UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

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

:

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON :

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND 21ST CENTURY :

AGRICULTURE (AC21) :

TWELFTH PLENARY SESSION :

:

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

A meeting in the above-entitled matter was held on March 28, 2006,
commencing at 8:16 a.m. at USDA, 1800 M Street, N.W., Waugh Auditorium
(3rd Floor),

Washington, D.C. before:

Patricia Layton, Chairperson

APPEARANCES

Michael Schechtman, USDA

Abby Dilley, Resolve

Kathy Grant, Resolve

Cindy Sulton, HW&W

Bernice Slutsky

Adrian Polansky

Greg Wandrey

Leon Corzine

Duane Grant

Randal Giroux

Josephine Hunt

Elizabeth Milewski

Carole Cramer

Russell Kremer

Gregory Jaffe

Jerome Slocum

Michael Dykes

Vincent Vilker

Ronald Olson

Margaret Mellon

Carol Tucker Foreman

Bradley Shurdut

Alison Van Eenennaam

Lisa Zannoni

Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes

Steven Pueppke

Robert Herdt

Daryl Buss

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

MR. SCHECHTMAN: The one announcement, good morning everyone, is that
this afternoon we were scheduled to have three speakers and one of our
speakers, Allen Williams, he\'s a farmer from Illinois, called this
morning and let me know that he is fogged in and his flight was
canceled. So that will potentially give us slightly more time, not that
we\'ll need it to finish our work.

MS. DILLEY: Just in terms of this morning\'s agenda up through lunch,
and we\'re continuing to work through text this morning on the document,
and we\'ll start with, kind of wrap up Number 8 and 23 if there were any
additional discussion on 23, and then we\'ll move to the introductory
text and review that. And then see if there are any additional comments
that people have on the document.

I talked to a couple of people and there were suggestions, we don\'t
have to talk about it now, but just keep in mind which text to work
from. Yesterday on the topics discussion we moved from the March 14th
with has the compilation of comments and text that already had
modifications from the previous draft, or we use the March 15th
language. So we can decide which text we want to work from at the point
that we shift to the introductory, the discussion on the introductory
section. But I just wanted to put that out there in terms of your
thinking a little bit preliminarily about which text you\'d like to work
from. So we\'ll make that decision when we get to that point, and
hopefully we\'ll wrap up what we need to do by lunch time at noon. And
then move on to our new topics.

If we need a little extra time we can do that, and also hopefully,
before we conclude the discussion, we not only want to finish working on
the text, but also specific next steps, as we did with the previous two
reports, specific next steps to finalize the document and draft a cover
letter. We may be doing that electronically, which is the way we did it,
I believe, the last two times. We did the drafting and a note to the
Secretary that would accompany the submission of the document.

And talk about maybe how we want to handle maybe the actual submission
of the report to the Secretary if we have time. So otherwise, we\'ll
communicate about that electronically. So any questions about today\'s
agenda? Anything from thinking about yesterday\'s discussion people want
to raise this morning before we get started?

Okay, so this is the text on number 8. The proposed text.

MS. LAYTON: The proposed text. I tried to keep it simple. I changed the
topic sentence around. Instead of starting with energy demands and
government policies, I started with genetically engineered crops may be
used to help meet growing energy demands and government policies for, I
think that should be government policy goals. It should be policy goals,
because you can\'t make policies. Sorry. Goals. For renewable
alternative fuels. Any thoughts on the topic?

MS. FOREMAN: Don\'t need the word government.

MS. LAYTON: And policy goals?

MS. FOREMAN: Public or just policies.

MR. DYKES: No. Public policy.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. CORZINE: One thing is, I don\'t know about the word may because
it\'s happening now. We\'re already doing that with what was in the
energy bill and what we\'re seeing in the expansion of ethanol use. And
we\'re using genetically engineered corn.

MS. LAYTON: But it\'s not specifically genetically engineered for
energy, right?

MR. LAYTON: And probably never will be. I mean, the corns are dual use.
It\'s not a food or feed, that\'s not an issue.

MS. LAYTON: Right. But corn is not the only thing out there. So that\'s
why I put it that way. If you read further down, and if you want to say
will be, that\'s okay. The next sentence is, they may be employed,
modern biotechnology may be employed to change the composition of both
food and non-food crops. And here I put for example, grasses and trees
for energy use. Scale of production for these genetically engineered
crops has tremendous implications for U.S. agricultural systems,
regulatory and safety issues for these genetically engineered crops may
vary depending on the type of modification to the crop, and the type of
crop, and just as for other genetically engineered crops there is a need
to assure that these issues are addressed.

Bioenergy uses will be visible to consumers and their scale alone could
raise concerns for them. Although meeting bioenergy needs, using
genetically engineered crops could be seen by consumers as a benefit as
well. Additionally, large acreages devoted to a limited number of
bioenergy crops may raise energy security, biodiversity, and rural
economic development concerns. These broader issues are not however
unique to genetically engineered crops.

We talked about a lot of issues yesterday, but I really tried to figure
out what was it specific about genetically engineered crops, and there
wasn\'t a lot of specific about genetically engineered crops other than
where they, you know, making sure they were meeting regulatory and
safety issues.

MR. DYKES: Down near your bottom sentence or so, where you talk about
rural \--

MS. LAYTON: Economic development?

MR. DYKES: Yeah. Down at the bottom.

MS. LAYTON: Last line. Next to last line.

MR. DYKES: Additionally, large acreages devoted to a limited number of
bioenergy crops may raise energy security, biodiversity, and \-- what do
you mean by rural economic development concerns there? I guess, I
understand what you, from yesterday\'s discussion, I understand where
you\'re going to the other two terms, but I don\'t know, \-- I\'m asking
to understand how rural economic development fits in with those other
two?

MS. LAYTON: And concern may not be the right word.

MR. DYKES; I mean again, I can see why you have concern with the other
two.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah, maybe it\'s concerns for the two and impacts, and
have rural economic development impacts as well.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s just those are three issues.

MR. DYKES: Or could influence rural economic development.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: That sounds good.

MS. LAYTON: So, energy security and biodiversity concerns and could
influence rural economic development?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Okay. You\'re right. Concern was not a right word for rural
economic development.

MR. DYKES: Something along those lines. That one just didn\'t fit with
the other two based on yesterday\'s conversation.

MS. LAYTON: Yeah.

MR. SLOCUM: How would it raise energy security concerns?

MS. LAYTON: If you had something that was susceptible to a disease or
susceptible to a pest and it wiped, it came in and wiped out, like a,
which we\'re not doing wheat, but wheat rust would be one where if you
didn\'t catch it ahead of time or you didn\'t have a disease resistance
ready for it, and especially an annual crop.

MR. SLOCUM: I understand exactly what you mean now that you explained it
to me, but I think for the lay reader it\'s going to be confusing.
Because your concern there is about the limited number.

MS. LAYTON: That\'s why I said \--

MR. SLOCUM: Not about large acreages.

MS. LAYTON: \-- a limited number of bioenergy crops.

MR. SLOCUM: I know. But the rest of the paragraph is very positive. This
may be an answer to energy security, and then you say, additionally,
this may be a threat to energy security. And I think, I really think we
need to elaborate on may raise energy security concerns if we\'re going
to leave it in there.

MS. LAYTON: Suggestion on how to do that.

MR. DYKES: Yeah, I\'m kind of with Jerry. Based on the conversation I
hear what you\'re saying, but if I just read that sentence without the
benefit of discussion, I would not, that would not be what my take home
would be there. This sounds to me like it\'s because you\'ve got a
limited number of these crops you could raise energy security concerns.
If you had crop failure is what you\'re saying.

If you got all your energy in one crop, large acreage, and you get a
crop failure across the board and you got vulnerabilities on energy
security.

MS. FOREMAN: Why don\'t you say just that? It may be the, you know,
sometimes we try to get so many ideas in one sentence, I think that one
warrants a separate sentence.

MR. SLOCUM: So if you take energy security out of that sentence and then
give your caution about, or your concern that this needs to be over a
broader spectrum of agriculture than just a limited number of crops.

MS. LAYTON: So tell me what you want me to say.

MR. SLOCUM: I don\'t have the concern that you have, so I don\'t know
how to word it.

MR. CORZINE: Sorry to make to you address, because my absence of
yesterday, but I don\'t quite understand what you\'re trying to get to
because we aren\'t real world with this. With what we\'re seeing with
the development of renewable fuels, we\'re going the other way. And
somebody reads this we\'re thinking we\'re going to raise the energy
concerns of our country? We\'re going the other way. We\'re lowering our
energy concerns with renewable fuels and what is happening today.

Now, if you, \-- and what we\'re seeing with where we\'re headed, we\'re
going to be using, we are diversifying our energy sources today, not
concentrating.

MS. LAYTON: I don\'t disagree with you.

MR. CORZINE: Well, so, what are we trying to do here? I mean, we\'re
talking about right now it\'s corn because the corn technology is way
ahead of everything else, it\'s the most economically efficient, all
those things. Now we\'re working on wood. We\'re working on switchgrass
and other biomasses, municipal waste, and if you want to put something
in there about that it\'s going to take biotechnology or and the whole
thing with cellulosity, if you want to include something there.

But I don\'t, we don\'t want to give the impression that where we\'re
headed is increasing our energy concerns or our vulnerabilities because
we\'re diversifying. We\'re going the other way. And so I don\'t know
where this whole section is trying to go here, but we\'re not even close
to real world with what it looks like we\'re trying to do with this.

MS. LAYTON: Yeah, we talked about several things yesterday when you
weren\'t here. Since they\'re not unique to genetically engineered
crops, I\'m not even sure that the last, that from additionally down
needs to be there. I mean, I would be comfortable stopping the
discussion at, could be seen as a benefit by consumers, \-- could be
seen by consumers as a benefit as well \-- and deleting the rest of it
because it\'s not specific to genetically engineered crops.

Those are general issues. We talked about them as general issues, and I
just threw them in there at the end because they were in the discussion,
but they really aren\'t specific to genetically engineered crops. And if
we are talking about only what we\'re talking about here, I\'m very
comfortable leaving from additionally down off because those are issues
whether they\'re genetically engineered or not. Especially biodiversity
which is my issue.

So I\'m comfortable deleting that section if you all are comfortable
taking that sentence out.

MR. DYKES: I would be agreeable to taking it out from additionally.
Delete from additionally down.

MS. HUNT: I have, \-- it\'s about another sentence. And I was wanting to
pick up a little bit on the conversation that was had yesterday when we
were talking about the fact that, you know, today, any crops, corn crops
that are being used for biofuels essentially are also approved for
animal, and for food and feed use. So looking at the sentence which
starts, regulatory and safety issues, I think today this is, from my
understanding, already the case and we also had the discussion about the
fact that this is a very different situation from PMPs, *et cetera*,
where you\'re introducing new proteins, and this isn\'t the case here.

So I think it may be more appropriate to say that in the future, I
don\'t know what it\'s going to look like in the future. I think today
what we\'re saying is that the regulatory system covers the fact that
these crops are bio, do have two functions, and therefore, adding in the
future.

MS. LAYTON: So regulatory and safety issues of future genetically
engineered energy crops may vary depending on the type of crop.

MS. HUNT: Yeah either there or at the beginning of that sentence. I
think that may sort of capture some of the discussion that we had
yesterday on that.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, thank you.

MR. JAFFE: I mean I have a different comment on that sentence, and so
I\'m not so comfortable with putting in the future there because I think
what\'s missing from this whole thing is two comments. One is though I
think is missing from this whole thing is that we\'re specifically
engineering traits that deal with energy use, again, it goes to Leon\'s
thing, that is sort of missing from this discussion here. I mean, and to
some extent genetically engineered crops are currently being used for
energy uses, but they\'re not specifically engineered for energy
production.

And what we\'re trying, \-- I thought the only point of this whole
paragraph was to talk about engineered traits that are specifically
engineered for production. For energy production. So I mean I think that
first, so you could keep the topic sentence but for that second sentence
I think we need to put in something to the effect of, you know, first of
all modern, we can\'t use modern biotechnology because that\'s not one
of our defined terms. We have to use genetic engineering or \--

MS. LAYTON: No, modern biotechnology is one of our defined terms.

MR. JAFFE: No, it isn\'t.

MS. LAYTON: Yes, it is.

MR. JAFFE: It says derived from modern biotechnology. I\'m looking at
page 2 of our introduction. It\'s not modern biotechnology.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, genetic engineering?

MR. JAFFE: Yeah.

MS. LAYTON: I just was trying to not use genetic engineering all the
time.

MR. JAFFE: I understand. So I mean, I would say, you know, so I was
going to say genetic engineering may be employed to change the, to
engineer traits in crop that specifically relate to energy production.

MS. LAYTON: Good add.

MR. JAFFE: And that was on the first sentence, I guess I would say. So,
you know, genetic engineering may be employed to engineer traits in
crops that specifically relate to energy production. And you could say
in both food and non-food crops. May be employed, could be employed, to
engineer traits in I guess food and non-food crops, in both food and
non-food crops, that specifically relate to energy production.

So that\'s my first comment. I mean, I\'m not sure that\'s the best
wording in the world, that was just what I could do quickly scribbling
something. The second one was related to that sentence which Josephine
had just talked about. Because I think now you don\'t necessarily need
the future because none of these crops exist right now. We don\'t have
any engineered crops that are specific to energy production.

But for this one, so I would delete the in the future. I would change
this one around to say, as with other GE crops, all regulatory and
safety issues must be addressed before commercialization. And the reason
I say that is, regulatory issues vary depending on the type of crop.
They also vary on the scale of the crop. There\'s a lot of other things.
So I think to name two of them and not name others is sort of
misleading.

MS. LAYTON: Fair enough.

MR. JAFFE: So I just think we should just say something like, as with
other GE crops all regulatory and safety issues must be addressed for
commercialization. If you want to say something specific about food
safety of those crops, that\'s a choice we could decide to do. Josephine
may want to do that. You know, but all regulatory and safety issues
including food safety, but I was just uncomfortable saying all
regulatory and safety issues must be addressed before commercialization.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s a much shorter sentence too, thank you.

MR. JAFFE: Those were my two comments.

MR. DYKES: I think in the sentence with scale of production, I think it
would be, in the scale of production of these, take out genetically
engineered, I don\'t think you need it there, that\'s referring back to
what it is, of these energy crops.

MS. LAYTON: Does this get it what we were trying to say.

MS. MELLON: I think we might want to insert the word large in front of
scale. The large scale production of these energy crops. And perhaps put
such crops. The large scale production of such energy crops, because
that makes it clear that they\'ve been genetically engineered, just you
know, with traits that specifically relate to energy production.

MR. JAFFE: And could we put could have instead of has, since we\'re
talking about future?

MR. CORZINE: I still wonder that maybe a change here to help somebody
reading this, and my concern is one, I guess, we have a section already
talking about industrial crops.

MS. LAYTON: I looked it up yesterday.

MR. CORZINE: I don\'t know if we, one point is do we even need the
section because if this is where we\'re headed to something this
specific, do we even need this number 8 in here is one question. The
other one is if we do, I would change the topic. Instead of starting
with genetically engineered crops, I would put energy specific crops
that may be developed. And that would be your start line. Energy
specific crops that may be developed to help meet the growing energy
demands.

