. MELLON: Well, right, but, is it a compound.

DR. LAYTON: So, it\'s producing useful enzymes or compounds.

DR. MELLON: It would be an example.

DR. LAYTON: Well, I don\'t know if it\'s still out there or not. I
don\'t know if they\'re working on it, so, I should probably withdraw
that one.

DR. DYKES: Well, I thought the category was like the crops that are
higher in starch so they got more extractable fuel in them. I thought it
was some of the things you were talking about, oilseed rape. I thought
the examples made sense to me.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah. I think if I can comment on this that the category
of crops engineered to produce new industrial compounds, the sense that
I had heard was that none of those were likely to be ready for market
probably within the next five to ten years. That having been the
original thought about this group. So, this was originally intended to
be just a little bit more focused on things intended for industrial uses
as opposed to producing new substances.

DR. LAYTON: What about the tay starch for paper?

MS. ZANNONI: Well, I think, you know, the industrial uses, PMIP\'s, I
thought the same \-- it was a crop that could not be used for food or
feed by definition, but, if you\'re using corn to produce enzymes is
that really a PMIP?

DR. DYKES: I don\'t ever recall a definition for PMIP\'s that couldn\'t
be for food.

DR. BUSS: I didn\'t think so either.

DR. DYKES: No, I haven\'t heard that.

DR. CRAMER: Well, maybe some people would like it that way.

MS. DILLEY: So, Bernice, what\'s the language again?

DR. SLUTSKY: Projecting Michael\'s views.

DR. JAFFE: Michael\'s, whatever.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. JAFFE: Industrial uses.

DR. SLUTSKY: Yeah, yeah.

DR. JAFFE: Industrial use compounds.

MS. DILLEY: For particular industrial uses. And then all the examples
are relevant then? So, then you keep the examples?

DR. SLUTSKY: No.

MS. DILLEY: Back to another bullet.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Josephine, you had a comment?

DR. HUNT: Yeah. I had a comment on the third bullet. It was not to move
something, I think it was that Ron mentioned earlier this morning about
environmental stresses. In, fact, maybe we could just add an example for
other environmental stresses so we don\'t lose that. Under the third
bullet.

DR. LAYTON: Environmental stresses.

MS. DILLEY: What qualifies as environmental stresses? What are you
talking about?

MR. OLSON: I want to change it a little bit too. Instead of drought
resistant crops just perhaps crops. Just say crops resistant to drought
or other environmental stresses.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any other categories that need to be reworked or
added?

DR. JAFFE: I mean, the one other thing with this list is, for some of
the examples we\'ve got very specific examples, fusarium resistant
wheat, or, soybeans with omega 3 fatty acids, or, transgenic salmon that
grow quicker.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: They\'re actual specific examples. The others we have this
crops for improved processing attributes or better nutrition balance. I
think it would be better if in each instance had \-- put it actually on
the drawing board or is in field trials or something as opposed to \--

MS. DILLEY: Right.

DR. JAFFE: If we jump between very specific examples and sort of other
times we use these broad category examples, maybe we should do one or
the other consistently. My preference is either give specific examples.

MS. DILLEY: Well, in the outline we did use more specific examples so if
you want to draw from there and incorporate that into the categories we
could do that. But, everybody\'s in agreement that we use as specific
examples as possible though to illustrate what we\'re talking about.

DR. LAYTON: So, for animal feed do we have a specific crop? I think
there was one from DuPont, wasn\'t there? Daryl?

DR. BUSS: Dow Agrisciences had one.

DR. LAYTON: Dow Agrisciences had one.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Which bullet are you talking about?

DR. LAYTON: You remember when that guy came out and I thought he had one
that was an improved animal feed product.

DR. DYKES: I know we had some in Renaissance so Randy and I can probably
give two examples.

