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

**Ninth Plenary Meeting**

# August 9-10, 2005

**Loews L'Enfant Plaza Hotel**

# Draft Meeting Summary

On August 9-10, 2005, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
convened the ninth plenary meeting of the Advisory Committee on
Biotechnology and 21^st^ Century Agriculture (AC21). The meeting
objectives were:

-   To introduce and engage in the Committee's work the new members.

-   To update Committee members on work completed and in progress.

-   To determine a work plan for completion of ongoing work.

-   To begin discussions on potential future work of the Committee.

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

A full transcript of the proceedings was prepared and will be available
on the USDA website <http://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/ac21.html>.
Below is a summary of the proceedings.

I.  **Welcome and Opening Comments**

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

Dr. Schechtman congratulated the Committee for its work in approving two
consensus reports, one entitled, "Preparing for the Future" and the
other entitled, "Global Traceability and Labeling Requirements for
Agricultural Biotechnology-Derived Products: Impacts and Implications
for the United States." He advised that these two reports and the
following documents, previously distributed to AC21 members and subject
to discussion or reference during the course of the Committee's
deliberations, were available to the public:

-   Provisional agenda for August 9-10, 2005 plenary meeting

-   AC21 Charter

# AC21 Bylaws and Operating Procedures

-   Biographical sketches of AC21 members

# Draft summary of the February 7-8, 2005 AC21 plenary meeting

-   Draft summary of a meeting for new members

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Current draft of the Issues to Consider chapter

-   Handout categorizing the various issues in the Issues to Consider
    chapter

-   Outline for the first introductory chapter and revised text for the
    second introductory chapter of the 5-to-10 year perspective report

-   Draft definitions list

Dr. Schechtman reviewed the meeting objects (listed above) and gave a
status report on the two reports submitted to the Secretary.

Dr. Layton welcomed members of the Committee and expressed her pleasure
with the Committee's accomplishments in completing the two reports. She
noted the need to complete the remaining chapters of the report by
year's end.

Dr. Bernice Slutsky also offered opening remarks in which she emphasized
how valuable the reports are to the Office of the Secretary and to USDA.
She also stated that there were several new topics for the Committee to
address.

Mr. Dick Crowder, prompted by the meeting summary from the new Committee
members' conference call, raised a question regarding the definition of
"consensus." From the associated discussions, three conclusions were
drawn:

1)  "Consensus" is achieved when no Committee members object to the
    proposed action or document language;

2)  The Committee will continue to operate by consensus procedurally.
    Committee members will be given adequate notice of any proposed
    changes to procedure in order to ensure that Committee members can
    be involved in the decision-making process; and

3)  The term "working," in reference to the definition of consensus,
    will be stricken from the new members' conference call summary.

Deputy Secretary Chuck Connor addressed the Committee, thanking them for
their willingness to serve and for their success in completing two
reports. Dr. Conner emphasized that the Committee's future work would
assist the USDA in its goal to help farmers and food manufacturers take
advantage of new biotechnologies and compete in the world marketplace.
The Committee could also play a role in assisting the USDA meet its
humanitarian obligation to the world's poorest developing countries.

In answer to a question from a Committee member about biotechnology
products coming into the U.S. from other countries, Mr. Conner stated
that there would be strong regulatory structures in place that are based
on the best available science.

Dr. Conner also stated, in response to a member's question, that he did
not expect the USDA to seek additional regulatory authority to address
economic and trade-related concerns relative to the production of plants
engineered to produce pharmaceuticals unless it becomes necessary in
order to ensure the safety and integrity of the food supply.

II. **Review of the February 7- 8 Meeting Minutes and Agenda Outline**

Ms. Sulton briefly reviewed the highlights of the eighth AC21 meeting
held on February 7-8, 2005 and asked that any additional comments on the
draft meeting summary be provided within one week so that the meeting
summary could be finalized and posted on the USDA AC21 website.

Ms. Dilley then reviewed the meeting agenda. She noted that the specific
approach to completing the Committee's ongoing work would be the first
focus of discussion and that the remainder of the agenda would be
determined based on that discussion.