But first, I still raise the question whether we need this number 8?

MS. LAYTON: I asked that yesterday. We decided that we thought we needed
it.

MR. CORZINE: So then if we do, this I think would help clear up that
issue, you know, because we \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And then you can, demands is not the end of the
sentence. Cut out all the way to the next demands.

MS. MELLON: We want you to know our concern here is with the crops that
are genetically engineered to meet \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Energy specific genetically engineered crops.

MS. HUNT: I think what we had yesterday was crops genetically engineered
specifically for.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Is that what you\'re talking about, or are you
talking, they\'re being genetically engineered specifically for energy?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MR. CORZINE: Well, if they are energy crops that are not intended for
food, does it matter if they\'re genetically engineered or not? There\'s
a concern with them in food supply isn\'t there?

MS. HUNT: Well, I think the point is its functionality then what we
would want in the food supply anyway is the functional contribution.

MS. MELLON: But there is more concern about putting out genetically
engineered, a crop specifically, a food crop like corn that is
genetically engineered specifically to obtain new substances for
purposes of energy production, put that out on large acreage, is like a
third or a half of our corn production. There\'s more concern about that
than the conventionally bred corn varieties that also has energy use.

MR. CORZINE: I think the key there is food. Why can\'t you have
something that\'s through molecular breeding or you know even changing
some of the systems? For example, you don\'t dry the corn as much
because or a lower temp drying because it\'s to ferment the corn. I
don\'t think that\'s a concern, but what if you have a crop that\'s
traditional breeding, that okay, this isn\'t intended for food at all.
This is for fuel. I guess I don\'t understand.

MS. MELLON: Well, I think it\'s one because it\'s conventionally bred.
We\'re comfortable that within the limits of conventional breeding it\'s
not going to represent a, I will call it, an unacceptable risk you can
take. I think the genetic that I have in mind when I say genetically
engineered food products such as corn, that has been genetically
engineered to contain proteins the come from deep sea, you know, marine
organisms that have never been in the food supply before and produce new
proteins at a scale that you absolutely know that you\'re going to have
contamination of food and feed corn.

MS. DILLEY: So is it food crops?

MS. MELLON: You know that it will happen. And you can\'t even conceive
of confinement mechanisms that would operate at the scale that we would
need to if you were really talking about energy products.

MS. DILLEY: Leon, to go to your point on the food crops, would it be
food crops genetically engineered specifically for energy?

MR. CORZINE: Maybe. It\'s still, protein isn\'t what is used for the
energy anyway. It\'s the starch. The protein stays in and that\'s why
it\'s a dual food. So the protein isn\'t even an issue.

MS. MELLON: Well, they may never do it. No one may ever engineer it for,
to bring in a new, you know, gene expression path, but I think people
are out there looking at corn very hard, and that they are seeing it as
a big opportunity for genetic engineering, and one that \-- we\'ll just
have to fight the product, the reality that corn is also a major food
crop.

So it is the same thing, you know, it\'s an issue, but it\'s writ much
larger than could understand. We were, I think, thinking about when you
talk about pharmaceutical production or perhaps even industrial
production. So we could just consider it pulled into the other issues
that, you know, to me that is something new that we could raise apart
from those more general concerns. And just simply say it\'s something
people really don\'t need.

MR. GIROUX: Mardi, I struggled with this yesterday, and I\'m struggling
with it again today. This idea of being, of not being able to have
markets that are industrial and food sitting next to each other as long
as there\'s full food and feed approval. You know, we have that as I
mentioned yesterday with industrial corns next to food corns. We\'ve got
rapeseeds next to canola. I mean we have many examples of industrial
crops that are safe in food growing next to each other, and I just
don\'t see why agricultural biotechnology or genetic engineering creates
a new issue that we didn\'t, that we haven\'t already addressed in the
paper somewhere else. I just don\'t see it.

MS. MELLON: I mean it looks and feels new to me, but I think that, I
mean I understand the intellectual framework within which it is viewed,
but I think anybody who thinks that energy crops is going to,
genetically engineered corn, food crops, is going to create a comfort, a
new comfort level or a new enthusiasm for genetically engineered, for
genetic engineering, I think just doesn\'t understand how it, you know,
is going to play, and I think the concerns are real. But part of it,
part of our difference is that I\'m not sure. I don\'t have confidence
in the regulatory system at all.

So I\'m not confident that they\'re going to get food and feed approval
that means something. And we talked about some of that yesterday. I\'m
confident, you know, that many people will try to do the right thing,
but the scale on which this is being done, I think is large enough that
it raises, you know, a new set and intensity of issues.

MR. DYKES: When we had this, to me this is getting all bogged into all
the negative concerns about it. When we had it here as an issue, and I
think we even had this in the scenarios paper, as I recall.

MS. LAYTON: Yes, it\'s in the scenarios paper.

MR. DYKES: That one of the things that we were going to be making some
fundamental changes in agriculture in shaping agriculture is the growing
demands of energy. And I think when we started on that on scenarios, I
don\'t think we even had the renewable fuel standard at that time.

And I think that we\'ve seen just in the last two years the changes that
have occurred. I think the fact that our focus on less reliance on
foreign oil for energy concerns and what that\'s going to do in
agriculture, and the growth of innovation that\'s going to spur, is
something that I think genetic engineering is going to play a part in,
and I think it\'s something that this group, I thought we wanted to
convey to the Secretary of Agriculture that\'s something you need to be
aware of. It\'s going to create some fundamental changes out here.

MS. LAYTON: And that\'s the part about the impact on U.S. agricultural
system.

MR. DYKES: Yes. And I think, I mean, look at what it\'s done on rural
development today. I mean, it\'s been phenomenal. But we\'re down to
concerns about the regulatory process some how or another in this
discussion, which I understand and I appreciate that, but I think we got
that covered elsewhere with PMPs, PMIPs, regulatory issues,
transparency.

MS. DILLEY: I wonder if maybe the language, I mean because Mardi, the
concerns you just raised I think go directly to 27, which is people have
different points of view in terms of the confinement, requirements,
etcetera, and commingling, etcetera. And I think those are addressed in
other issues. I thought this one was more the scale issue and just, I
mean, way back when we started these conversations in smaller groups,
there was the scale and the regulatory review and requirements that may
be different. I don\'t know if they so much, I mean, in a full den some
of the issues in terms of confinement and \--

MS. MELLON: There is no confinement \--

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so but, \--

MS. MELLON: If it\'s a quarter or a half \--

MS. DILLEY: But I think the scale is what\'s different with energy. I
think that\'s where we landed on yesterday, and it wasn\'t that, I do
think that in terms of the safety issues and the confinement, specific
issues are already addressed in another topic, but if it\'s scale and
the regulatory review and requirements may be different given the scale,
and we\'re talking about large scale because they help address some of
the energy concerns and may be used for alternative energy, and
therefore, would ramp up maybe potentially much faster.

I don\'t think those are necessarily, I mean we didn\'t talk about them
as negatives. It was more challenges in terms of what changes are
thinking in terms of how would you confine? What would you do in
reviewing? Would there be different kinds of things we need to look for?
So, I don\'t know if that is more what we need here and the confinement
or safety issues are more on the other piece that has some people think
this, and some people think that. Because that just bumps up against
different points of view in terms of the regulatory systems ability to
address those at this point or whether it needs to evolve. Then that\'s
addressed in another topic.

So if we can get away from that particular issue in this one because it
is addressed elsewhere, and I don\'t think it\'s unique to energy, it\'s
more of a pharmaceutical, industrial and PMP issue that\'s somewhere
else, and this one is more the scale piece and it\'s the regulatory
review and requirements that\'s more unique because of the scale and
it\'s because it\'s energy. So things seem to be linked in this
particular topic. I don\'t know if that helps. But that\'s what I\'m
hearing in terms of different, Leon you\'re still knitting your brow, so
I don\'t know if that works for you.

MS. FOREMAN: I think our function here is to not take the Secretary a
cheerleading document, but to take the Secretary a document that talks
realistically about opportunities and challenges. This is a huge
opportunity. It also has some challenges involved in it. And I think it
would not be responsible to address the opportunities without noting
that any time you have a real big opportunity, you usually have some
problems and people don\'t want to look at them, but we\'re supposed to
be telling him about the things that he should be alert to and that this
will not be a great day to open the highway with no obstacles in the
way. That\'s just not realistic.

With regard to addressing these issues somewhere else, I think there are
six at least of the issues that we address in this document that have
been the subject of another report and discussed in great detail in that
report. There are a number of issues that are repeated again, and again
and again. This one is not like PMP. And even if it were, it strikes me
that here, once again I agree, the scale is such and the opportunities
are such that it needs to be addressed separately.

But I think it\'s simply not responsible of us to address them as though
we will not have to recognize and deal with problems along the way. I
brought in today and passed around an article by Andrew Pollock, which I
think is a cautionary tale in which he goes through a number of the
products, a number of the reasons why some of the consumer benefit
products of agricultural biotechnology have not made it to market yet.
There are a lot of technical issues that pop up there. And there has
been consumer and company opposition in a number of places. I think
it\'s our responsibility to note those things as well as the positives.

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t think anything I said would suggest that we should
avoid the issue. I think what I was trying to do is separate out,
because the PMP issue is addressed differently in a some think this and
some think that, it seems to me that unless we go that way with this
one, which I don\'t think is that productive, because I do think the
scale and the fact that it\'s an energy crop, we\'re trying to balance
the huge opportunity and the potential challenges.

We\'re not talking about avoiding having that discussion. We\'re trying
to place what\'s unique about those two particular things together. So I
don\'t think it\'s avoiding, trying to tease those out. So I don\'t know
if that helps or doesn\'t help. If it doesn\'t help, then we keep going
with trying to find some language.

MS. FOREMAN: I think we\'re going to have to address the regulatory and
safety issues any time you use a food crop.

MS. DILLEY: And I didn\'t say remove regulatory and safety issues. I
said regulatory review and requirements. If you want to get safety in
there, such as safety.

MS. FOREMAN: But it says as with genetically engineered crops all
regulatory and safety issues must be addressed.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s a flat statement.

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah. I don\'t know why that\'s a problem. It seems to me
that that\'s reality. If you think that we\'re going to go forward
without them being addressed, that\'s a pipe dream.

MS. DILLEY: I don\'t think anybody suggested that.

MR. JAFFE: I think, for me this topic is not my issue. There are some
other things that are my issues. I think that this clearly, I know
there\'s been some discussion here should we have this in or not. I
think, the issue, our standard has always been if it\'s one or more
person's issue, we should keep it in. I think having that discussion now
is just not productive. This clearly is an issue that at least one or
two people in the committee and we should just keep it in.

I think this language does a fairly good job of balancing the benefit
and raising some of the challenges. I guess, I think we should just
either quickly decide whether we can massage some of this language as a
consensus, otherwise we should go to some say this and some say that,
which we\'ve done in other issues and we\'ve done it fairly quickly in
some of the issues. Because I think that we\'ve spent I don\'t know two
or two and a half hours in the last day and a half on this topic alone,
and I\'m not saying it\'s not an important topic, but there are other
topics where we just said we\'re just going to go some say, in the last
meeting, some say this, some say that, to move on.

And I think we should either see whether this language satisfies people
enough, or whether we need to do that at this stage. That\'s my
suggestion.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, right now, I mean, all I see is the change that,
what\'s on the table right now is a specific change to the first one,
the topic sentence, which would be something like, energy specific crops
may be developed, or crops may be genetically engineered.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I make two \-- sorry.

MR. KREMER: While we were crafting this within our small groups, I
thought that this was going to be the consensus builder of all. That
we\'d be sitting around singing Kumbaya. But the fact of the matter is
that is a very significant issue, and because from all sides of the
fence it seems like we kind of came together saying, yes, we think
there\'s a tremendous opportunity and a tremendous place for this type
of activity, and at the same time that being tremendously positive, it
also brought up the issue that here, more than ever, in this particular
instance, that there has to be some notation or some concern about
regulatory and safety. And so I surely believe that it should stay in
there, and Pat, I think basically you did an excellent job of drafting
this, and I see very little problem with it. I\'m ready to just pass it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can I make a couple of possible suggestions which may or
may not help. For the beginning of the sentence I think \-- for the
topic sentence, the words that I think we used in one of the many
yesterday\'s versions, was crops genetically engineered specifically for
enhanced energy production.

MS. LAYTON: Are you okay with that Leon? You were the one that didn\'t
just like.

MR. CORZINE: It depends on what comes after it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. What I thought, and then may be used to help.

MS. LAYTON: Meet growing energy demands and public policy goals for
renewable alternative fuels.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. And then what I was thinking was that this section
could be a little bit more text setting with could be a sentence like
this currently commingled \-- then a sentence to set some context that
something like, currently commingled commodity crops such as corn and
soybean, a substantial portion of which is genetically engineered, are
being increasingly used for energy production as well as for food and
feed use. And then, in the future genetically engineering could be
employed, and then going on so that there\'s a sort of sense of context
that this is a little bit different.

MS. FOREMAN: I think that\'s good.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Does that help Leon, a little bit?

MR. CORZINE: I think it does. I think where we have to be really careful
here, if we really want to be relevant, we can\'t set this up that food
versus fuel thing because it is absolutely not that today, and it is not
really headed in that direction. And we aren\'t, if we\'re talking about
anything close to plant-made pharmaceuticals, we are not talking about
large scale. You just aren\'t. Because you don\'t have those acres.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That\'s what I was trying to do.

MR. CORZINE: So what you\'re saying maybe is okay, but, you know, isn\'t
that much shorter, and I\'m not married to the language, but that first
sentence there says it in half the words.

MS. LAYTON: What?

MR. CORZINE: Energy specific crops may be developed to meet growing
energy demands of our country. Or just growing energy demands, because
of the world, I guess it\'s going to be the world. Doesn\'t it? And then
you\'re talking, and you get the word specific, because it seems to me
like people are trying to address, and there\'s no other reason to have
it in here unless you are trying to address that, is energy specific
crops. Right?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Well, and I guess the point is, the point about the
capturing the specific traits would be captured in the section below if
you wanted that.

MR. CORZINE: I would go with something very simple. It\'s very few words
and then go with the language you were talking about right below it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And then go through the rest of the \-- and then the
issue would be captured below in the genetic engineering could be
employed to engineer traits.

MR. DYKES: Why don\'t you give her that sentence so she can type it that
you had earlier about currently.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. Currently, commingled commodity crops such as corn
and soybean, I would take out the comma after crops, a substantial
portion of which is genetically engineered, are genetically engineered,
sorry, comma, are being increasingly used for energy production as well
as for food and feed use. In the future, and then comma, continuing with
what\'s there.

MS. LAYTON: And Leon you\'re comfortable with just energy specific crops
may be developed to help meet the growing energy demands? Why don\'t we
put energy specific crops, instead of genetically engineered crops in
the topic sentence. So the original topic sentence \--

MR. CORZINE: I guess if you\'ve got everything below, I\'m for fewer
words if we can at all, and I know you are too, and I so I think it,
it\'s just what are we trying to address in number 8? It\'s what that,
very short, very simple says. I don\'t think you need all that up in
there. I mean why do we need to even say, for example, \--

MS. LAYTON: Public policy goals for renewable alternative fuels. Okay,
I\'m fine with that. So delete all the topic from where you are Cindy
down to that and the one at the top stands. Unless somebody has a dying
issue.