MS. ZANNONI: Aren\'t they low biotech feed that are \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: The labels weren\'t the final \--

MS. DILLEY: That was the example on the outline.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: That was the more efficient use for environmental
benefits because I think folks have gone back and forth with how
specific the examples should be and how technical so, you know, we might
oscillate back and forth once or twice more.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. So we could put low \-- it\'s not a low tech feed?
It\'s a low biotech feed.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Maybe we could \-- if we could commit to doing that,
those examples, and then collect those between now and the next draft we
can do that rather than take up the remaining 45 minutes that we have.
Is everybody fine with the categories because if we\'re fine with the
categories then I think we can move on. Any other changes to categories?

DR. DYKES: I think there\'s another one that we don\'t have that\'s
captured in here. Maybe it is, I\'m just missing. We\'re not talking
about any of the second generation product, the current, just
agronomically enhanced crops.

DR. SLUTSKY: Such as?

DR. DYKES: Bollgard II^®^, second generation of Roundup Ready^®^
soybeans. I mean, we got these. I mean, I just think there should be a
generic mention here that there will be in the next five to ten years
just as we\'ve talked about evolution and all these different crops,
there will be an evolution of products that are occurring.

DR. SLUTSKY: Enhancement.

DR. DYKES: Modification, enhancements, changes.

DR. LAYTON: So better versions of existing transgenics?

DR. DYKES: Yes.

DR. LAYTON: Crops with better versions of existing?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Traits?

DR. DYKES: I think it\'s coupled with the fact we will continue to make
changes and evolution of current products over the next five to ten
years. Continued evolution of products over the next five to ten years.

DR. BUSS: The example, is it \-- is this the change in the transgene or
is it a change in the backgrounds? I\'m not quite sure.

DR. DYKES: Change in the seeds produced.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Updated versions of \--

DR. JAFFE: Additional varieties of pest resistant.

DR. DYKES: See, I think that\'s where you get into the difference
between varieties and traits. There\'s going to be lots of varieties
come on and there are also going to be changes in the traits that are in
the varieties.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, Michael, say your category one more time.

DR. DYKES: Well, what did I say?

DR. LAYTON: It\'s crops. New versions of existing traits.

DR. DYKES: Modifications and \--

DR. LAYTON: Modifications.

DR. DYKES: Modifications and evolutionary changes to existing
applications or existing products on the market or something like that.

DR. LAYTON: Is the product a gene?

DR. DYKES: Traits.

DR. LAYTON: What\'s the trait?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Do you address \--

DR. HERDT: You would say pest resistant or \--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael, is that covered where it talks about pest
resistance?

DR. DYKES: Where is that \-- crop resistant to pests?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.

DR. DYKES: Yeah, it could be. It might be less controversial.

MS. DILLEY: Well, maybe you can use as an additional example just to
illustrate that point, Michael.

DR. DYKES: There needs to be another example underneath there.

DR. JAFFE: You could put new varieties of BT cotton. Is that what
you\'re talking about?

DR. DYKES: New traits.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It\'s a new event.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

DR. SLUTSKY: It\'s an improvement on a new trait.

DR. DYKES: Yeah.

DR. JAFFE: Well, an improvement is different. It\'s a different protein.
It may or may not be an improvement. I mean, \-- it\'s a different
protein, it\'s a different strain.

MS. DILLEY: But, it\'s still resistant to pests.

DR. JAFFE: Right.

DR. DYKES: And cotton could be a different protein and soybeans may be
the same protein.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s still resistant \-- it still fits within that category
of pest and disease resistant, so, Michael, what\'s the example? Do you
do Bollgard^®^ or what \--

DR. DYKES: Yeah, Bollgard^®^ II.

MS. DILLEY: What about the label name though, what do you want in
describing it in terms of examples so what is \--

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Insect resistant.

DR. DYKES: Insect \-- yeah, insect reduction.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Anything else on categories? Anything else?