In response to a member's request for more detailed agendas in the
future, Ms. Dilley explained that the agenda for the August meeting
reflected the need for Committee input on the direction and focus of its
deliberations - particularly with regard to reinitiating the discussions
surrounding "Issues to Consider." With the determination of a work plan,
future agendas will be more detailed.

III. **Discussion on Completing Ongoing Work: Examining Long-Term (5-10
     years) Impacts of Biotechnology on Agriculture and USDA**

(Note: The AC21 members discussed the completion of ongoing work on the
report, "Examining Long-Term (5-10 years) Impacts of Biotechnology on
Agriculture and USDA during sessions on the first day and second day of
their deliberations. All of these discussions are presented in this
portion of the summary.)

Dr. Schechtman summarized the status of the remaining sections of the
report, and reminded the Committee that the Secretary indicated at the
presentation of the earlier reports in May 2005 his interest in
receiving the report by the end of the year. Given that the texts for
most of the remaining chapters are still contentious and consensus may
not be possible, some members have expressed an interest a new approach
to the difficult sections. He also noted that new members have not yet
had the opportunity to offer their ideas for the report.

Dr. Schechtman offered a proposal for a new formulation of the report
that would reframe the chapter on "Issues to Consider" to "Topics/Issues
Discussed by the AC21." This section would consist of a list of
single-sentence topics or issues, including additional topics identified
by incumbent or new members. Dr. Schectman suggested that, time
permitting, the Committee also consider expanding on one or more of the
topics. He further proposed that the report include information on the
types of products expected in the marketplace in the next 5 to 10 years
and a brief description of how the report was developed.

The Committee discussed Dr. Schechtman's proposal for moving forward and
agreed in principle to the concept of a shorter document to be referred
to as a paper rather than as a report.

### Discussion of the "Issues to Consider" Chapter

The Committee discussed Dr. Schechtman's proposal for reframing Chapter
III, "Issues to Consider," of the original report. One member felt it
was a disservice not to include a full discussion of each issue even if
consensus could not be reached. Other members thought that, given the
time constraints, it would be best to work on language for a single
statement about each topic and to limit the explanation of each to an
additional three to four sentences. Some noted that the existing longer
texts for many of the topics had topic statements that were
intentionally relatively bland or indirect, but that the needed
limitations in length might make it more important to make the topic
statements more focused.

[Current Topics]{.underline}

The Committee then reviewed each of the existing 18 topic statements and
made edits to clarify the concept being raised. One of the topics,
related to State and local restrictions and moratoria on cultivation of
agricultural biotechnology products and on foreign moratoria on such
products, was divided into two separate topics, bringing the total to 19
topics. It was suggested that new members might benefit from the
provision of draft text corresponding to the Work Group's most recent
materials on all of the topics, rather than on only a few of the topics
as was provided in the official meeting documents. It was recognized
that the requested materials would be of use as background only, in that
for much of the text there had been as yet no opportunity for full
discussion even in the Work Group setting, and therefore there was no
consensus on those materials in terms of scope or content in that
setting, much less in the full committee. The document was produced and
distributed as requested, subject to those limitations. A brief summary
of the ensuing discussion on these existing topics, focused on
clarifying the brief statement (listed below) for each topic, is as
follows:

1.  Adventitious Presence

> *"There is no comprehensive policy regarding adventitious presence of
> biotech-derived events in seed, grain, or food."*

-   Comments included an assertion that the emphasis and approach in
    this topic in the report being developed should be consistent with
    how it was discussed in the report submitted by the AC21 to the
    Secretary on Global Traceability and Labeling Requirements for
    Agricultural Biotechnology-Derived Products: Impacts and
    Implications for the United States. Given that the earlier report
    focused on international requirements, a suggestion was made that
    domestic considerations could be raised in this report.

-   A language change for the topic statement was recommended, replacing
    "there is a need for comprehensive policy" for "there is no
    comprehensive policy."

2.  Asynchronous Approvals

> *"As more biotech events are commercialized globally, the problem of
> asynchronous approvals will become increasingly important."*

-   Again, it was suggested that theTraceability and Labeling report be
    drawn from to assure consistency and reduce redundancy.