MS. FOREMAN: No. The sentence as it's written up above, the subject is
right. It really reads bad, and I\'m not sure why. It just clanks on the
ear. And if you say energy specific crops may be developed to help meet
growing of demands for all renewable and alternative fuels, it would
read better.

MS. LAYTON: so, energy specific groups may be developed to meet the
growing energy demands for \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, growing demand.

MS. LAYTON: Growing demand \--

MS. FOREMAN: For renewable alternative fuels.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, how does everybody feel about that one?

MS. MELLON: I can go with that. But I would suggest that in the first
line it would make probably things clearer if you said that a
substantial portion of the commodity crops are genetically engineered
for agronomic purposes.

MR. GIROUX: I\'m just struggling to understand what an energy specific
crop is because in corn it would never be an energy specific crop. There
would always be a feed component to that crop. So maybe crops with
energy specific traits might work. Or if that means switchgrass, then I
think I would be fine. If that definition of an energy specific crop
includes corn, I\'m not sure I can agree with that.

MR. CORZINE: Well, the only thing, Randy, that I would say is the other
way because we don\'t know what may be coming because today we already
have crops and are working on through molecular breeding as well as
biotechnology in other ways trying to do things to maybe enhance the
starch content or the fermenting starch and all those kind of things,
which are not a problem because they all are going to have food and feed
approval because there\'s a food component to those.

Now this says an energy specific crop, be it switch grass or whatever,
or a tree.

MR. GIROUX: Okay. I just want to make sure I\'m reading it right. So
I\'m okay with energy specific crop if we\'re not talking about corn.

MS. FOREMAN: But we might be. Later on we clearly are. It seems to me
that Randy\'s suggestion, Leon, encompasses yours, but is more precise.

MS. LAYTON: Crops with energy specific traits may be developed.

MR. CORZINE: I had a question on Margaret\'s addition. What do you mean
by agronomic traits? Does that include environmental things that we\'ve
talked about, because there were folks that are \--

MS. MELLON: It\'s not an energy purpose. They weren\'t engineered for
\-- the distinction is between corn that was engineered for that purpose
and corn that may be geared for \--

MS. LAYTON: Okay. Going once.

MR. GIROUX: The word commingle doesn\'t belong there. Are we saying that
we throw corn and soybeans together in the fermenter?

MS. LAYTON: So currently commodity groups \-- good catch.

MR. JAFFE: Can you just put in parentheses e.g. corn and soy beans.

MR. GIROUX: The other change I think I\'m going to need to see is, it
says increasingly used for energy production as well as food and feed
use. You know, I\'ve said several times, they are not mutually exclusive
industries. They are the same industry.

MS. LAYTON: You don\'t want that there?

MR. GIROUX: We can use for energy production and food and feed use.
Energy, food and feed production. They\'re not mutually exclusive
industries.

MS. LAYTON: So what you\'re saying is, are used for, are being
increasingly used for energy, food and feed production, and you\'re
comfortable?

MR. GIROUX: Uh-huh.

MS. LAYTON: Are we okay or are we not okay?

MR. GRANT: That just doesn\'t make any sense. I mean it restates the
obvious. That\'s what we grow crops for, is for food and feed use. I
mean I don\'t want it to go out looking exactly like that. You can put
for energy concurrently with food and feed production or something like
that. But for us just to simply restate that we\'re growing crops for
food and feed use. And I don\'t really like the word concurrently
either.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s not concurrently.

MR. GRANT: But you get the idea?

MR. OLSON: We do we even need to say it? Why don\'t you just put a
period after energy.

MR. GRANT: I agree with you, Ron, put the period after energy.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s a period after energy.

MS. LAYTON: Not production.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I have to say, I agree with Russ. I was completely
surprised that that took as long as it did.

MS. LAYTON: There was 5 starred, I just need to check, I wanted to check
who was working on that one sentence? Ron had the cite.

MS. DILLEY: I was, but due to technical difficulties as you know, I
couldn\'t get an email off to Bill Wilson who was the reference that Ron
gave me, so I will try to do that this afternoon.

MS. FOREMAN: I\'m one of the people who wanted that and I\'m perfectly
willing for it to be found and inserted after tomorrow.

MS. DILLEY: So the only one that was then still had not been completed
was 23 and I think that was the opportunity for people to go back and
review giving the modifications to the italicized text for those to go
back and review their particular text and wanted to see if people, upon
reflection and doing that had any additional language they wanted to
insert to number 23.

Randy, I don\'t know if you had an opportunity to do that. I was at
dinner. So I don\'t know if you actually went back and did some work
after.

MR. GIROUX: No.

MS. DILLEY: So you did have a chance to review it and?

MR. GIROUX: Yes. We\'d like to make two additional sentence. Put a
qualifier in on the end of one sentence and add one additional sentence.
It\'s in paragraph of, The other AC members. Third paragraph.

So first change is in the sentence that begins with consumer preferences
can be addressed. And at the end of the sentence, and allow market
forces to operate. That\'s the one change. Do you want to just put all
the changes in and then we\'ll discuss them at that point?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. GIROUX: The next one is in the sentence to mandate labeling of
products. And then the addition is \--

MS. DILLEY: At the end of the sentence, Randy?

MR. GIROUX: I\'m sorry?

MS. DILLEY: Where is it, at the end of the sentence? Is that where you
want?

MR. GIROUX: No. At the, to mandate labeling of products, and then new
text, generally has led to avoidance of such ingredients, reformulation
of food products and limited choice in the marketplace.

MS. DILLEY: And then eliminate the rest?

MR. GIROUX: And then, and they believe.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so it\'s an addition, it\'s not replacing anything?

MR. GIROUX: Right.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Could you read it again Randy?

MR. GIROUX: She\'s got it correct. And has generally led to something.

MS. DILLEY: To mandate labeling of products generally has led or do you
want \--

MR. GIROUX: It doesn\'t matter. Has generally led to avoidance of such
ingredients, reformulation of food products, and limited choice in the
marketplace.

MS. DILLEY: So those are the modifications for changes to the other
paragraph.

MR. GIROUX: The only other word that Carol\'s pointed out is we probably
don\'t need further there. Consumer preferences can be addressed by
market-driven voluntary labeling. And get rid of further. So those are
our recommended changes.

MS. DILLEY: Anybody else want to add. You all set. Thumbs up. We\'re
ready to close 23? Great. Good job. Thank you. Let me work through the
topics. I know that people have raised issues on point of fact. I\'d
like to table those until we go through the introduction sections and do
that first. You guys want to take a five minute stretch or not?

MS. CRAMER: Well why don\'t we talk about title them for something
light. You know, short.

MS. DILLEY: Did anybody think of any other titles that you\'d like to
see on there, Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: I just mixed two, and suggest the decade ahead,
opportunities and challenges in agricultural biotechnology.

MS. DILLEY: The decade ahead, opportunities \--

MS. FOREMAN: And challenges in agricultural biotechnology.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so we have several candidate \-- this is suggestion
for a title.

MS. LAYTON: Actually I like it.

MR. OLSON: I\'d move the decade to the back.

MS. DILLEY: So Opportunities and Challenges in Agricultural
Biotechnology: The Decade Ahead.

MR. OLSON: Yeah, because the report isn\'t about the decade ahead, it\'s
about the opportunities in biotech. That\'s my feeling.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Does everyone like the pieces in that regardless of
which order it goes?

MS. DILLEY: Well, if we can go with that, that\'s easy.

MS. FOREMAN: Thate Carol Cramer points out that the word should be
agricultural biotechnology.

MS. DILLEY: People like that title? Okay.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That was remarkably easy.

MS. DILLEY: Why don\'t we take a 10 minute break.

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MS. DILLEY: Just a couple of things in terms of the introduction and the
introductory text. Yesterday we had talked a little bit about where
people envision most of the discussion and comments that you had, and so
from that just a quick assessment we thought that the section on the
past decade and the next decade probably be where we\'re going to spend
most of our time. That doesn\'t mean we\'re not going to discuss the
rest of the sections obviously.

What I propose is that we try and take this generally, so start at the
beginning and work on the introduction, the portion that has the
introduction underlined at the front page of the text, that goes through
until about a third of page two, and just watch it, and just a reminder
in terms of what this introductory text was meant to do and the
different sections.

The cover piece, the introduction itself is to talk about the committee,
how it was formed, what we did and how we did it, and who we are kinds
of things. As well as from the last draft, it includes, can the shared
vision as well as an acknowledgment that different members come from
different perspectives and have different views, and so it\'s trying to
balance that in terms of what there\'s a common vision and where there
are different points of view. Which is the last portion of it.

And then the next section, the past decade, and the next decade was
intended to provide a contextual piece leading into the topics
discussion. So trying to capture both what are those products that are
envisioned over the next 5 to 10 years and the environment at large. I
don\'t just mean that environmental, but environment broadly defined
into which that they were, that it\'s different environment for the next
five to 10 years versus the first 10 years of when agriculture
biotechnology products were introduced and trying to lay out different
dimensions of that environment.

So that that then sets up, that\'s kind of the contextual piece, again,
if you will, for the then getting into the topics discussed a segue into
that particular section. So again, what I would propose to do is start
with the introduction, the one that\'s a page and a third. We didn\'t
have a lot of comments on that, but that doesn\'t mean there aren\'t
comments now. So I just wanted to start. Maybe we could do, if you want
to do paragraph by paragraph.

The other piece that I guess we need to propose to the committee, we\'ve
worked back and forth between the March 14 and March 15 draft. Do you
want to work from the draft that has the compiled comments or do you
want to work from the draft that takes a run at trying to integrate some
of those comments, to just go through those. It\'s really up at the
committee\'s pleasure in terms of what you think would be the most
efficient way to do it.

MS. HUNT: I like March 15th with the integrated comments.

MS. DILLEY: March 15. Can we work from that and then if you want to
refer back to the compiled comments, then we can do that. So we\'ll get
the March 15 draft on the screen and use that. I noticed one little
change in the introduction is we\'ve met 12 times instead of 11.

Okay, so starting with, everybody\'s on that text and we\'re using the
March 15. Do you want to go paragraph by paragraph? So first paragraph,
any comments on that?

MS. DILLEY: Are we still 19 members?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: We are now 20. Well, I think probably that may need just
an asterisk. We\'ll say, the committee consists of 20 members, but
we\'ll put an asterisk down there that indicates that the members who
worked on the report were the following. We\'ll just make sure that
that\'s okay.

MS. DILLEY: Anything else in the second paragraph? Third paragraph? The
sentence of how we did our work. Okay. Fourth paragraph? Am I rushing
you, no, okay. That fourth paragraph goes into the next page. It\'s a
long paragraph. Last paragraph? That\'s our definition.

MS. LAYTON: So the first whole section is done? We have worked on that
section before.

MR. JAFFE: The comments that are in the March 15 draft are now accepted
for that section? Is that what we\'re saying.

MS. DILLEY: Right. That\'s what we\'re working from so that means that
those will be accepted.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Let me raise one possibility. This is reflecting on
something that I heard at the back a few minutes ago, and that was a
concern that in some of the topics where there\'s the some think A and
some think B and maybe some think C, that pieces could be excerpted from
the report from one group without noting that it was a "some members
think X" version.

And a possibility to address that might be to put in a very short
disclaimer in that section that we just agreed upon, something on the
order of, and I just put this out for your thinking about, for some
topics discussed in this report, a range of views of different members
was presented. Readers are cautioned not to look at the views of one
group in isolation. Does that sound like

something \--

MS. LAYTON: Doesn\'t that go though in the last paragraph of the
introduction?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. I was going to say I would put it just before the
very last paragraph. That\'s why I\'m mentioning it now.

MS. LAYTON: In the last paragraph of the whole thing where it says
we\'ve discussed a number of topics.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Oh, okay.

MS. LAYTON: At the very, very end.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I\'ll bring that back up later.

MS. DILLEY: I think this was similar to, we had a similar type of
statement, though slightly different on the scenarios document and it
was just trying to encourage a broad look at points.

MR. CORZINE: I would just say, Michael, I would second what you said.
Because that\'s a concern that I have that something will be taken out
of context that AC21 report says this. And I think we, I don\'t know, we
need an understanding, a pledge, if you will, that that will not happen
and for it to be stated somewhere, and maybe Michael, the last
paragraph, a lot of times things in the last paragraph get lost.
Somewhere where it is not lost. Because I think that quality is very
important to this group and to this report.

MR. JAFFE: If you\'re going to put something, the place to put it is in
the beginning here. Not at the end of the paragraph. Because the paper
as a whole, however, is a consensus product of the whole committee. The
question is, is it a consensus product of the whole committee or is it
not a consensus product of the whole committee? If it isn\'t a consensus
product, or if there\'s some clarification on that consensus, either a
footnote or discussion should go there.

MS. LAYTON: Where are you reading at?

MS. DILLEY: Maybe that it\'s just right in the first paragraph because
it talks about this report, what it is, what it isn\'t. If it\'s a
consensus document, it\'s important that the full sense of points of
view are presented. Or wherever you want to put it. I think to your
point, if it\'s a consensus document, which we\'re hoping it is, then
that needs to be taken into.

MS. LAYTON: I think you\'re right, that paragraph.

MR. JAFFE: Right. I mean, if you\'re going to put something, that\'s
where it goes. Or you can keep it there and put a footnote. I mean, I
still think it is a consensus paper of the whole committee, so but we
can put a footnote that says, although this is a consensus or something
like that, it has a range of views on certain topics. Or some text
there. But that\'s the place to put it.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. That was actually specifically where I had thought
and that was why I had raised it when I did.

MS. LAYTON: Sorry.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we need to get some language but put it up front.
And if it needs some additional reference as a footnote we can do it.
Otherwise, we\'ll try and capture it in that first paragraph.

MR. DYKES: So are we inserting Michael\'s language or are we waiting to
develop language or where did we end up at?

MS. CRAMER: Let\'s insert Michael\'s language.

MS. LAYTON: Read it again, please.

MS. FOREMAN: I don\'t like Michael\'s language.

MR. JAFFE: Michael\'s language maybe in a foot, in a footnote or in the
text is way to long to be in the text and taken out of context.

MS. DILLEY: Well, and there are a couple of different points. I guess,
Greg, what I heard you saying was that it\'s a consensus paper, and so,
and then, according to that I mean it\'s important that any excerpts or
any, maybe that\'s the footnote, is that this shouldn\'t be excerpted
where we only have pieces of a report that don\'t represent the whole
committee\'s point of view. Whether that\'s a consensus point of view or
the range of views as reflected in the report.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I did just want to get some text out there. We can
probably come back to this.

MS. FOREMAN: Let\'s work on the wording, but I certainly agree that
that\'s appropriate.