(Discussion off the record)

MS. DILLEY: Anything else on the categories? Pat, do you want to pause
and see if \--

DR. LAYTON: Yeah, this is a good time before we get to the next
paragraph. Is there any public commentors here?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I note that our audience is dwindling.

DR. LAYTON: Really. Seeing none I will hand this back over to Abby.
Thank you, Abby.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, is everyone okay with that transgenic animals
bullet? Do you have \-- we were listing specific examples as the
increased growth rate to maturity salmon.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: The phytase pig, I guess, is another one.

DR. LAYTON: Food or feed?

DR. JAFFE: No, the feed is engineering. The pig is \--

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: The pig itself makes phytase so it\'s saliva and so
it\'s technically available.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: In the transgenic animal one, yeah.

MS. DILLEY: So we just need a third example and that would be \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: We are trying to figure out how to talk about that in a
way that\'s \--

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: It\'s called the EnviroPig^®^.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I know, but, I mean, we don\'t know what the
EnviroPig^®^, phytase pig is. I mean, I know what it is but to describe
it in such a way without four sentences that people understand it which
is why it was talked about obliquely in the phytase example in plants on
bullet number 2.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: One is phytase and one is phytate so they\'re
different.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Just take the phytase. Copy that. Put that where the
x is.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s phytase pig. Got it. Daryl.

DR. BUSS: If we use that example we should modify the foregoing because
that refers to production of pharmaceuticals or industrial products. I
guess I would put the transgenic animals for food.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, it\'s a product that still gets eaten, right, so, \--

DR. BUSS: Right.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, so it falls in that category. All right. Anything else
on that category or any other categories? Okay. So, we have 35 minutes
and I guess the question is we have a couple of options. One is to go to
the next section which is to talk about the new environment and how we
want to elaborate on that a little bit more.

Alternatively, we could talk about the big picture and how we want to
set up to get into the conversation about the topics for discussion.
And, so, people can \-- so we can work through how we want to approach
that process and looking at the topics globally because we have 27 of
them and get set up for that conversation so we can jump into that
tomorrow.

So, what do you think would be the best way to use our next 35 minutes?
Carol?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: When we get to the paragraph that begins AC21
members have diverse views, I have several bullets to add to that so \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: \-- if that makes any difference maybe we ought to
be more general between now and the end of the day.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

DR. LAYTON: Well, we have a paragraph that has no comments on it.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: That\'s because we haven\'t asked.

MS. DILLEY: So, the option is to press on with the introduction,
introductory language and continue to work on that, or, take a step back
and talk a little bit about how we want to \-- if there was some general
comments about how maybe to think about entering into the conversation
for the topics such as we talked about this in the traceability and
labeling document. Can\'t we just make the statement and then reference
to that and whether or not that\'s, in fact, the case and that\'s one
way to look at how do we go about editing?

And there\'s some other things as well. So, those are some of the
options of how you want to spend your time over the next 30-35 minutes.
Any preferences on how do you want to use this time? Alison and then
Bob.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I, for one, would like to see this finished.

MS. DILLEY: The introduction. Okay. Well, pressing on and finishing it,
I\'m not sure we\'re going to finish it in half an hour.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Okay. This is midstream.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Bob?

DR. HERDT: I agree. Press on.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any strong feelings otherwise? Okay. Then we\'ll press
on. So, then that section is talking about, follow the outline, we talk
about what products. We\'re talking about the fact that they\'re being
introduced into a new context or an evolving marketplace.

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: First, we had a few additional points in the
paragraph.

MS. DILLEY: I know, but, isn\'t that part of \--

DR. LAYTON: No.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Never mind.

DR. LAYTON: She thinks she\'s down to another point on the thing and we
think we\'re not.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. We\'re not. Page 5, next paragraph. Alison?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I have a comment on this one and it\'s got to do with
modern biotechnology definition again because now we\'ve gotten modern
biotechnology and you talk about what modern biotechnology really is
instead of genetically engineered products and so we either take the
modern out of there and maybe that would just be biotechnology which \--
does that make sense? Because the genome sequencing information is
relating not to transgenics necessarily.