-   The core of the topic needs to be better articulated, whether it is
    trade, the slowing down of product launches or meeting market
    demands, etc.

3.  Coexistence

> *"The coexistence of biotech production with various specialty and
> commodity crops will be important."*

-   It was noted that this topic had been extensively discussed by the
    work group and the resulting text included in the actual meeting
    documents distributed prior to the meeting.. It was suggested,
    however, that in a more concise format, the core concepts need to be
    drawn out and stated clearly.

4.  FDA Regulation of Foods from Transgenic Crops

> *"The FDA system for regulation of foods \[feeds\] derived from
> transgenic crops must be adequate to ensure human safety and public
> acceptance."*

-   The AC21 recognized that this topic was discussed at length in the
    work group, remains controversial, and both topic statement and
    explanatory text will need additional work to ensure that key points
    are captured in the suggested abbreviated format.

5.  Transgenic Animals

> *"There is no comprehensive federal regulatory system that will assess
> the environmental and food safety of transgenic animals before they
> are commercialized."*

-   The discussions indicated that there is a range of opinions
    regarding the appropriate scope for presenting this topic. Some
    thought the topic should focus on organisms within USDA's purview,
    while others did not agree. However, there seemed to be agreement
    that new language should not be so broad as to include laboratory
    animals.

-   In the context of articulating the need for a comprehensive
    regulatory system for transgenic animals, a Committee member stated
    that, while an example might help illustrate the point, using
    Glowfish^®^ as an example would not be helpful.

6.  Non-Food/Feed Plant-Derived Regulations

> *"The regulatory system for plant-derived products not intended for
> food or feed use must ensure appropriate containment and the safety
> and integrity of the food/feed system."*

-   A Committee member suggested adding language to clarify that this
    topic refers to non-food/feed plant-derived products in the field
    rather than the laboratory.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Another suggestion was made to modify the sentence structure so it
    is clear the intent is to refer to "safety and integrity" of
    non-food/feed plant-derived products with respect to the food/feed
    system, not the safety and integrity of the food and feed system
    with respect to all biotechnology-derived products.

7.  Domestic Regulations

> *"The trend toward local efforts to impose additional regulatory
> burdens on agricultural biotech products will have impacts on
> agricultural biotech."*

-   The Committee determined that there are two distinct topics: US
    domestic regulations and the increasing number of local restrictions
    and moratoria along with challenges for international trade at the
    global level due to moratoria, either *de facto* or imposed through
    law, in other countries (#8 below).

8.  Foreign Moratoria *(See #7)*

-   This new topic was added to distinguish it from #7 above.

9.  Minor Crops

> *"The extent of application of biotechnology to minor crops is highly
> dependent on the cost of product development and the unique
> characteristics of minor crops."*

-   The appropriateness of retaining this topic was questioned, given
    the Secretary's new charge on minor crops. It was noted, however,
    that other topics that the AC21 has already dealt with are being
    included in this document.

10. Future/Novel Products

> *"Future products, byproducts, and events associated with agricultural
> biotechnology may create urgent needs for the regulatory system and
> process to respond in a very rapid, effective, and coordinated
> manner."*

-   The word "novel" was recommended to replace "future," and "evaluate"
    to replace "respond."

-   Additional language was recommended to clarify that this topic
    covers both products coming into and going out of the U.S.

-   It was suggested that the concept of timeliness should be
    incorporated into the topic statement.

-   It was suggested that the term"urgent need" might require further
    explanation.

-   It was suggested that the text should include the concern that some
    products might "fall through the cracks" between the authorities of
    the multiple agencies potentially involved.

-   Some members expressed the view that the current regulatory system
    is based on current products and does not adequately anticipate new
    products and associated regulatory oversight needs.

11. Transparency

> *"The issue of the transparency in the regulatory system will become
> increasingly important, especially to different stakeholders'
> perceptions of biotechnology products."*

-   One Committee member referred to additional language on page 9 of
    the expanded background document for additional explanation of the
    topic.