MS. DYKES: What did you have there, Michael?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay, we\'ll put it up and we\'ll come back to this
later. Maybe that\'s the thing to do. For some topics discussed in this
report, a range of views of different members was presented. Readers are
cautioned not to look at the views of one group in isolation. You can
all just think about that. That\'s just a placeholder for you to figure
out what to go in. We can talk about this after if we want. Unless you
want to \--

MR. GRANT: So I would just wonder if it would be helpful rather than to
say for some topics to actually identify the issues by number that have
different points of view.

MR. DYKES: Or topics number, yeah. Whatever.

MR. JAFFE: It\'ll save the reader from sitting on the edge of his seat
as he reads through.

MS. LAYTON: And I don\'t think you need the word discuss. So it\'s just
for topics la, la, la, in this report a range of views of different
members was presented.

MS. FOREMAN: You know, I didn\'t think we were going to edit this now,
but if we\'re going to edit it now. I don\'t generally put in my
publications directions to the readers about how they use it, but you
can say, was presented and do not represent a consensus, and the
individual views stated do not represent a consensus of the committee.
But I don\'t think it\'s appropriate to tell readers that they\'re so
stupid that they can\'t figure out that we presented a range of views.

MS. DILLEY: Well, I think it was less the readers. It was more
excerpting from the report, right? So, well now you know Carol that it
says readers up there, but \--

MS. FOREMAN: We can say, while the whole report\'s a consensus, there
were different views, there are different views expressed on some of the
issues. And then have a specific footnote down that says, on numbers
yada, yada, yada, you will see their range of views.

MR. DYKES: I think it makes sense to go the paper as a whole is a
consensus product of the full committee. However, for topic such and
such and such in this report, there are a range of different view.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s fine by me.

MS. DILLEY: So that\'s really building off the same sentence?

MR. DYKES: Yeah, place the however \--

MS. DILLEY: The paper as a whole however is a consensus product of the
full committee.

MR. DYKES: No. The paper as a whole is a consensus product of the full
committee. However, for topics number such and such and such and such,
there were different members, however we got it up there, members had
different views or something.

MS. DILLEY: All right. Anything else on the introduction section? Can we
move to the past decade and the next decade? Okay. So we\'ll start with
the first 10 years. And the robust assessment tools, highlighted in
yellow, because there was a question. So can we find a better
definition, Carol?

MS. CRAMER: Yes, so I actually made an effort with that. An attempt.
Which is basically to replace it with, and it\'s not shorter
unfortunately, but with, advances in understanding the molecular basis
of crop growth, productivity, and disease resistance.

MS. DILLEY: Nobody can hear you. You\'re talking very softly.

MS. CRAMER: Rather than robust assessment tools, which become, which are
vague, I recommend replacing it with, advances in understanding the
molecular basis of crop growth productivity and disease resistance. The
idea being that there\'s a whole bunch of new molecular tools that
change our thinking.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, can you say that again, please and slowly.

MS. CRAMER: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: Those are all words that I can understand.

MS. CRAMER: Advances in understanding the molecular basis of crop
growth, productivity and disease resistance.

MS. DILLEY: Anybody have modifications to that? That looks good in terms
of replacement for robust assessment tools.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I just had a replacement as accurate assessment
tools. But I\'m fine with that if everyone else is.

MS. DILLEY: People are fine with that, okay. Other comment on that first
paragraph?

MR. DYKES: I guess I have a question on the new varieties were intended
to provide increased productivity, profitability, and improved
environmental management. What does improved environmental management
mean? I\'m not sure I know what we are talking about with that. I mean I
would think less pesticides.

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. DYKES: But maybe could we say that instead of improved environmental
management?

MS. DILLEY: Do you want to spell that out? Is that what you\'re
proposing Michael, to spell that out.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Can you say it again

MR. DYKES: Well, I think it\'s reduced pesticide use and reduced
agriculture footprint, or reduced pesticide use and increased uses in
conservation tillage.

MR. CORZINE: Michael, I\'d say, you know you\'re right about that, but I
don\'t think we want to replace environmental management. I think you
could put such as.

MR. DYKES: Okay.

MR. CORZINE: And leave improve environmental management.

MR. DYKES: Improve environmental management such as reduced pesticide
use, increase conservation tillage. Okay. I\'m fine with it.

MS. FOREMAN: I heard somebody over here, I don\'t know if it was Randy,
who said, make a reference to sustainable in that. Did I imagine it, one
of you said that?

MR. GIROUX: I think I did suggest improved sustainability. But I\'m not
sure that\'ll stay.

MS. DILLEY: Well, no. I don\'t know. Do people want that or not? If you
don\'t want it, then we\'ll just stick with what we\'ve got up here.

MR. DYKES: I like what you have.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, stick with what we got. Do you want conservation or
tillage or both? All right. Anything else in that first paragraph?

MR. CORZINE: In the line where it says was adopted rapidly by American
farmers and also being grown by farmers in several other countries, I
wonder do we need several, because you could put, many. You could put,
which some in this room probably wouldn\'t agree with, but because there
are, you know, I got that it\'s a year old already, and there were
somewhere near 20 other countries around the world, and we can\'t put a
number in, so maybe that\'s several, because some will think several,
well, few or some many.

MS. DILLEY: So just drop it?

MS. CORZINE: Just drop several. Just other countries.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Anything else on the first paragraph? We move to the
next paragraph, which is a pretty lengthy one.

MS. FOREMAN: There\'s the line in there about highly visible economic
health or safety benefits. Yesterday we revised number 21 to acknowledge
that most of these were in anticipation. So if we can say, they have
been beneficial to farmers but have not provided marketing advantages to
retailers or nutritional or taste benefits to attract consumers.

MR. DYKES: Where are you, Carol? Which line are yo on?

MS. FOREMAN: The sentence starts transgenic varieties thus far in the
marketplace.

MS. DILLEY: So it was or nutritional, what Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: Or nutritional or taste benefits to attract consumers.
Enhancement benefits, qualities, or improve nutritional or taste,
improve nutrition or taste to attract consumers.

MR. DYKES: I would suggest the sentence before that one, where it says
in addition 2004. That should be updated with 2005 data.

MS. LAYTON: Do we know it?

MR. DYKES: Yes. That should be 2005. And that should be I think 81. You
need to check it, but 81 should be changed to 100 million hectares, and
5.3 should be changed to 6.5.

MS. FOREMAN: You\'re citing a study for that figure.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: If you\'ll trust me to update it. That was the reference
that I needed to put in anyway.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: That report is in both metric and imperial. And given
this is an American report, I personally think acres is more
appropriate.

MR. DYKES: I agree.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we\'re replacing it with 2005 information. We\'re
using that acres as opposed to hectares.

MR. DYKES: And that would be true for the, yeah, exactly.

MS. DILLEY: Anything else in that paragraph?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: The reference to number two, the FAO. I don\'t think
that\'s the only publication they put out in 2002.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No. That was the reference that I needed to go get. That
was the one that was missing.

MR. CORZINE: I\'d just like to recommend we revert to the original text
that changed sentence because the new one suggests that the opposition
led to the risk management. And I think there\'s many reasons that
countries have taken risk management around biotech. The original talks
about risk management and opposition. The new one says, opposition led
to risk management, and I don\'t agree with that.

MS. DILLEY: Which sentence?

MS. LAYTON: In the blue, the first deletion.

MS. DILLEY: So to the March 14 draft?

MR. CORZINE: Right. So revert it back.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: It\'s actually in the border of the March 15th as
deleted text.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. That starts, in some global markets there. That\'s the
one Randy, right?

MR. GIROUX: In some global markets there have been increased risk
management.

MR. JAFFE: Can we say some countries instead of some global markets?

MS. DILLEY: In some countries, okay.

MR. JAFFE: Or country. Global markets don\'t have increased risk
management \--

MR. CORZINE: I would go back, beneficial to farmers and the environment.

MR. DYKES: Transgenic varieties thus far in the marketplace have been
beneficial to \--

MR. CORZINE: Farmers and the environment, but have not provided
marketing advantages to retailers.

MS. FOREMAN: I\'m lost.

MR. DYKES: It\'s right after the reference on hectares. 1.54 billion
hectares. All that kind of stuff, Carol. It\'s the next sentence.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s the same sentence where you just changed nutrition and
taste benefits.

MS. FOREMAN: So what are we saying?

MR. DYKES: Benefits to the farmers and environment. Add the word and
environment after farmers. Right, Leon?

MR. CORZINE: Uh-huh.

MS. DILLEY: Anything else on that paragraph that ends just above the
next 10 years? Okay. Can we move on to the next 10 years?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Just, did we want to have both of those USDA sites?
That second one with the portal question mark and NAVID, I thought was
kind of complicated.

MS. DILLEY: It was complicated to access?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I mean if there\'s a nice easy one to type in, do we
need to type in, do we need the two? I\'m not sure if that\'s like the
politically correct thing to have in there for you, Michael.

MS. DILLEY: What do you think Michael?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: We can get rid of the second one.

MS. DILLEY: So with that going on to one website. Can we move on to the
next 10 years?

MS. LAYTON: Are they commingled commodity streams in this case? Randy,
is that right? They\'re commingled commodity streams in this case in the
first sentence?

MR. GIROUX: I don\'t get what it says.

MS. LAYTON: I think it means non-transgenics and transgenics altogether
in one commodity stream.

MS. LAYTON: My question was, that first sentence in the paragraph. In
the United States \--

MS. CRAMER: But I think the point is that there\'s a huge, this is in
all the food we eat. The idea is that it\'s fully integrated. So when
they say numerous products it means that it\'s widespread and integrated
into our food supply.

MS. FOREMAN: Say it again, Carol. Say it again.

MS. CRAMER: Well, I didn\'t have, it didn\'t have wording that
specifically fit in. Or say these transgenic varieties are
undifferentiated and \--

MR. DYKES: In commodity streams.

MS. FOREMAN: Fully integrated into the existing markets.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, say it again so Cindy can hear you.

MS. DYKES: In the United States these transgenic varieties are, what did
you say, undifferentiated?

MS. LAYTON: Are undifferentiated, yeah. Undifferentiated and fully
integrated \--

MS. FOREMAN: Into the market.

MR. DYKES: Into commodity stream \--

MS. FOREMAN: No. We don\'t need all that. Just into the market.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Or into commodity markets.

MS. DILLEY: You want into commodity markets?

MS. FOREMAN: Oh, markets.

MS. LAYTON: That makes more sense.

MS. DILLEY: Was there any other changes to that paragraph then? This is
the top. We went from top to bottom, but I just wanted to see if there
were any other changes in that lengthy paragraph.

MR. GRANT: Michael, I would suggest you perhaps use a modifier such as
largely undifferentiated or generally.

MR. GIROUX: Yeah thank you. Yeah, I\'m struggling with that too. Mostly,
largely.

MS. DILLEY: Okay good. Anything else? Can we move on to the next 10
years. We have a series of bullets here, some of which had some
suggested changes. So you can see those in blue. Don\'t get thrown off
by the red bullets. We just had problems with formatting, so we didn\'t
delete any text. Just the red bullets. Comments on the first line in
bullets?

MS. FOREMAN: I had suggested, I\'m sorry, I was looking on the wrong
one.

MS. DILLEY: So basically this sets up the, here are some of the possible
products in the next 10 years, and then there\'s a paragraph following
that that\'s in blue that was inserted to talk about, this is kind of
the further elaboration on technically though, or whether they\'re
technically and whether they actually get to market, a little bit of
language around that.

MS. FOREMAN: I brought the Andrew Pollack article today just so people
could see what a long distance there is between developing a trait and
actually producing a food that gets to market. And he goes through and
says, there are some technical difficulties in making these products. If
we get them, in one case, an oil that tastes a little fishy, and so
it\'s not acceptable. I think it would be helpful to say that, something
like what we have here. I don\'t think that what\'s here really
addresses the technical issues sufficiently.

This is all government stuff. But if you take a look at the Pollock
article.

MS. DILLEY: So if you go down to the bottom and it says there are
several factors beyond whether, etcetera. I mean, you\'re right, that
following after that is more the regulatory issues. I don\'t know if you
want to \-- are you looking to add there are technical challenges,
etcetera?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. There are technical challenges in converting traits to
foods. Just some reference to it there because there\'s a reason why
these new oils haven\'t yet made it to market, and it\'s because
they\'re running into technical difficulties. And it\'s more than just
government, and additional risk management.

MS. DILLEY: Right. You\'re just talking about the other factors that
could refer to.

MR. CORZINE: I guess I\'m, maybe just because I don\'t know him, but who
is this Pollack guy that we keep referencing or person. I shouldn\'t say
that in a bad way. And, I\'m on a couple of advisory things where, you
know, there are a lot of reasons why technical may move forward at
different speeds. Some of it is, you know, where the particular
companies are focused. And that was fully expected.

Now, I don\'t know if that\'s what we\'re trying to address here or what
it is, but I think we need, \-- I guess first, could you tell me, Carol,
who this person is and is this a person of authority?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. It\'s a reporter for the New York Times. And have you
got the article?

MR. CORZINE: No.

MS. FOREMAN: He goes through, and it\'s not what he\'s saying. it\'s he
is quoting Monsanto and DuPont, and Dr. Prakash is certainly one of the
biggest advocates for agricultural biotechnology out there. And he\'s
just simply going through and saying that there are some resistance
issues, consumer resistance issues, but the issues are that they\'ve had
technical problems getting the products into a form that they\'re
attractive to food processors and consumers.

MS. DILLEY: But you\'re not suggesting, talking about consumer issues.
This is the R&D to market, right?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Here\'s a suggestion for Carol. I\'m not sure, are
there are several factors beyond the technical issues to put that in
there as to whether an engineered crop, beyond the technical issues?

MS. DILLEY: No, I thought it was technical issues that you were raising,
not beyond the technical issues.

MS. FOREMAN: Beyond the creation of a new genetically engineered trait
in crops or animals.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: How about in addition to the technical issues there
are \--

MS. LAYTON: In addition to the technical challenges \--

MR. DYKES: Well, we have that over in the bullet points about two pages
over. The commercialization of a transgenic plant or animal product is
affected by considerations beyond the safety of the product. We tee up
that whole category.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: This isn\'t safety. This is just like trying to make,
you know, high omega-3 oils or whatever. There\'s some technical issues,
I think is what Carol is talking about.

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah, that\'s what I\'m trying to say.

MR. DYKES: Beyond the safety? And that\'s what I\'m saying. That whole
section is teed up for that type of issue, beyond the safety. And I
agree with Carol. Technicalities about taste and will this formulate
into a food product that doesn\'t crumble, and all those kind of issues.

MS. FOREMAN: Rather than take people\'s time right now, could I see
while we\'re working on this if I could make that point a little better
and have us come back to us?

MS. DILLEY: Sure.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Carol, could I just make this suggestion as well? That
you might think about whether it will go best here or go best in that
other bullet in the other part. Just look at both places.

MR. FOREMAN: All right, thank you.

MS. DILLEY: Duane, did you want to comment on that or no?

MR. GRANT: Yes. So where are we at? This is the language that\'s after
the bullet points.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so that paragraph in blue that follows the bullets?
That first set of bullets?