DR. JAFFE: Actually get to that paragraph \-- that sentence or paragraph
we wrote before. It\'s a little bit identical to but clearly has
similarities to the second bullet here. But, it doesn\'t fit within our
definition of modern biotechnology.

MS. DILLEY: The second bullet?

DR. JAFFE: Right.

MS. DILLEY: So you\'re just suggesting we take it out, or, we need to
modify the modern biotechnology part of it? Bob?

DR. HERDT: Yeah. Can we say genome sequencing information for
agriculturally important plants and animals, blah, blah, blah? In other
words, take out the derived through the use of. Obviously you\'re going
to give genome sequencing information. I mean, that\'s being used. So,
just take out that derived through the use of modern biotechnology
methods.

DR. LAYTON: What about modern biotechnology in the first paragraph,
first sentence?

DR. HERDT: On the first bullet?

DR. LAYTON: No. Sentence.

DR. HERDT: Sorry.

DR. LAYTON: A few additional points.

MS. DILLEY: Are worth noting and then just leave it at that.

DR. HERDT: It works.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: That\'s good.

MS. DILLEY: A few additional points are worth noting and then start the
bullet points.

DR. HERDT: Okay.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Is it all about new products

and \--

DR. DYKES: New products over the next five to ten years.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Don\'t take it out now?

DR. DYKES: Are worth noting about new products over the next five to ten
years. Yeah.

DR. BUSS: So, why can\'t some of these be relevant to the previous
bullets?

MS. TUCKER FOREMAN: I think that\'s a real good idea.

DR. BUSS: So much for reinventing.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, I mean, I guess that\'s the question is, can these \--
should these stand out and, if not, can they be integrated if they\'re
important points to make, but, do they make sense to integrate into the
previous discussion?

DR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, I think the only reason perhaps not to is that
that other list was really very specifically talking about modern
biotechnology products and these are all not \-- two of the three are
not.

MS. DILLEY: I guess that\'s what I was thinking. Some of this stuff like
the last bullet point, it\'s more the context in which other things are
sort of more global context. That\'s why I guess I was questioning it.
So, the degree you want to talk about particular products or examples
that should be merged into the previous and then the other issues really
go into the next piece which is the different and evolving marketplace
context into which these products are being developed. Carole?

DR. CRAMER: My suggestion is (a) you get rid of bullet 3; (b) you get
rid of the bullets of bullet 1 and 2 and you make them sentences which
just flow after the end of it. They\'re not the same because they\'re
not talking about particular products. They\'re saying it should be
noted that there are some differences and, so, that\'s my feeling is you
put in another thing with bullets and it\'s distracting. So, 3 is very
specific and it makes no sense in this context about the rice varieties.

And that may be able to be incorporated above if now we just make a
couple of statements out of the two bullets in text form.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah, I think number 3 was the biotechnology impacts
that you just crossed out.

MS. DILLEY: We can take that out.

MS. DILLEY: So, Carole, what was the way you read that last piece? It
should be noted that there are some differences or how did you say it?
So, basically we\'re taking these out as bullets and just want to add a
couple of more sentences.

DR. DYKES: I think these two sentences are kind of qualifiers that have
\-- that they qualify and add context to the list of previous specific
products. So, in other words, you just talk about lists of products. Now
there are two concluding sentences that kind of help put all that
together. Something\'s going to be in the end there differentiating
commodity streams. Others are going to be in segregated from all food
and feed products at all times. Some are going to be brought about
through the genetic sequencing information that are used and others will
not \-- be regulated as transgenics.

It kind of helps frame up the list previously.

MS. DILLEY: Bob?