-   Another member suggested including examples of products where
    transparency is an issue and suggested that the review of transgenic
    animals under the New Animal Drug Act be offered as an example.

-   Another recommended that the text be more explicit about how lack of
    transparency affects biotechnology products.

-   Other recommended word changes included deletion of the word
    "increasingly," and addition of "safety of" before the word
    "biotechnology."

12. Intellectual Property Rights

> *"International protection of intellectual property rights is
> essential for the capture of sufficient product value to justify and
> recoup costs of developing and marketing biotechnology products."*

-   To clarify the meaning of this statement, one member suggested
    striking "international" at the beginning of the sentence and
    inserting "internationally" between "rights" and "is." The member
    explained that there is no one international intellectual property
    law, but rather a variety of laws that differ by country.

-   Another member suggested adding language about how intellectual
    property could affect technology transfer to developing countries.

-   Adding "germplasm" in addition to biotechnology was suggested by a
    Committee member.

-   The Committee also discussed the associated topics of whether and
    how the increased privatization of research and intellectual
    property has new or unique consequences for USDA.

13. Humanitarian Use Licenses

> *"The transfer of biotechnology products to people in developing
> countries through humanitarian use licenses may provide important
> benefits, but the ability to gain humanitarian use licenses in the
> future is not assured."*

-   The Committee discussed finding better terminology to substitute for
    "developing" countries because this topic is viewed differently in
    the context of Brazil and China versus poorer countries.

-   A Committee member suggested the following language for further
    clarification, "Transfer of biotech has the potential to provide
    humanitarian benefits in the poorest countries, and it is important
    that humanitarian use licenses be readily available."

-   Another Committee member stated that the integrity of intellectual
    property must be maintained.

14. Market Access Restrictions

> *"Market access restrictions, including regulatory systems that
> consider socio-economic issues, could limit the ability to capture
> value from transgenic products."*

-   Language changes suggested included substituting "does limit" for
    "could limit" and adding "due to political and other
    considerations."

-   Adding examples of restrictions also was proposed.

-   This topic was folded into "foreign moratoria" (#8, above).

15. Testing-Based Trait Assurance Systems

> *"Commercial differentiation between conventional and transgenic
> product sources is creating demand for testing-based trait assurance
> systems, resulting in significant challenges for the U.S. commodity
> merchandising system."*

-   A Committee member suggested elaborating on "significant challenges"
    and offered possible examples, including the lack of a globally
    harmonized system of testing, established protocols determining
    where in the food chain testing occurs, standardized tests and
    testing protocols for increasing accuracy, and reducing the length
    of time testing takes.

16. Liability Implications

> *"The emergence of transgenic trait-sensitive markets has introduced a
> new level of commercial risk with liability insurance implications for
> all participants in the food/feed chain."*

-   Suggested language changes included, modifying "liability insurance"
    to "liability implications, including insurance," and taking out the
    word "all."

-   Another Committee member raised the issue of whether organic markets
    should be included.

-   Another Committee member observed that the core of this topic is
    that, with regard to products of biotechnology, it is unclear who
    bears liability.

17. Consumer Information

> *"In the next five to ten years, consumers will continue to want
> information about foods derived from agricultural biotechnology and
> there will be a need to ensure accuracy of the information."*

-   A Committee member observed that this statement alludes to issues
    surrounding labeling, but that it is a statement with "the edges
    worn off."

18. Food Processor, Producer, and Public Perceptions of Biotech Food

> *"The success of new, more visible agricultural biotechnology-derived
> food products will be influenced by whether food processors and
> retailers embrace these products as adding value to their businesses.
> Their decisions will, in turn, be influenced by whether the consuming
> public perceives the resulting genetically engineered food products as
> offering enhanced value, such as improved safety, taste, appearance,
> price, or nutrition."*

-   One Committee member encouraged replacing this paragraph with the
    following statement: "Consumer concerns about (or awareness of?)
    biotechnology will be of more importance than in the past."

-   Another member stated that there are multiple issues embedded in
    this topic statement.

-   Another Committee member raised concern that this statement may be
    interpreted erroneously to imply that the only benefits of
    biotechnology-derived products are to farmers, not to consumers.