MS. LAYTON: Could I ask a question about the bullets before we go to the
paragraph after the bullets? I didn\'t understand the piece about, that
coupled with appropriate public policy can provide environmental
benefits. I just don\'t understand. If anybody had a quick explanation
of what that is.

MR. GIROUX: That was Carol\'s comment, and I think she\'s made it a
couple of times. So if you have lower pig rates, but you put twice as
many pigs on the same farm, you really haven\'t improved environmental
benefits.

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah, exactly. Thank you.

MS. LAYTON: Well, I understand that, but does that actually really say
that? I understand that, but that\'s not really clear. So I mean, you
guys held it to the test that if I pick it up and read it, would I
understand that? And I don\'t know that appropriate public policy tells
me that issue.

MR. DYKES: I had the same question, I didn\'t raise it. But if you have
corn say that is lower in phosphate, how is that in any way connected to
doubling the number of pigs? It doesn\'t do anything to pen size. It\'s
the same pigs eating \--

MS. FOREMAN: I thought they were talking here about the enviro pig.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, this is animal feeds.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: No, this is low phytate corn.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay, than we can drop it out there, I\'m sorry. I thought
we were talking to the Enviro Pig.

MS. LAYTON: Yeah, this wasn\'t Enviro Pig.

MR. JAFFE: Enviro Pig is in the last bullet.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Delete, coupled with appropriate environmental policy.

MS. CRAMER: There are very few environmental benefits in there except
for the hint about \--

MR. GRANT: So this is after the bullet points, and the paragraph that
follows the bullet points. The very last section says, increase cost of
production has been suggested. And I would like to substitute, affect
the economic or technical viability of the product.

MS. DILLEY: So may affect the economic or technical, economic viability?

MR. GRANT: Economic or technical viability of the product. And this is
the concept that the regulations that are imposed, fostered, whatever,
dreamed up by the regulators may affect the economic viability.

MS. DILLEY: Okay.

MR. GRANT: And that that has, it\'s more complex than simply increasing
the cost of production.

MR. CORZINE: I think you should take the word, I would take the word
risk out of that. Additional management requirements. You know, it may
be risk, it may just be a segregation issue. It might just be, you know,
numerous different management things that may or may not be associated
with risk.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s a term of art. The government might impose
additional risk management. Risk management is what you do, what
government does. Is how it does risk assessment, or it does risk
management. It does risk communication. And we could put additional
regulatory requirements to reduce risk, but risk management is generally
a term that people I think understand that\'s been one of the functions
of the regulatory system is to manage risk.

MR. CORZINE: I understand that part, but I also understand that there is
a big difference of opinion of what is risk. You know, and it is
managed. Now if what you offered there, Carol, would be much better.
Because you\'re missing a lot if you just say additional risk
management.

MS. FOREMAN: Leon, I\'d argue with you that most of the people who read
these kinds of documents, there\'s very specific terminology here in
which most people accept, they may differ about what risk management
actually should be, but they don\'t generally argue about the term risk
management. But if you want to say, additional regulatory requirements
to manage risk, that\'s fine.

MS. CRAMER: But the government cannot impose management requirements on
private \--

MR. CORZINE: Oh sure, they do now.

MS. CRAMER: Not unless they are in pursuit of some law, in particular,
the kinds we\'re talking about are in response to risk. I mean they\'re
not coming out of nowhere and telling people how to manage their
businesses.

MS. LAYTON: So what we\'re trying to do is find what qualifies
requirements basically.

MR. JAFFE: I think risk management is the proper term there. Regulatory
requirements, I mean, there are additional regulatory requirements,
it\'s then they impose risk management measures within the regulatory, I
mean, it\'s not like they say, okay you have to now get it approved
three times instead of getting it approved one time. The regulatory
requirement is come you ought to get an approval or something like that.

It\'s in getting that approval they impose conditions on that or
additional conditions on it. But, my bigger question was on the second
half of that. Since I originally proposed, and somehow in the colorful
draft it got changed, and I still think that the second half of the
sentence should say that may reduce or eliminate any potential benefits
from the products. And the reason I had put that in is it links it back
to the list.

I mean we have a list of potential products with potential benefits, and
then we\'re talking here about some of the things that need to happen in
order for the benefits to be realized. And so, I think we\'re sort of
saying here, that may increase cost of production or even Duane\'s new
language, the whole point of what I was writing was to link it back and
says, that may reduce or eliminate any potential benefits from those
products.

Here we\'re talking about the potential benefits of the Enviro Pig
depends on the benefits of the pharmaceuticals then we say now to ensure
safety, and in ensuring safety there may be additional risk management
measures proposed that may in fact reduce or eliminate those potential
benefits. So I was looking at it as a logical flow. I don\'t think that
you get that same logical flow with the language that was proposed here
that increases the cost of production or that may affect the technical,
economic and technical viability of the product.

The point I was trying to get at was that it may in fact eliminate or
reduce the benefits that we\'ve talked about in that previous set of
bullets. So I would advocate going back to that language.

MS. DILLEY: Duane\'s nodding. Do you like that language better then,
Duane?

MR. GRANT: Back to the original language, is that what the point is?

MR. JAFFE: It\'s the language that\'s in the March 14th draft. It\'s the
language that I had, it\'s original language in the sense that I had
proposed it in my comments in February, it wasn\'t originally in this
text at all.

MR. GRANT: Right, right, I understand it wasn\'t originally in the text.
I actually like the way it\'s in the text right now. I would agree that
risk needs to stay in there to keep the flow of the, to keep the concept
intact. I guess my point is that yes, you could affect whether or not
the products achieve the benefits that they are supposed to achieve by
the imposition of additional regulations. You can affect the economic
viability. You can also affect the technical viability if you impose
risk management measures that simply can\'t be met technically.

For example, if you said, you know, corn simply cannot cross-pollinate,
as one risk management measure. Well today, technically we probably
can\'t do that unless we physically do it. And so then you get to the
scale issue. So all those issues are kind of rolled into the regulation
can affect the economic or technical viability of the product.

MR. JAFFE: Well maybe we can keep that in and say that may affect
economic or technical viability of the product, and whether the
potential benefits are realized.

MR. GRANT: And I would be fine with that.

MR. BUSS: Well, my comment is on the various modifiers of requirements,
and it seems to me that requirements actually stands on its own. So if
you simply said to ensure safety the government might impose additional
requirements on developers, farmers, or others throughout the food and
feed chain.

MS. FOREMAN: I think regulatory, you know, I really want risk management
there because that\'s the appropriate term and I really object to
dropping out regulatory if we\'re not \-- I still think risk management
is the appropriate term. We use a lot of terms that are used here by
ya\'ll in your work, risk management is the term that\'s used in
government.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: It is in fact the term.

MR. JAFFE: So you have to put measures back. Risk management measures.

MS. DILLEY: Risk management measures. It\'s risk management measures, I
thought.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Measures.

MR. JAFFE: I would just say realization of potential benefits not
potential realization of benefits.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so read the whole thing. It says, to ensure safety the
government might impose additional risk management measures on
developers, farmers or others throughout the food and feed chain that
may affect the economic or technical viability of the product, and the
realization of potential benefits.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s fine. It doesn\'t address the issue that I was
raising earlier, and Michael suggested, Michael Dykes suggested a place
where we might put that.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so let\'s go to that when we get there. But Michael,
did you have any comments on this?

MR. DYKES: Yes. I guess where I don\'t know that the, if we read the
previous sentence we\'re talking about we got to ensure its safe human
consumption, safe for the environment, so forth. Then to ensure safety.
I don\'t think it\'s necessary to ensure safety. I think it\'s to
appropriately manage the risk the government may impose additional
measures on people. Because they\'re not necessarily safety. It could be
a lot of different things.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, that\'s true.

MS. FOREMAN: Say it again, that\'s sounds \--

MR. DYKES: To appropriately manage risk, the government may impose
additional measures on developers, farmers and \-- because it\'s all the
risk. Not just to safety.

MS. FOREMAN: You\'re right.

MS. LAYTON: All right. The government might impose additional measures.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No leave that.

MS. DILLEY: Anything else on that paragraph?

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah, I sense that we somehow got past, it\'s the two
bullets at the bottom of page 3.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, it\'s not on this paragraph, wait a minute.

MS. FOREMAN: No, they went past it.

MS. DILLEY: I know, we\'ll come back. I just want to close out this
paragraph. Michael, anything else?

MR. DYKES: Oh, I\'m sorry.

MS. DILLEY: So now you want to go up two bullets did you say?

MS. FOREMAN: I want to go to crops engineered to produce pharmaceuticals
and crops engineered to particular industrial uses.

MS. DILLEY: You\'ve got to speak up because Cindy has to be able to
hear.

MR. DYKES: On down, Cindy. Right there. Crops engineered to produce
pharmaceuticals. Okay, those are the two Carol wants to talk about. Top
two bullets.

MS. FOREMAN: We run into the problem that there is some of us who have
said that we oppose having food crops used to engineer pharmaceuticals
and industrial products. Is there some way that, yeah so, I run into a
problem of having a bullet that presumes that that is going to happen
since I\'ve said it\'s a problem.

MS. LAYTON: Well, but it\'s not food.

MR. DYKES: Some possibilities include crops engineered to produce
pharmaceuticals.

MS. DILLEY: And then I know we talked about the next paragraph and later
on it\'s talking about factors that may keep them from getting into the
marketplace.

MR. DYKES: Are you okay with that, Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah, I guess so.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s the range of research and development that\'s going
on.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s a little inconsistent with our position later on. And
then again, the transgenic animal bullet, this is where I had the
concern about, you know, if we can reduce the manure with reduced
phosphorus content from each pig, but then if you double your number of
pigs you\'re not going to get any benefit out of it.

MR. GRANT: Carol, can I respond to that. Just, I mean, I just want to
respond to that because Carol brought it up a couple of times in her
comments, and it\'s not an argument that logically flies with me as a
producer. And I understand, yes, if you reduce the phosphorus output,
phosphorus content of the manure, yet you double production, you\'re
going to have the same amount of phosphorus per acre.

But you\'re also producing twice the amount of meat per acre. So in
theory, you\'re going to reduce the total acres that are required to be
loaded up with pigs in the whole system you are reducing the output of
phosphorus content of the manure.

So, you know, I don\'t think we should let ourselves get distracted by,
and reduce the value of the technology by laying out all of the possible
scenarios that would make the benefit of the technology.

MS. FOREMAN: And you know, Duane, my problem is that the counter
tendency is to talk about these things as though they are givens and the
benefits from them are givens, and it is my role here to say it\'s not
always a given.

MR. GRANT: Sure.

MS. FOREMAN: And this is one. I don\'t think, you know, it doesn\'t say
anything about benefits here, so I let it go. It really is, once again,
just creating, doing the lab work to make these things does not
necessarily get you a public benefit. It doesn\'t even necessarily get
you a product.

MS. DILLEY: Well that\'s right, and I do think that there is language
later on going to exactly those points. So here it doesn\'t reference
environmental benefits, so if we can pick up some of the comments you
want to get in there in terms of technical and other things, I think
they\'re in other places, and this is like the range of research and
development then the discussion about how they actually get to the
marketplace is some of the other, in some of the other parts of the
introduction.

MS. HUNT: I had a point on one of the bullets actually. Where we talk
about stacked straits as a future possibility. Don\'t we already have
stacked traits out there?

MR. SLOCUM: Well, it\'s stacking corn, I guess.

MS. HUNT: Huh?

MR. SLOCUM: My question is relates to corn.

MS. DILLEY: So do you want to take that out?

MS. HUNT: Well, yes. I mean, if we already have these kinds of products
on the market. Maybe there\'s going to be more of them in the future,
but I think today there is.

MS. DILLEY: Is it additional stacked traits?

MS. HUNT: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: Is it additional crops or additional traits? I think it\'s
additional traits.

MS. DILLEY: Additional stacked traits would go to both of those
wouldn\'t they. Just leave it additional stacked traits. Just put
additional, not there, but \--

MS. LAYTON: She says there.

MS. DILLEY: You want to do that?

MS. HUNT: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So additional crops containing \-- okay. Is that, Jo,
does that go there?

MS. HUNT: Yes. Then it\'s all factual, because the way it was written
they weren\'t already out there.

MR. CORZINE: You know along that same thought I think Josephine\'s
right. We want examples in there of things that are currently \--

MS. DILLEY: You guys there are a lot of different side conversations and
it\'s impossible to do editing with that going on. So could you please
table them.

MR. CORZINE: To Josephine\'s point as far as these are some
possibilities include, do we want examples of things that are already
here? I guess do we need \--

MS. DILLEY: No, because this is talking about the next 10 years, Leon.

MR. CORZINE: That\'s what I was thinking. So those examples, resistance
to different pests such as corn rootworm, the European corn borer
combining different, da, da, da, is already here. So maybe you don\'t
need any of those examples. Maybe all of that in parentheses should go
away.

MR. DILLEY: Are you on the fourth bullet then, crop resistance to pest
and disease?

MR. CORZINE: It\'s fifth bullet.

MR. SLOCUM: He\'s on the one we\'re working on, Abbey.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, the one we just did, I\'m sorry.

MS. LAYTON: Do you want to leave the term stacked traits in parentheses
and then just drop e.g., combining resistance to different pests such as
corn rootworm and European corn borer or combining different modes of
resistance to a single pest to increase durability of resistance. You
want to do the e.g. phrase and take it out?

MR. CORZINE: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: You don\'t have the term stacked traits in there, I just
thought you might want to use that term of art. If you don\'t mind not
having that term of art, great.

MR. DYKES: I think, in my view I think Leon\'s right. We have them
today, but I think we\'re going to see an increase in stacked traits. So
I would suggest we leave stacked traits in there and take the e.g. out.

MR. SHURDUT: I would agree.

MS. LAYTON: And take the other quote off of stacked traits and you\'re
good to go.

MR. DYKES: Stacked traits are here. But the next 10 years we\'re going
to see an increase in some stacked traits.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Anything else on the bullets then? That first set of
bullets? Okay. Can we move to the paragraph that begins, as we attempt?
This is the option one and two.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And the March 15th version tried to come up with one
unified \--

MS. DILLEY: We got more comments people liking option two, so that\'s
what we went with, and tried to incorporate some additional changes.

MS. HUNT: Yes, I mean I went with option two originally as well. But I
just have the feeling that reading through it it\'s quite a lot of data,
which I think you then get into in the topics. And whether it\'s, we
just couldn\'t substantially reduce the length of this text to, you
know, indicate, I mean, for example, as a suggestion, as new biotech
products developed for commercialization in the U.S.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Which version are you working from?

MS. DILLEY: Are you working from 14 or 15?

MS. HUNT: Fifteen. I\'m just, you know, my point is it seems to be quite
long and it seems to be not so much of an introduction, but almost a
summary of some of the points that we\'re bringing up in the topics, and
whether we can reduce that substantially, and you know, as one example
could be as new biotech products develop \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Where are you?

MS. HUNT: I\'m making it up. Yeah, this is just something to throw out
on the table. So it\'s new biotech products developed towards
commercialization in the U.S. and other countries, new questions and
considerations will arise from stakeholders along the food chain.
Something along these lines which I think captures a lot of the points
we then bring up in the option two topic. Which I think, I think go into
too much detail, because we\'re covering them in the topics and this is
an introduction, not really a summary of what we\'re going to say.