DR. HERDT: I think if you simply say a few additional points are worth
noting period. Then make a sentence. Then follow that with a sentence,
while many of the new products, and then follow that with a sentence,
genome sequencing information and the insect, this last thing \--

MS. DILLEY: Repeat the last line.

DR. HERDT: Counter or put it up in the bullets in the list above.

DR. SLUTSKY: I think the \-- if I could just \-- I mean, I don\'t know
if you were discussing, but, I think I have a feeling this bullet was
not to tell readers that, you know, to expect rice in the next five to
ten years, that it\'s rice produced by a developing country and so that
\-- that could have an impact on the marketplace.

DR. HERDT: It\'s a product so why don\'t we put it with the bullets up
above them all about products?

DR. SLUTSKY: Because it\'s a point worth noting.

DR. HERDT: It\'s another point worth noting more than it is a specific
product.

DR. MELLON: It is important that it\'s the first time that a major crop
will have been genetically engineered by someone basically other than
the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Exactly, exactly.

DR. DYKES: Right, that\'s the point.

MR. DEMORGAN: So, Carole, you were saying rewrite it?

DR. CRAMER: Right. We should rewrite the third point as a sentence
highlighting the difference. Something like \--

DR. BUSS: Well, international production.

DR. CRAMER: Progress in biotechnology internationally may result in.

MS. DILLEY: I think that we pick that up in the next section. I think we
could probably fit it back in the next section in terms of \-- Greg?

DR. JAFFE: Well, for that third point I think if you\'re going to
include it, and I agree that it should be included somewhere, it could
be a major development, but, I think what you want say \-- I\'m not
comfortable saying it, first of all, that it\'s an improved variety.
It\'s a transgenic variety.

Whether it\'s improved or not we\'ll find that out in the marketplace.
It\'s likely. But, I think the point to say here is if transgenic rice
varieties become virtually available on a significant scale in a
developing world within the next few years this may significantly alter
the gene controversy or the landscape globally for some of the products
that are being developed in the U.S.

I mean, that\'s the point of that one. Of these other ones, I think I
would just start a different \-- some sort of different phrase at the
beginning of this. It follows from the last sentence. We said we may
have these products coming to market. If these products come to market,
because here we said, if we said up here, there\'s no point to bound
modern biotechnology to new products. We\'re sort of making the
assumption. The previous one said some of these may come and then the
best way to start it would be to say if they come to market or \--

DR. DYKES: How about a few additional points worth noting about
potentially new products over the next five to ten years? Then you\'ve
got it that they may or may not come. That\'s your issue as not being
definitive that they are coming.

DR. JAFFE: Right.

DR. DYKES: A few additional points.

DR. JAFFE: The previous paragraph has just said some of these may come
to market. We don\'t know. We can\'t predict whether they will or
won\'t, but, there are some that may come to market. The next line
should say and if those come to market, you know, we\'re beginning to
discuss some of the ramifications of some of those. Some of them will
continue to go to undifferentiated commodities for some these as opposed
to some of them now are going to go to identity preservation or other
kinds of systems.

MR. DEMORGAN: You\'re jumping around here. So what\'s the \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: So does the edit that was suggested by, I forget who, to
say a few additional points are worth noting about potential new
products, does that address the need that you raise, Greg?

MS. DILLEY: And the last one is edited to say if transgenic rice
varieties become commercially available on a significant scale in a
developing world within the next few years this may significantly alter
the global context for U.S. developed products is what I heard you say.

DR. DYKES: Right.

MS. DILLEY: What it says here or it fits into the next section.

MR. OLSON: I think it\'ll \-- my view is that it will alter the whole
gene controversy around the world. I don\'t know what that last phrase
is, but, I think what I\'m trying to stress is you should say if these
are significant. I don\'t want to be one predicting that they\'re likely
to happen or whether they\'re going to be improved or not or what\'s the
significant scale. I think we just want to say if they get out there
it\'s clearly to change the landscape.

DR. DYKES: It may alter the global biotech fate.