19. Addressing Public Concerns

> *"The public interests with regard to food are broader than can be
> addressed by a science-based regulatory system."*

-   Word changes suggested included replacing "interests" with
    "concerns," replacing "food" with "some gene genetically-engineered
    agricultural products," and changing "science-based" to
    "risk-based."

-   Examples of "concerns" (e.g. ethical, social, and economic) should
    be added to clarify the topic.

[New Topics]{.underline}

The Committee also discussed ten new topics for addition to this section
of the paper (see attached addendum). The Committee will continue to
work on the language for each topic in the interim before the next
plenary meeting.

The Committee discussed the format and phrasing for the topics and
agreed that the language should be balanced and contain neither value
judgments nor recommendations. The Committee agreed to change the title
for this section to "Topics Discussed."

#### Discussion of the "Current and Future State of the Art" Chapter

The Committee discussed several options for revising Chapter II,
"Current and Future State of the Art," of the original report. Since the
"Topics Discussed" section of the paper will include some discussion of
the opportunities and challenges of biotechnology, the Committee agreed
to shorten the second section of the paper. One option under
consideration is to set the context for the "Topics Discussed" section
by briefly discussing both the opportunities of biotechnology as well as
the challenges that jeopardize realizing those opportunities. A listing
of current products and potential products will be included in the
discussion of opportunities.

### Discussion of the Introductory Chapter

The Committee decided to shorten the prior outline for Chapter I and to
focus on explaining the make-up of the Committee, the process the
Committee used to develop the paper, and the definitions of terms used
in the paper.

IV. **Discussion of Potential Future Committee Work**

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

Bernice Slutsky explained to the Committee that, following completion of
the existing charge on the future impacts of biotechnology, the
Secretary would like the Committee to undertake two new topics for
completion in 2006. First, the Secretary is asking for the Committee's
recommendations on the avenues of technology transfer or actions by USDA
most likely to facilitate the production of biotechnology-derived crops,
other than those intended for large-scale commodity uses, and that would
have the greatest positive economic impact on domestic markets, rural
communities in the United States, and developing nations.

Second, the Secretary would like the Committee's observations about the
effects (in terms of planting decisions, markets, and rural communities)
of coexistence issues on the development and use of specialty crops for
non-food uses and for quality-enhanced crops.

Ms. Slutsky further explained that, after completion of the Committee's
deliberations on the two new topics, the Secretary would come to them
with a topic on transgenic animals.

In response to a question about the topic on minor and specialty crops,
Ms. Slutsky stated that the Committee could consider a broad range of
positive impacts, not just economic impacts.

In response to questions from members, Dr. Slutsky explained that, while
the focus should be on coexistence issues anticipated to arise in the
future, the Committee could also identify current issues. Further, she
stated that, although it might be possible to add members with expertise
on rural development expertise to the Committee, the Committee could
choose not to address this aspect of the new topics.

**Public Comment**

Mr. Canice Nolan, First Counselor and Head of the Food Safety, Health
and Consumer Affairs Section of the European Commission Delegation to
the United States, presented remarks to the Committee. Mr. Nolan
emphasized that his remarks were personal and did not necessarily
represent the views of the European Commission. The full text of Mr.
Nolan's remarks is available on the USDA website
<http://www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/ac21.html>.

In his remarks, Mr. Nolan stated that the European community is
grappling with the same issues and topics the Committee is working on
and that he welcomed an opportunity for further dialogue between the
United States and the European Commission.

Mr. Nolan encouraged the United States to consider socio-economic
factors in addition to good science when making decisions about the
safety of biotechnology food products. He reminded the Committee that
polls in the European Union show that consumers do not want genetically
modified products in spite of claims of safety.

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

The Committee recognized that it is essential to complete the paper by
January 2006 and that in order to accomplish this work interim work
sessions will be necessary. The AC21 discussed and agreed on the
following next steps to prepare drafts of each section of the paper:

1.  Members provide schedule information to facilitate arrangements for
    conference calls during the late August-September to do interim work
    to clarify new \"Topics Discussed\" for inclusion in the paper.