MR. DYKES: So your thing as new biotech, what do you delete all the rest
of that, is that what you\'re saying?

MS. HUNT: Yes. I\'d just like to throw that out and see what people
think. Or work with Cindy and type it up so that people can look at it,
okay?

MR. SHURDUT: I would agree. I mean, to cut off the rest of the
paragraph. I mean, what you\'re stating there it\'s stated somewhere in
the paper under the various points.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, let Cindy and Josephine put it up there and then we
can look at it.

MR. GRANT: So is the floor open for comments while they\'re, \-- so I
want to see them put it up. I don\'t disagree with needing to shorten
it, I complete agree that we kind of restated several of our points. I
do wonder though, the last sentence we talked about China and the
significance of one of the developing countries, you know, becomes a
proponent of, and in fact actually starts to produce large quantities of
GE food. I don\'t think we really drill into that in our topics
anywhere. If we do, I can\'t remember which one.

MS. FOREMAN: There\'s one topic.

MR. GRANT: Is there that talks about the GE.

MS. DILLEY: You may be right, Duane, and I don\'t know if you could take
that point and move it down below just in terms of its entering a
different world, or a world different from and that could be pulled down
into those bullets in terms of contextual stuff that may change, but you
know, that are dynamics that may change. Because if you want to retain
that point, but shorten the paragraph.

MR. GRANT: Oh, could become one of the bullets down below is what
you\'re saying. I mean, I\'m not wedded to that and if we do cover it in
the topics \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I don\'t think we do.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, I don\'t think it is in any of the topics. Yeah, I do
think it works as a bullet just because that second set of bullets is to
try and capture some of the different dynamics that form the context
into which these new products will be introduced, and that last portion
of what you\'re referring to in that paragraph that may be deleted or
replaced is to that point. That its varied dynamics out there that could
very much change the landscape. So think about that and where we might
put it and then why don\'t we look at Josephine\'s language then.
Proposed language.

MS. FOREMAN: Run it down so you see what comes next, so we can see how
it\'s integrated.

MS. LAYTON: What did she want to cut out?

MS. FOREMAN: All of that.

MS. DILLEY: It\'s all of this paragraph. And I think your point being
that a lot of this starts getting into a summary of some of the topics
that are discussed later in the paper, and this is trying to set up the
context in which the topics will be discussed rather than actually
summarize some of the discussion in the topics.

MS. HUNT: Yes. I think we touch on them in qualitative detail in the
introduction. And maybe we need an extra sentence after that as well to
say, and these will be developed upon as we go through the various
topics.

MR. DYKES: Yes, I would agree with that.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s good.

MS. DILLEY: People like that? Any objection?

MS. FOREMAN: These issues will be discussed \--

MS. LAYTON: These topics.

MS. FOREMAN: These topics will be explored in the body of the report.

MS. DILLEY: The topics being referencing new questions and
considerations?

MR. DYKES: Right.

MS. FOREMAN: These are among the topics that will be explored in the
report.

MS. LAYTON: That\'s good.

MR. DYKES: I think we should take where it says in there, the sentence
says, finally some of the transgenic varieties intended for food use
developed over the next few years will likely emerge from the developing
world and then the for example, I think before we delete all that we
should have all that blocked text and move it down as a bullet point in
the next section.

MS. DILLEY: Before we leave the proposal I think Greg and Mardi had
their cards up. So we\'ll do that and put that in the discussion next.

MR. JAFFE: I mean, I guess to me there are two points in that paragraph
that need to be saved. And if you don\'t save them somewhere, I\'m not
sure that I agree with Michael, starting with finally until the end of
the paragraph is a point that I think is important to set the context,
and the whole point of this paragraph is to set the context about the
potentially new genetically engineered varieties.

I mean originally the phrase that started this with a few additional
points worth noting about potentially new engineered, new genetically
engineered varieties have sort of gotten lost. The other one that I also
think the practice that we tried to put first, although some of the
plant varieties may reach the marketplace will be ended for
undifferentiated commodity and some of the next generation will be
produced under then preservation that requires strict segregation. I
think that\'s an important point to make here in the context of what
we\'re discussing here.

We just talked about all these potential, new products it potentially
benefits, and one thing is different about them is that some of them may
be identity preserved to protect the other products which haven\'t been.
So I mean, I guess I\'m a person who would like to keep this paragraph
and maybe eliminate the blue in the middle that would add it, but keep
those first and last points.

I guess you could work those first and last points into the bullets
below, but I think they\'re better off in a separate paragraph before
the bullets. That\'s just my personal view. But it\'s important to me
that both of those are kept in.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, I understand. And I see how \--

MR. JAFFE: Therefore, I don\'t think it saves a lot of space to move
them down.

MS. DILLEY: It doesn\'t save space but it sets the whole contextual
bullets altogether as opposed to why are we breaking paragraphs above
and then bullets below, which are really all going to contextual stuff.

MS. FOREMAN: So we can just break those into bullets?

MS. DILLEY: Yeah.

MR. DYKES: Because I think, because as members recognize that new
products will be entering a world that is very different than one that
exist a decade ago when the first agricultural products were introduced,
and then we got the bullets.

MS. DILLEY: I mean that actually makes a good second bullet, because the
first bullet talks about the first generation and your point about
first, or all the next generation can go into a second bullet, and then
I think picking up Duane\'s and your point about the finally modifying
that somehow and then having that inserted as a bullet as well.

And then you\'ve got the whole range of pieces of the contextual piece
all contained in the bulleted section.

MS. MELLON: I agree. I like the, I don\'t mind the reorganization into
bullets. I think that\'s good. But I do think it\'s, you know, I think
there really isn\'t that much repetition and that it is an important
context setter and a lot of people don\'t read the whole report.

MS. DILLEY: So I don\'t hear any disagreement. I mean, I think people
want to save some of the gist of what was in that paragraph, we just put
them down as bullets below, and then that\'s all together and we take
Josephine\'s sentence, couple of sentences to replace the longer text
and we retain the points.

MS. LAYTON: So if you cut those and past them \--

MS. SULTON: In their entirety?

MS. LAYTON: Well for right now in their entirety. Okay. Cut those. Go
right down below that and put them in then strike before the American
public. Okay. We can work on those to get to the bulleting. So go back
now and let\'s look at that last transition from the last bullet to the
final paragraph of those bullets, summarizing those bullets. One more up
a little bit.

The question was, is that a separate paragraph or is it a part of the
other paragraph? That was my question. And it might be, I just want to
make sure everybody\'s cool.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, if people, and again, we\'ve got an opportunity to
modify those bullets when we get to those bullets, but are people
comfortable with that so far and then we can move into those actual
bullets?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MR. JAFFE: I guess I\'m still not sure what that sentence does. I don\'t
much how it flows when you read the previous paragraph and then you move
on to the next paragraph.

MS. LAYTON: That\'s what I was trying to ask. Can we read the paragraph
now and look?

MR. JAFFE: I\'m not sure what it adds, and if you are going to keep it
in, I\'m not sure why we\'re limiting it to stakeholders along the food
chain.

MS. DILLEY: I think your point is well taken and that\'s somewhat
redundant with the last paragraph that then leads into the topics now.

MR. JAFFE: Right, I\'m saying that reads later on in the text, so I\'m
not sure what it does. But if we are going to keep, I don\'t feel
strongly about it, I don\'t think it should be limited to stakeholders
along the food chain. The report and the topics and the issues are much
broader.

MR. DYKES: Maybe we can just delete it and just go with AC21 members
have diverse views.

MS. HUNT: I think I would agree now.

MS. DILLEY: So eliminate it there because part of the piece was just
making sure that a reference that segues into the topics, but we already
have a paragraph that does that.

MS. HUNT: Yeah, I think that doesn\'t.

MS. LAYTON: There is a paragraph there though, Cindy. Can you go up to
the paragraph right before that and let\'s just make sure we\'re there,
and figure out what we were. We had all that, those words in, right?
That paragraph is right.

MR. DYKES: Right.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, and then we get to the lead-in to the bullets, and
again, this providing that the fact that the products over the next five
to 10 years will be entering a different context than they did the first
10 years.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, the point of modern biotechnology, we decided that we
weren\'t using modern biotechnology unless it was \--

MS. DILLEY: Derived from modern \--

MS. LAYTON: Derived from modern biotechnology. So that should probably
be genetic engineering.

MS. MELLON: No, it says produced using modern biotechnology.

MS. LAYTON: You could say produced using \--

MR. DYKES: Plant and animal products, yes. Products derived from.

MS. LAYTON: Good, I just wanted to make sure we got that right. Now
we\'re going to go to the bullets?

MS. CRAMER: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Any comments on the first \--

MS. CRAMER: The blue ones stay in this context. We\'re in bullet number
one. We think that in this context now it should say have now been
adopted by farmers.

MS. LAYTON: And did we, and its in developing nations is still
appropriate?

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. CRAMER: Bullet two, get rid of the "although" and start with "some."

MS. HUNT: I think although is needed there, right?

MS. LAYTON: Yeah.

MS. HUNT: Because it\'s contrasting it to the next. I think it should be
capital A.

MS. DILLEY: Greg, is that the, that\'s one of the bullets that you
wanted to put down below?

MR. JAFFE: Right.

MS. DILLEY: Does that sit fine as a bullet then?

MR. JAFFE: Yes, although it should say may need to be or may, or it\'s
okay, may need to be produced. Now that we\'re talking sort of future.

MR. GRANT: And I also wonder on that bullet, we\'re saying, although
some of the new plant varieties, and then use that word some of the next
generation of transgenic varieties may be produced, I wonder, some and
some, it puts them as equal. I think it would be better to say although
many of the new plant varieties.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah. May need to be produced, does that read better?

MR. GRANT: Yes. Okay. Can we go on to the next?

MR. JAFFE: And I don\'t know if it is many. I mean we list a bunch of
things including plant-made pharmaceuticals, plant-made industrial
products. I think actually people think a lot of those are going to need
to be produced under some sort of identity preservation. I mean we\'re
looking at the next generation, so I don\'t think I\'d say many of them.
Based on our list of the different options we put together, I think
that\'s not an accurate \--

MS. DILLEY: Do you want to say although the new plant varieties.

MR. GRANT: I understand what you\'re saying, Greg, I guess I\'m thinking
\--

MS. DILLEY: Although new plant varieties, yeah, how about just taking
that out and it says although new plant varieties that may reach the
marketplace or that \--

MR. JAFFE: No.

MS. DILLEY: So you\'re trying to qualify the \-- Carol, you have
suggestion?

MS. CRAMER: I think we\'re working ourselves into a hole here. The
things we just moved down we\'re looking at the future, and these
bullets are like what\'s now that was different from 10 years ago. And I
think if you look at the context of this paragraph, we\'re getting
ourselves in trouble because we\'re talking about what\'s new in the
environment versus these are what changes are likely to happen. So they
were additional points looking toward the future as opposed to the now.
I mean, go and look at it in context and see if we\'re working against
ourselves.

MR. JAFFE: And I think you\'re somewhat right, Carol, but I think you
can put this bullet in because it talks about members recognize that new
products are entering a world different from the new one. So you could
say here, so what\'s the new world? Although some of the products will
be undifferentiated commodity seeds, some of them will also need to be
produced under identity preservation.

So I understand what you\'re thing. I wasn\'t the one who advocated
moving these down, as I advocated keeping them separately, but I lost
that argument. I think it does in fitting, this one, this bullet can fit
in there because in fact it is talking about what we all think is a
current difference it will be.

MS. CRAMER: How about if we take out the next generation and why don\'t
we say some will need to be produced. Some will be produced.

MS. HUNT: If you just do it although current varieties, some of the new
varieties.

MR. JAFFE: You could say that, although current varieties, that would be
fine.

MR. CORZINE: Is this helpful, if you just drop that whole first phrase
and start it with some of the next generation?

MS. LAYTON: Absolutely. Yes.

MR. CORZINE: Doesn\'t that do what we want to do?

MS. LAYTON: That\'s the point you had, right, Greg?

MR. JAFFE: Right.

MS. DILLEY: Next bullet. I believe we were still working on the third
bullet which was now the China example, included the China example. Is
that where we left off?

MR. CORZINE: We finished the second below.

MS. DILLEY: Right. We had just finished the second bullet that contained
that other \-- do you want to add that in here before we move on?

MS. CRAMER: Were you happy with it, the second bullet?

MR. JAFFE: I was fine with it.

MS. DILLEY: Wait go up. We need to take that from the text above and we
had just taken from, and it\'s the last two sentences of the previous
\--

MS. LAYTON: And you don\'t know the finally, so just take some of the
\-- no, down. Cut and paste that below.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: The whole paragraph.

MS. SULTON: The whole paragraph?

MS. LAYTON: All of that. And put it as the, it will be the third bullet.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, I don\'t know if it should be the third bullet.

MS. DILLEY: Well, where do you want it?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Towards the end because it was finally.

MS. DILLEY: Well we got finally out of there, but.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I know. I don\'t know, it just didn\'t seem like that
was \--

MR. BUSS: Actually, it flowed fairly well after the first bullet where
it talked about adopted by farmers and other nations.

MS. DILLEY: So put it as a second bullet.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Okay, yeah, I agree that does fit very nice.

MS. DILLEY: Now we\'ve got healthy bullets at various parts. Was there
more editing to be done on this having moved it from the text above?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Yes. I guess I don\'t really think that last sentence
is correct. Because large populations of humans have been eating large
quantities of genetically engineered foods for 10 years in the United
States. So I wonder if it should be new populations?

MS. DILLEY: New populations?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: New large populations. It looks like you\'re on the
same point.

MR. GRANT: Yes, I also agree. I don\'t think it\'s accurate. And I
don\'t think it really reflects the issue. I think the issue is that for
the first time a staple human food crop would become transgenic.

MS. LAYTON: As opposed to a staple human grain crop.

MR. GRANT: No. Well, as a, I mean, corn is not primarily a human staple.
It\'s a feed crop.

MS. LAYTON: Speak for yourself, you did not grow up in the south. I\'m
sorry.

MR. GRANT: To me that\'s what this issue is \--

MS. DILLEY: So it\'s replacing the concept of large population, but
it\'s a staple food.

MR. GRANT: I would leave the or large population of humans \--

MS. DILLEY: For a large population.

MS. MELLON: It is being eaten as a whole food. I mean, so far there are
no, soy and corn just aren\'t consumed as whole foods by very many
people at all. And most whole foods are not genetically engineered.

MR. GRANT: We just dissed corn by the way.

MR. CORZINE: Well, you know, we can only feed a limited amount to
livestock. I don\'t know if I\'d agree with your comment, Margaret.
There are areas of the world where the whole grains they eat a lot of. I
mean in developing countries.

MS. MELLON: What\'s the significance of the transgenic rice in China?

MS. DILLEY: Is it for new large populations a staple of human, \-- no,
that doesn\'t make sense.

MS. MELLON: And I think it is that populations of humans will be eating
the whole genetically, you know, whole food for the first time.