MR. DEMORGAN: You guys are talking about, it seems like, two sentences.
There\'s the piece about rice and then there\'s Greg\'s other point,
which is the first two points are if, so, can we just \-- is it okay to
just stick on the first point which you suggested this about potential
new products? And I\'m not sure Greg has said that\'s sufficient to
address his concern. Is it or not? Greg?

DR. JAFFE: I\'m okay with it for now. I\'ll think about it.

MR. DEMORGAN: Good. So, then, Duane, is yours on that point or is it on
\--

MR. GRANT: It kind of \-- actually what occurs to me looking at that
second bullet point that it reads an awfully lot like the milieu thing
that\'s right up on the wall and that should probably be incorporated in
here.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: So we need a milieu in this sentence?

DR. JAFFE: Got to have it somewhere.

MR. DEMORGAN: You mean this one right here?

MR. GRANT: Yeah, yeah, it basically says the same thing as the milieu
statement. I mean, not quite as eloquently, but, \--

MR. DEMORGAN: Okay. So, I just wrote an action check to see if it is
with the milieu statement, okay? So, now we\'re into this other one
which was this last item, here, Greg. Now you have the language
transgenic rice variety becomes commercially available on \--

MS. DILLEY: On a significant scale in the developing world within the
new few years. It\'s all there, but, then it says the next few years
this will significantly \-- I heard this last go around that this will
significantly alter the global biotech debate.

DR. JAFFE: Right.

MS. SULTON: By the way, the milieu statement was waiting for a place to
be developed. We didn\'t know where to put it.

MS. DILLEY: We found a home for the milieu statement.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: The version I got \-- this is not redundant with the milieu
statement. This is a piece of the milieu statement but the milieu
statement is broader than genomic sequencing. They are together but they
are not necessarily \-- it\'s like rapeseed and canola.

MR. DEMORGAN: Hey, Greg, does this sentence then \-- is this what
you\'re suggesting and, Mike, I know you were asking about this or had
something to say here. If transgenic rice varieties \-- you hadn\'t said
that probably insect resistant varieties, but, commercially viable on a
significant scale in the developing world within the next few years this
will significantly alter the global biotechnology debate.

DR. LAYTON: We aren\'t using the word biotechnology by itself so it
might be for the modern biotechnology debate.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Agricultural.

DR. LAYTON: Or agricultural biotechnology.

DR. JAFFE: No, we can\'t use agricultural biotechnology.

DR. DYKES: The emphasis in that statement is that those varieties are
developed and commercialized.

DR. LAYTON: Outside the U.S.

DR. DYKES: Outside the U.S, right.

DR. LAYTON: And that\'s where they are \--

DR. DYKES: And we\'re not really necessarily capturing that.

MR. DEMORGAN: How were we?

DR. DYKES: I mean, say that. They are developed and commercialized
outside of the U.S.

MS. SULTON: So it\'s outside the U.S.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. DYKES: So I think for instead of become just say developed and
commercialized on a significant scale in the developing world.

DR. HERDT: Can we start off with the last part of the sentence first and
have the example last.

MS. DILLEY: Bob?

DR. HERDT: I don\'t understand why we don\'t in China. China is testing
these things on thousands of acres. If they\'re being grown on thousands
of \-- say, China.

DR. JAFFE: It can also be India.

DR. HERDT: It could be India but in China there\'s much more wide-scale
testing of this stuff and, yeah, it could be China. I mean, it\'s likely
to be China and it could be India, so, I mean, why not say it?

MS. DILLEY: Why not India.

DR. HERDT: We can say those \-- we can name those countries.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: I\'m just wondering if we can\'t say transgenic plant
varieties are developed and commercialized on a significant scale in the
developing world, e.g., India, or, however you want to do it.

DR. HERDT: Because it\'s a food crop. But, cotton is already out there
on a substantial scale.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: But this wasn\'t developed there, was it?