2.  Chair and staff will develop Chair\'s Draft of \"Prior Topics\".
    Chair will endeavor to develop rapidly and circulate to the AC21 one
    or two of the individual topics as \"straw men\" to check on
    agreement as to format. Depending on progress and timing, completed
    draft \"prior topics\" may be circulated en masse or several at a
    time. Each Topic Discussed will have one or two topic sentences and
    no more than 3-4 sentences of explanatory text.

3.  Chair and staff will develop \"Introduction\" per se and begin work
    on \"Realizing the Promise: Opportunities and Challenges\" section,
    which is also introductory material, but which will follow the
    \"formal\" introduction. The Promise section will be augmented by
    later work session (conference call) effort. The entire Realizing
    the Promise section will be no longer than about 6 paragraphs or,
    probably, about 3 pages.

4.  Two Work Sessions (conference calls) will be held in late August or
    early September to clarify and flesh out the \"New Topics.\" A
    compilation of the topics mentioned at the August plenary session
    will be distributed shortly to help in these efforts.

5.  A draft Chair\'s text for \"Realizing the Promise: Opportunities and
    Challenges\" will be circulated. A work session (conference call)
    will be held in the same time window to discuss and further develop
    this section.

6.  All draft sections of the paper will be combined and edited so that
    the paper reads as a single document. A draft will be circulated to
    AC21 members on or before October 5, and comments solicited by
    October 12.

7.  Comments will be collated and provided side-by-side with draft text
    by October 17, for review at October 24-25 plenary meeting.

*Future Schedule and Meeting Dates*

The next AC21 meeting will be held on October 24-25, 2005. The
subsequent meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 5-6, 2006.

Dr. Schechtman announced that the Secretary is adding another member to
the Committee, a representative from the National Farmers Union from
Missouri, who will attend the next meeting.

VI. **Summary of Ninth Plenary Session**

Dr. Layton thanked Committee members for their work during the meeting
and for the extensive work that will take place before the next meeting.
She adjourned the meeting at 3:10 p.m.

DRAFT September 2, 2005

**New topics of discussion**

***(Raised at the August 9-10, 2005 AC21 plenary session)***

1.  As biotech products developed in other countries are exported to
    U.S., it is important to have adequate rules and processes in place
    to address them and to have a plan for communicating with the public
    about the safety of the products. (Dick Crowder)

2.  There is a need for global standardization and harmonization of
    testing and sampling methods (getting language from T & L Report)
    (Josephine Hunt)

3.  It is important to anticipate the technical expertise and staffing
    needs, both domestically and internationally, in order to facilitate
    trade in biotech products. (Michael Dykes).

4.  The lack of capacity of the poorest developing countries to deal
    with scientific, intellectual property, regulatory and international
    negotiation requirements related to biotechnology will limit growth
    of U.S. food and agricultural exports in the future. (Bob Herdt)

5.  The availability and adoption of biotechnology domestically and
    globally has, and will increasingly have important impacts on crop
    production patterns which USDA needs to consider, and USDA should
    also consider how lack of application of biotechnology in certain
    plant species will impact the future of U.S. agricultural production
    and producers. (Note: how can this be made a non-recommendation?)
    (Michael Dykes)

6.  How biotechnology research is funded has a direct impact on
    agricultural policy, and which biotech crops get commercialized
    impacts where scientists gravitate. (Pat Layton)

7.  One of the keys to future support of biotechnology is effective
    documentation and communication of the impacts of agricultural
    biotechnology products, especially with regard to soil loss,
    pesticide use, and other environmental impacts. (Leon Corzine)

8.  The lack of clear policy concerning coexistence of genetically
    engineered and non-engineered trees is limiting research and
    development of genetically engineered trees. (Pat Layton)

9.  The need for energy and government policy on alternative energy
    sources will drive changes in agricultural production. (Michael
    Dykes)

10. It is important to anticipate the impacts of a new generation of
    technologies, such as RNAi gene silencing technology, that will be
    available in the next ten years, on agriculture, on regulatory
    policy needs and on testing. (Carole Cramer)