MR. GRANT: What I would suggest is right where you\'ve got the cursor,
insert a staple human food crop would become transgenic.

MS. DILLEY: And then end the sentence and take the rest out?

MR. GRANT: I would end the sentence.

MS. LAYTON: New large populations of humans a staple human food crop,
something is missing there.

MS. MELLON: A staple human food crop consumed by millions would become
transgenic.

MS. LAYTON: I don\'t think you need the staple human food, I think you
just need it\'s a staple food.

MR. GRANT: No, it\'s a staple human food, that\'s the issue to me, Pat.
I mean, unless \--

MS. LAYTON: We\'ve always deferred to feed as feed and food as human
food.

MR. GRANT: Okay, so call it human food.

MS. LAYTON: So a staple food crop is not a feed crop.

MR. GRANT: All right.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: How about a staple transgenic food crop.

MS. DILLEY: Is that right?

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MR. GRANT: Yeah, that would work.

MS. MELLON: I would say a staple transgenic whole food.

MS. LAYTON: As opposed to the corn meal that I buy now?

MS. MELLON: Yes, as opposed to a crop.

MS. LAYTON: Are grits, because I think grits are staple. And we eat them
every day.

MS. MELLON: It may be for you dear.

MS. LAYTON: And I think I\'ve been eating transgenic food crop for a
while.

MS. MELLON: No, that\'s true.

MS. DILLEY: Do people need a break.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: We\'re having a problem here. We have folks having other
conversations.

MS. DILLEY: So if we need a break, we\'ll take a break, but we can\'t
finish the document without your attention. You want to take a break?

MR. DYKES: I think we should take a break.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, 10 minute break and we start up at 11:30.

(Whereupon a brief recess was taken.)

MS. DILLEY: So Cindy I think we\'re up one bullet. We\'re on the, yeah,
the American public. So that\'s where we left off. People have comments
on that bullet? Take a minute to look it over. Can we move on to the
next? So national regulatory systems. Any comments? Can we move on? Many
countries. Okay. In the United States.

MS. FOREMAN: I think, \-- I\'m sorry. I think, I was trying to rewrite
one and it\'s possible that in the process I let you get past it. Would
you go up?

MS. DILLEY: In the United States?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Which one, Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: No. I\'m sorry. I\'m back where you are now.

MS. DILLEY: Any comments on the in the United States one? Okay.

MS. LAYTON: It means that the FDA, the food supply, I\'m assuming it
means something like the food safety stuff was written long before there
was biotech and therefore it\'s maybe not written to cover \--

MS. FOREMAN: So that you have to struggle all the way through to, first
to make it apply and create some, that has, I think, obviously slowed
the, some of the new traits coming to market, and because FDA now seems
to be not moving very quickly on them. And it creates more debate about
it.

MR. CORZINE: Just for clarity, do we mean regulatory approval? Since we
had a couple of exceptions.

MS. LAYTON: In the United States regulatory approval and acceptance.
They don\'t approve. They have no further questions.

MS. FOREMAN: Let me suggest, regulatory action in public acceptance.

MS. DILLEY: Regulatory action in public acceptance.

MS. LAYTON: Public acceptance has nothing to do with the government
statutes does it?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, it does.

MS. DILLEY: Ron, did you have a point on this one?

MR. OLSON: We\'re talking about products now being developed, and we\'ve
referenced the fact government statutes were written long before the
science was envisioned. We should refer to government statutes what\'s
happening today. They\'re evolving slowly or slower or something like
that rather than referencing they were written 50 years ago.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, I think the issue is \--

MR. JAFFE: The statutes don\'t evolve. Unless Congress invents them.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes, FDA keeps trying to evolve them.

MR. OLSON: I think we\'re missing the fact that there have been some,
even though they\'re slow to come, there have been evolving regulations
in interpretations and stuff, and APHIS has written their containment
policies and stuff like that. There\'s things that have come. They may
not be coming as fast as we want, it is a difference, there\'s not
question. It\'s just a question of \--

MS. FOREMAN: Well we may want to make it specific to, we may need to
make it specific to the Drug act, because I think that\'s where the real
problem is.

MR. OLSON: Yes. Either specify what it is specifically rather than just
saying all of our statutes because we don\'t have anything.

MS. FOREMAN: Slowed by the fact that the food safety governing \-- well,
that\'s not true. To say the Food and Drug Act was written long before
the science was envisioned.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s not the statutes though. It\'s the regulations.

MS. OLSON: The regulations are evolving and governing statutes were
written.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s the law that didn\'t contemplate it that makes FDA go
through these contorted \--

MS. DILLEY: I know, but I thought there were two different points that
you and Ron were making. You\'re saying that the statutes were written
long ago, and he\'s making the point that regulations are evolving,
they\'re \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Under those statutes.

MS. DILLEY: Under those statutes regulations are evolving, they\'re just
slow to evolve to keep up with the science, the pace of the science. I
think they\'re two different points. They\'re obviously linked, but
they\'re two different points.

MR. OLSON: Okay.

MR. SHURDUT: Can\'t you just say the fact that regulations are evolving
and the governing statutes were written? Or regulations are still
evolving?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That even though regulations are evolving, the governing
statute \--

MS. FOREMAN: Slowly.

MS. LAYTON: Even though \--

MS. FOREMAN: And the governing statute were written long before works
for me.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Regulations. No, no. Even though regulations are
evolving then possibly \--

MS. FOREMAN: Slowly.

MR. GRANT: Is envision the right word?

MS. FOREMAN: Just if she\'ll put in slowly after evolving and \--

MS. DILLEY: Duane, do you have a \-- you look deep in thought. Are you
coming up with a different word than envision?

MR. GRANT: Well, I\'m trying to come up with a different word for
envision. Envision isn\'t the right word there.

MS. MELLON: Conceived?

MR. GRANT: I mean we\'ve been, you know, folks have been talking about
\--

MS. LAYTON: Developed. Before the science was developed.

MR. GRANT: Developed. There you go.

MS. CRAMER: Contemplated.

MS. FOREMAN: Contemplated.

MR. GRANT: No.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, you know, developed is fine.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s science is developed. You develop science.

MS. DILLEY: In know but some of the science was

\-- if it works for the committee, it works for me. I\'m not
facilitating.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Carol, can I just ask about that and that you put in.

MS. FOREMAN: Than and should drop out. I hadn\'t read far enough. Thank
you.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Could we get rid of the two commas around therefore.
I know it\'s editorial.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No. Just take out the commas around therefore.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, if we\'re taking time to take out commas, we\'re in
trouble guys. Let\'s keep moving. Daryl, anything else on this bullet?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Is it regulatory actions or action?

MS. DILLEY: No, it\'s \-- well, where are you?

MS. FOREMAN: Regulatory action and public acceptance.

MS. MELLON: We have two slows in two lines.

MR. GRANT: Can you take out therefore completely?

MS. FOREMAN: Maybe hampered instead of slowed would work. Impeded.

MR. BUSS: This is becoming exquisitely long and hard to read.

MS. DILLEY: Yes, it is.

MR. BUSS: I\'d suggest we reorder it by beginning by saying, United
States regulations are evolving slowly and governing statutes were
written long before the science was developed.

MS. FOREMAN: Because, I think because instead of and.

MS. DILLEY: So do you want to drop out the clause on may not be optimal
to meet the needs of?

MS. FOREMAN: United States regulations \--

MR. BUSS: No.

MS. DILLEY: Oh, okay. That\'s a good thing. Two sentences instead of
one. Okay, that\'s where you\'re going.

MS. LAYTON: Read it again, Daryl, please.

MR. BUSS: United States regulations, regulatory actions, no \--

MS. LAYTON: Regulations.

MR. BUSS: Regulations are evolving slowly and government statutes were
written long before bio \-- well, before biotechnology was developed.

MS. FOREMAN: It really was long before. They\'re evolving slowly because
the statutes were written before the biotechnology was envisioned.
Before it ever contemplated that the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was
going to be used to regulate biotechnology.

MR. BUSS: The second sentence in would be, that process may hamper
transgenic product development and testing.

MS. FOREMAN: No, it\'s more than that. It also ‑‑

MR. BUSS: At the moment I\'m just trying to reword the sentence.

MR. JAFFE: Would you say that process is not optimal for meeting the
needs of producers or consumers.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, just use that last sentence.

MR. JAFFE: I would say that system not that process. That system. Or
would say that system is not optimal. May not be, not is. That system
may not be optimal to meet the needs of producers and consumers.

MS. FOREMAN: What do we do with the first sentence there because it\'s
not quite right.

MR. JAFFE: I just said governing statutes. U.S. regulations are evolving
slowly and governing statutes as opposed to government statutes.

MR. DYKES: And I would take "long" out. Were written before
biotechnology was developed.

MS. HUNT: We need to add modern because biotechnology fermentation for
example.

MR. DYKES: Was it because before they were developed or before they were
commercialized?

MS. FOREMAN: Developed.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: How about before modern biotechnology existed.

MS. DILLEY: Can we move on to the next bullet?

MS. MELLON: We have to say many governing statutes or several of the
governing statutes, because the USDA\'s governing statute was reenacted
in 2000.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And many governing statutes?

MS. MELLON: Or several. Maybe important governing statutes.

MR. GRANT: Should we also include modern agricultural biotech just to be
clear?

MS. DILLEY: Modern agricultural biotechnology was developed. Yeah, sure,
because that\'s what we\'re talking about. Okay, can we move on to the
next bullet?

MR. DYKES: Yes, please.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so the commercialization of. Any comments on this one?

MR. DYKES: I think we should say to get at what Carol was talking about
earlier there.

MS. FOREMAN: If we\'re down to that one, I\'ve got a proposal.

MR. DYKES: I was going to say that when we get back to where we were
there on that one, beyond the safety of the product, acceptability of
product consumers and trading partners, technical issues, to get at to
kind of the food formulating those kinds of issues, other technical
issues as well as social and ethical concerns.

MS. FOREMAN: Michael, I\'ve got some proposed language, if I can try it,
that I stopped and wrote. If you leave the first sentence the way it is,
and then say, there are often technical challenges in translating a
beneficial trait into an appealing food. Then new products must gain
acceptance by consumers and trading partners, and sometimes social and
ethical concerns may influence decisions as well. Then drop the rest of
that down to the development of.

MR. DYKES: I think that one is close. I\'d go back up to that one and I
think there are often technical, how about, technical challenges may
arise when incorporating, instead of in translating.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: When incorporating?

MR. DYKES: Technical challenges may arise when incorporating a
beneficial trait.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, I think it\'s actually, translating may be better
there because you\'re taking, you know, for example, the oil, you\'ve
got a beneficial trait that you got to put it into. You\'ve got to make
an appealing food out of it.

MR. DYKES: How about introducing? When introducing a beneficial trait.

MR. JAFFE: With really when turning a beneficial trait into an appealing
food.

MS. FOREMAN: Thank you. That\'s right. When turning a beneficial trait
into an appealing food.

MS. LAYTON: In that next sentence, acceptance by consumers and trading
partners, is it and sometimes social and ethical concerns might
influence decisions as well or is it comma, sometimes \--

MS. FOREMAN: I think it\'s period. Drop the and capital S.

MS. LAYTON: Thank you. That reads much better to me.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Any other?

MR. OLSON: I guess I\'m struggling with the word appealing a little bit.

MS. DILLEY: I know, I am too.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can you get closer to a microphone so people can hear.

MS. DILLEY: Do you have a suggested change?

MR. OLSON: Just a question about appealing food or marketable food or
something like that.

MS. FOREMAN: Marketable is fine.

MS. DILLEY: Into marketable food.

MR. OLSON: Marketable food as opposed to appealing.

MR. CORZINE: Can we look at that sentence we\'re working on now, from
there down with what\'s below. Because we may just be repetitive in some
of that, do you think? If you look at that.

MS. FOREMAN: Not the development of transgenic animals, that\'s still
part of it. I think that it could be a separate bullet there.

MR. CORZINE: I wondered Carol, the way you start with sometimes social
and ethical concerns may influence decision as well, you go right to
that with the development of transgenic animals.

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah. I frankly think that it should be a separate bullet
starting with sometimes social and ethical concerns influence decisions
about commercialization. May influence decisions about
commercialization.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, and then it goes to?

MR. DYKES: The next sentence can be \--

MS. FOREMAN: Then you go down to \--

MR. DYKES: That could be deleted, the next sentence, Carol.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. Then you get for example the development.

MR. DYKES: May generate for some, what consumers? For some what? Some
people?

MS. FOREMAN: For some people.

MS. LAYTON: Do you need based on religious, ethical and moral values
since you\'ve already said, sometime social and ethical concerns?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes. You don\'t. For example, the development of transgenic
animals may generate higher levels of concern than those for plant
breeding.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: And then the rest of that overall. Any other comments on
that?

MS. FOREMAN: Well, I\'ll tell you. I\'ll leave it just like this, but if
we could take that last sentence and put it back over in the one about
public information, I\'d have to jiggle it a little bit, but that last
sentence, I think, is really more relevant to the bullet that \-- but if
you\'d let me jiggle that a little bit. I\'ve been trying in between
these to make that a little more coherent.

MS. LAYTON: Can you jiggle for 10 minutes while we finish the rest of
the document? We have two paragraphs left.

MS. FOREMAN: Let me make sure they\'re not paragraphs that cause me
heartburn. I also think we could reorganize when we\'re finished.
Reorganize the order of the bullets.

MS. DILLEY: So why don\'t we go to the rest of the bullets and then come
back and see how those fit.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: Some international agreements. Any comments on that one?
Next bullet.

MR. GRANT: So the panel has ruled.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: But it hasn\'t officially, it\'s not public yet.

MR. DYKES: I\'d say it is Michael. Michael, it is public.

MS. HUNT: No, not officially public.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s not officially public.

MS. DILLEY: Is finalizing a panel ruling.

MR. DYKES: It\'s been in the public media.

MS. DILLEY: Is finalizing a panel ruling or what?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I mean, they have put out a preliminary ruling and there
is still a process that is going on for comment from the two different
governments. So it is not a ruling that officially exists. There is
still a discussion process going on through the WTO.

MS. SLUTSKY: It\'s not a final report.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s not a final report.

MS. SLUTSKY: It\'s an interim report.

MR. GRANT: So this is accurate the way it reads now then?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes, nearing a final ruling under the WTO would do the
trick.

MS. DILLEY: Nearing a final ruling.

MS. LAYTON: Final panel or final ruling?

MR. DYKES: I think there is an interim report. There will be a process
that\'ll play out over the next couple years about appeal and all those
kinds of things. But, the interim report has issued a statement about
the facts.

MS. DILLEY: Well I guess it\'s qualifying the ongoing trade dispute, so.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Actually the interim report has not been publicly issued
yet.

MS. SLUTSKY: No. The interim report is a confidential report. What they
haven\'t done is they have not issued their final report. After they
issue the final report is when the appeals and all that process goes, if
there are appeals.

MS. LAYTON: So nearing a final report or a final ruling?

MS. SLUTSKY: Well, I think technically it\'s a final report.

MS. DILLEY: Anything else on that bullet? Can we move to the next
bullet?