DR. JAFFE: I mean, I think it\'s with Mardi\'s point which is that I
mean, this rice would be a major crop eaten by humans and I think \--

DR. LAYTON: And that is \--

DR. JAFFE: \-- that is going to be a

difference \--

DR. LAYTON: \-- because?

DR. JAFFE: It\'s qualitatively different.

DR. LAYTON: But, why? Why is it? I don\'t like the end about
significantly alter the global modern biotechnology debate. I don\'t \--
that\'s not \-- what does it mean?

DR. MELLON: It means that we\'d be in control.

DR. LAYTON: So what?

DR. JAFFE: I\'m not waiting for those words but I do think that if rice
gets \-- if transgenic rice gets developed and commercialized in
developing countries I think it\'s going to dramatically change a lot of
these discussions we\'re having about commercial trade because humans
are going to be eating it in all these countries. I don\'t think
there\'s going to be resistance to the trade. I think there\'s going to
be differences in labeling. I think there will be a host of \--
potentially there\'s going to be a host of all these issues that we\'re
bringing up, these topics bringing up.

It may alter the debate on those both in the United States and around
the world. I don\'t know what the right words are for it, but, I do
think it will \--

MS. DILLEY: Carole and then Leon.

DR. JAFFE: \-- change that.

DR. CRAMER: I think that that\'s a very good point but I\'m not sure
that this is the right place to have it so remember what we\'ve done is
just named these ding, ding, ding, ding, eight bullets of new potential
crops and then we\'re saying here are some points to consider. The first
point is we\'re going to be looking at specialty crops that may be
outside the commodities strain.

The second is that we\'re going to have a new set of applications that
are moved from genomes and biotechnology and the third is that some of
the transgenic products commercialized in this time frame may emerge
from the developing \-- from developing countries or from other
companies and that basically they\'re just points to consider in looking
at this list in this paragraph context.

So, really \--

MS. DILLEY: So, really, these products may emerge from outside the U.S.
is what you\'re saying.

DR. CRAMER: The transgenic products commercialized in this time frame
may emerge from countries such as India and China, if you want to put
\--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: If you followed on that \--

DR. JAFFE: It\'s a valid point, but, it\'s a very different point.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah. Then you could follow up in the context of the
next list. You could add something about that the debate could be
changed if a developing country really, you know, significantly produces
a major food crop.

DR. CRAMER: But, you could end it with a sentence like all of these,
including the crops ahead, could change the complexion of U.S.
agriculture.

MR. OLSON: You could put that at the end of Michael\'s statement, right.

MS. DILLEY: So, right now Carol\'s going with just again a lead-on from
just to talk about the categories and examples of the new products and
then a few additional points are worth noting and then three more
sentences, the last of which is these products may emerge from outside
the United States or from such as India and China.

And then to the degree that you want to come back to this other point
you were discussing before it would be in the next section.

Leon, were you okay with that?

MR. CORZINE: Yeah, but, I\'m just going to say that put your examples
down. It may be in China, it may be somewhere else. But, you know,
mention that it was developed or coming from the developed world and
maybe if you think it\'s food products that will make the difference say
a food product in the first sentence and then put your example of rice
from China.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: So some of the transgenic plant varieties intended for
food use developed over the next few years will likely emerge from the
developing world. Is that \--

MR. CORZINE: Uh-hmm.

DR. DYKES: Yup.

DR. HERDT: You know, I have to say \--

MS. DILLEY: Bob?

DR. HERDT: \-- soybean numbers come to mind. You care about rice in
Asia. You know, people eat \-- you know

\-- I mean this is, as Greg says, I mean, I think he said it right. This
is a big deal and, so, you know, when it happens and I promise it\'s
going to happen, this is going to be a big deal. So, I mean \--

DR. LAYTON: I agree it\'s going to be a big deal.

DR. HERDT: \-- write it down. Write down India, rice.

DR. SCHECHTMAN: The question about the big deal portion might be a
separate point \--

DR. HERDT: Maybe it can go somewhere else, yeah. Maybe it can go
somewhere else. But, just, you know, some of the transgenic plant
varieties intended for food use just waters it all down.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s why I\'m saying, it\'s a good transition sentence if
you say these products may emerge from outside the United States, that
is rice in China or India. That kind of gives you a hint there\'s \--

DR. HERDT: Anyway.

MR. DEMORGAN: So, is what you\'re saying is this needs to go in the
proposal, whether this stays here or not?

DR. BUSS: You can say that because if you began that second sentence
with a, for example, if transgenic rice varieties, probably insect
resistant varieties, are developed and commercialized on a significant
scale in developing world, e.g., China or India, during the next few
years the basic components of the global modern technology debate will
be significantly altered.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Michael?

DR. DYKES: Yeah. I just \-- I like what Daryl just read. Somewhere in
there I think I\'m with Bob. It\'s a bigger point than I think we\'re
making here and it\'s \-- and, I think, Greg said it as well. This is
going to have a fundamental impact on our thinking about this whole
issue.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So, he\'s got it for now. We may come back and \--

DR. DYKES: That\'s what Daryl said, I think.

DR. BUSS: The underlying part needs to be altered. That just doesn\'t
read very well at this point. Within the next few years it will
significantly alter the bases of the modern technology \-- global modern
technology debate.

DR. HERDT: The biotechnology debate. I don\'t think you need modern
there. You know, you\'re talking about the global biotechnology debate.
Why do you need to put modern?

DR. LAYTON: Well, because biotechnology is the application of technology
\--

DR. HERDT: The debate is about the trends.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. Then modern biotech \--

DR. HERDT: The debate.

DR. LAYTON: Okay. The debate is about \--

DR. JAFFE: Which is what genetic engineering is about. That\'s what
it\'s really going to affect, genetic engineering.

DR. LAYTON: It\'s about \-- the debate is about genetic engineering?
Okay. Then just use genetic engineering and forget the word
biotechnology. And that one is clear.

(Discussion off the record)

DR. LAYTON: I think it means more to me when you say it that way. I\'m
really \--

MS. DILLEY: All right. Greg?

DR. JAFFE: I had a couple of edits on the first bullet which I\'m not
sure what it now looks like, but, \--

MS. DILLEY: To which first bullet?

DR. JAFFE: Well, many of the new products. There\'s a couple of minor
edits, but, I would say while some of the new products may reach the
marketplace will, I would delete the word still, will be intended for
undifferentiated commodity streams. Others, and I would delete are more
likely to, and say others may be produced under identity preservation
conditions or require strict segregation from all food or feed product
streams period.

DR. CRAMER: I don\'t think you need all either.

DR. JAFFE: Right, for food. It didn\'t flow very well and I also
actually \--

MR. DEMORGAN: It would be kind of two sentences and start with some and
then put a period.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Did it finish at streams?

DR. JAFFE: What?

DR. VAN EENENNAAM: Did it finish at streams or you want at all times?

DR. JAFFE: No. You don\'t need at all times. You just say \-- because
you\'re saying require strict segregation. That means at all times.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

DR. JAFFE: Get rid of at all times.

DR. CRAMER: The last three words of the sentence?

DR. JAFFE: Delete. Delete it all.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Anything else on those?

DR. DYKES: So make it two sentences?

DR. CRAMER: Actually, it would just be semi-colon in between so we\'ve
got more flow in the paragraph.

MS. DILLEY: I think it\'s the better part of valor to call it a day.
What do people think? So, why we start up at eight for coffee and \--

DR. SCHECHTMAN: 8:30 for the meeting.

MS. DILLEY: \-- 8:30 for the meeting and press on with the introduction
and then working on the topics.

(Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to reconvene on
Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 8:30 a.m.)