MS. LAYTON: And is it between the EU and a number of complainants or
among the \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No, it\'s between the EU and \--

MS. LAYTON: Between the EU and a whole bunch of other people.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Technology producers. Food producers. Any comments on that
bullet? Last bullet. Okay. Good. Last two paragraphs. First achieving
AC21 shared vision. And then the last transitional paragraph. Comments
on either of those? No comments? Carol, do you have that language.

MS. FOREMAN: Close.

MS. DILLEY: You\'ve got some language.

MS. FOREMAN: I can either put it on the thumb drive and take it over or
just read it. Ready?

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s just not like that at all, so let me just read it to
you quickly and then I\'ll go back through it. Extensive media coverage
and public debate have made many consumers more aware of genetically
engineered food products than when the first crops were adopted.
Heightened awareness along the food and feed chain will continue to
influence the acceptance of new foods made using the technology.

MR. DYKES: How about new products, Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: Extensive media coverage and public debate have made many
consumers more aware of genetically engineered food products than when
the first crops were adopted. Heightened \--

MS. LAYTON: And when what, Carol?

MS. FOREMAN: The first crops were adopted. Heightened awareness along
the food and feed chain. I have will continue to influence the
acceptance of new products made using the technology.

MS. LAYTON: Which technology, the genetic engineering technology?

MR. DYKES: How about new products derived from modern biotechnology.

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah, fine.

MS. LAYTON: New products derived from modern biotechnology.

MS. FOREMAN: That combines the \--

MS. DILLEY: And then the rest goes?

MS. FOREMAN: Kill the rest of it.

MS. LAYTON: So all the brown and all the red below goes, Cindy.

MS. FOREMAN: Keep it until people decide if that\'s ‑‑

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, keep it there for now while people are reading it.

MR. GIROUX: The only suggestion I make is take the qualifier off of
consumers.

MR. DYKES: I guess I would also ask that extensive media coverage. Why
don\'t we take the extensive off, because I don\'t know that media
coverage is even today what it was six years ago. I mean, I know media
coverage is out there, but I think \--

MS. FOREMAN: The blogosphere is full of it, and what I was trying to do
was get away from trying to describe that. So just say extensive
coverage and public debate. Because you know, what is important here is
that you never really had a new technology come online with the Internet
playing the role that it plays in our lives today.

MS. LAYTON: Aren\'t blogs though extensive public debate?

MS. FOREMAN: All right, fine. That\'s fine. Media coverage and public
debate.

MS. DILLEY: Anybody? So are people comfortable, then we can replace
those two sentences? Those two sentences replace?

MS. GRANT: Abby, I\'m struggling with, and I apologize Carol, I\'d love
to just accept it, but I\'m struggling though with heightened. That\'s a
heightened awareness. That\'s a term that in my mind is synonymous with
increased caution. A cautionary measure.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay. Let me suggest Duane, I brought that poll from IFIC
today, because you can see even though they word their questions in a
way that encourages a positive answer, they\'ve asked the same question
since 1997 in most cases and 1999 in one, and in every single case,
public, the positive responses have declined from 10 to 14 percentage
points from when they asked that same question. So, you know, I really
do believe that the first crops got out there because not very many
people were aware of them.

MS. DILLEY: I think he\'s just looking for an acronym or synonym for \--

MR. GRANT: I\'m not debating the stats, I\'m just looking for something
besides heightened. Increased works fine for me.

MS. FOREMAN: That works fine.

MS. DILLEY: Any other comments on the two sentences?

MS. FOREMAN: I get easy to please when it gets this small.

MS. DILLEY: Delete. Okay, excellent.

MS. MELLON: What happened to the sentences that were in the material
introducing the, we\'ve just been talking about the bullet points. I
mean, specifically there was a sentence on the marketplace is likely to
see introduction of new varieties followed by a sentence, although they
may be different, it\'s not clear they\'ll be regulated. Did we turn
those into bullets?

MS CRAMER: No, that was way back.

MS. MELLON: Or did we just drop it or what happened? I\'m looking at
page 5, the marketplace is likely to see \--

MS. DILLEY: That got dropped.

MS. MELLON: Well I don\'t think it should be dropped.

MS. FOREMAN: Go to the top of the bullet list so we can see what
Mardi\'s \--

MS. DILLEY: Well, it\'s not in the bullet list. It was in the paragraph
deleted, some of which was pulled, some of the pieces were pulled down
into the bullets. But the particular one that she\'s referencing, I
believe, was not. Which is in blue type on the March 15th text on page
4, and the first full paragraph that says, the marketplace is likely to
see the introduction of new varieties and products developed through
non-transgenic applications of biotech.

MR. JAFFE: The reason they were dropped is because they\'re in,
specifically talked about in the topic.

MS. FOREMAN: Is there nothing that separates the two lists of bullets?

MS. LAYTON: Yes, there is.

MS. MELLON: Could it become a bullet? Those two sentences, could they
become a bullet?

MS. LAYTON: Where? In the first set of bullets or the second set of
bullets?

MS. MELLON: The second set of bullets.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Mardi, one thought on that might be that the second
sentence is something that will be discussed as an actual item in one of
the topics, so maybe that\'s a little bit of repetition. But the first
sentence, the whole idea about genome, things coming out of genome
sequencing, that\'s not covered elsewhere.

MR. MELLON: Well, I think that\'s very important. I mean it\'s now just,
you know, it\'s no longer a binary world, biotech or not.

MS. LAYTON: Carol put that in.

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah, I moved it over under the \--

MS. LAYTON: Potential new stuff.

MS. FOREMAN: The things that get in the way of \--

MR. DYKES: Carol Tucker did and Carole Cramer did too.

MS. LAYTON: Carole Cramer put it in under the \--

MR. DYKES: Research milieu.

MS. LAYTON: Research milieu, yeah that\'s it.

MS. VAN EENEEAAM: Robust assessment tools.

MS. LAYTON: Robust assessment tools.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. SULTON: That\'s not there anymore is it?

MS. VAN EENEEAAM: No. It\'s the first 10 years.

MS. LAYTON: No, but we put in advances in understanding the molecular
basis of crops, growth, productivity and disease resistance or something
like that.

MR. DYKES: Yes.

MS. MELLON: Well, I think it\'s appropriate as a point in the second
list somewhere. It is part of the context that\'s going to affect the
date.

MS. DILLEY: So pull out that first sentence and that\'s a bullet below?

MS. MELLON: Yes, I agree with Michael. I\'ll take his suggestion that
perhaps the elaboration of it is covered elsewhere. But I think as a
context setting piece of information it\'s very important and certainly
belongs in the list. The marketplace is likely, that paragraph. I think
should become a bullet.

MS. SULTON: I don\'t have that anymore.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s in an old version.

MR. DYKES: This is talking about the future, Mardi. That\'s already
here. We\'re already seeing new varieties produced through
non-transgenic applications of biotechnology. Happening \-- but whether
they know it or not I\'m arguing.

MS. DILLEY: So not the introduction of, but likely see the increase?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: No. The marketplace has begun to see.

MR. DYKES: I don\'t think this fits as a bullet point.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: It\'s saying the difference between a decade ago and
now, is that now this, right now there\'s the introduction of plants
that have been developed using molecular breeding techniques and that
didn\'t exist 10 years ago. We can argue that point. But that\'s the
bullet it\'s getting put in as.

MR. DYKES: I don\'t agree with that though.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Well, did we have genome sequences for most of the
crops 10 years ago?

MR. DYKES: Maybe not 10 years ago, but how about five years ago? How
about five years ago?

MS. FOREMAN: But it certainly hasn\'t reached its peak. So it really is
the future as well as, or you might say, the development of product
through non-transgenic applications is likely to increase in the future.

MR. DYKES: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: We didn\'t catch that.

MS. FOREMAN: The introduction of new varieties and products developed,
*et cetera*, is likely to continue and expand over the next several
years. Which is likely to continue and expand period. If you can get all
of that in, it\'s just turning it around a little bit.

MS. DILLEY: So after methods is likely to continue and expand? Is likely
to continue and expand.

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Michael?

MR. DYKES: Yes, that\'s okay.

MS. FOREMAN: May I suggest that we give the staff the leeway to
reorganize the bullets, because there\'s a certain amount of bouncing
back and forth, and since we had a pretty easy time agreeing to these,
we ought to be able to agree on the order.

MS. CRAMER: What about this as an alternative. I\'m sorry. The impact of
genomic information is impacting both genetic engineering and
non-genetic engineering approaches to product development.

MS. DILLEY: Carol, no one can hear you. You\'ve got to speak up. Don\'t
talk to your paper.

MS. CRAMER: The impact of genomics information is impacting both genetic
engineering and non-genetic engineering approaches to crop development.

MS. LAYTON: It\'s not the impact of genomics information, it\'s genomics
information is impacting.

MS. CRAMER: Fine. Yes. But the idea being it\'s not likely. This is
something that\'s new from 10 years ago.

MS. MELLON: We can add that, yes.

MS. CRAMER: Genomics information is impacting both genetic engineering
and non-genetic engineering approaches to crop development or crop
improvement.

MS. LAYTON: To crop and animal improvement.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s kind of a hard sentence to read. That once you get
the idea accepted, could we fiddle with it?

MS. CRAMER: Yes.

MR. DYKES: Both transgenic and non-transgenic approaches.

MS. MELLON: I mean I think it\'s actually already included above in the
integration of genome sequence.

MS. FOREMAN: I think she\'s suggesting it as an alternative.

MS. CRAMER: Yes. Because remember, this is a section discussing how the
environment now is different than the environment 10 years ago.

MR. CORZINE: Carol, are you offering that as a replacement not an
addition?

MS. CRAMER: Yes, as a replacement.

MR. CORZINE: Not an addition.

MS. LAYTON: Transgenic is misspelled.

MS. DILLEY: Something is after animal.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Breeding.

MR. DYKES: Breeding improvement.

MS. MELLON: Well, I liked the earlier version better because it says
that there are new varieties and products that are being developed
through non-transgenic applications in biotechnology. And that is, I
think, something that we need to be clear about. It also notes that the
genome sequencing, which I agree is new and will kind of drive this in
the future, I mean that\'s incorporated into that sentence. The second
sentence is true, but it doesn\'t, I mean it\'s impacting. I don\'t
think it gives the idea that there will provide no alternatives. These
are going to be alternative ways of improving crops and animals. It
isn\'t just, you know, just genetic engineering.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: So genomic information is being used to develop new \--

MR. DYKES: Being used for both transgenic and non-transgenic \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: To develop new \-- crop and animal varieties \--

MR. DYKES: I think it should be, being used for both transgenic and
non-transgenic.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I hate to do this, but this is, we\'re talking about
things that are different, and I think we changed one down about three
that I don\'t know that I agree.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, well let\'s not go there yet. Let\'s finish this one.

MS. LAYTON: Which way do you like it best?

MS. DILLEY: You\'re asking that broadly?

MS. LAYTON: Yes. We have two choices.

MS. DILLEY: Mardi and Michael, what do you guys think? Are you okay with
the second one?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That should be through not though.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. I know people are flagging because you\'re hungry. If
we can close this one out.

MS. MELLON: Then we should say to enable the development of new \--

MS. DILLEY: The development of new crops and animal \--

MS. MELLON: \-- new crops and animal what?

MR. DYKES: You can\'t have development because you\'ve going to have
developments later.

MS. DILLEY: New crop varieties and animal breeding.

MS. MELLON: I mean they\'re not enabling developments. What I\'m kind of
searching for, and the reason I still prefer the earlier, is that we\'re
going to get new varieties, new products, new animals, new plants...

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Carol, do you have a strong objection to the first one
because we don\'t seem to be able to make a decision here. Can we go
with the first one, unless you have a real problem with it?

MS. CRAMER: I think we\'re getting there.

MS. LAYTON: Well, the only thing that\'s different is that I think that
the first one gives you such as genomic sequencing and the second one,
\-- does everybody know what genomic information is?

MR. DYKES: I think the second one is more broader and more looking to
the future.

MS. CRAMER: I mean part of the problem with the first one is that
traditional breeding has been around for a long, long time and we have
many, many, many products that have been evolved through these
technologies even 10 years ago. And so what\'s really different is that
we have a new set of information and tools that contributes not just to
biotechnology, but contributes to non-genetic engineered strategies for
altering crops.

MS. MELLON: Well would it help to say non-transgenic applications of
modern biotechnology?

MS. CRAMER: I don\'t know.

MS. DILLEY: Of modern biotechnology.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Which we\'ve defined as genetic engineering.

MS. MELLON: We can\'t use that.

MR. DYKES: Could we go with the second one, Mardi? Are you okay with the
second?

MS. MELLON: I don\'t like, \-- no, the second one to me doesn\'t tell
you that there are going to be alternative products. It just says
they\'re going to be impacts.

MS. DILLEY: Developments and products.

MS. MELLON: We could say, if we say genomic information is being used to
enable the development of new crops and animals through both transgenic
and non-transgenic approaches. I could live with that.

MR. DYKES: Yes. That\'s fine.

MS. MELLON: And animals. I\'m not sure. Varieties doesn\'t really work
for animals.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, is that good there, Mardi?

MS. MELLON: Yes, that does it for me. Thank you.

MR. DYKES: That\'s good.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: How about enhance the breeding of new crops and animals.

MS. MELLON: What about development of improved crops and animals?

MS. CRAMER: There you go.

MS. LAYTON: Improved you can do.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Improved crops and animals.

MS. LAYTON: And you can take traits out then. Yes. All right, so Allison
you had a bullet.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: There was just one down there that I just want
everyone to read and say is this different to what it was 10 years ago.
And it was the commercialized, that one. The commercialization of
transgenic plant or animal is affected by considerations beyond the
safety of a product. And I just want to put that out there given this
list is different to what it was 10 years ago.

MS. MELLON: It\'s really different to show up in a USDA document. I mean
honestly that they have not been welcoming of the notion that social and
ethical concerns would play into the debate.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah, the one before that.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: It\'s the commercialization of a transgenic plant or
animal product is affected by considerations beyond safety.

MS. LAYTON: So are you suggesting that we could get rid of the first
part of that and just say technical challenges may arise when turning a
beneficial trait into a marketable food?

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: The commercialization?

MR. JAFFE: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: It is very an animal product.

MR. JAFFE: Yeah, I think it is.

MS. DILLEY: Just a couple more things before we break for lunch. One is,
we\'re at the point now where I think we\'ve got two questions really
for the group. One is, is there anything now in the current document
that we just worked through that poses absolute heartburn that would
prevent anybody from signing on to the document? That\'s one question.
So we\'re not going to necessarily answer or get into this discussion,
we\'re not before a break of lunch, but I just want to raise the
question. The second category is it\'s been, another category and we
went through this in the first couple of documents. Whether there are
issues, technical issues or corrections of fact that would improve the
document.

Now as always we have, there are questions as to whether one person\'s
fact is another person\'s changing the substance. So I put that out
there because, for example, I\'ve had one pointed out to me as an
example on 24 I think it was, topic 24. And I\'m sure because people
haven\'t had a chance to \--

MS. LAYTON: We just did it yesterday.

MS. DILLEY: I know. No, we didn\'t do 24.

MS. LAYTON: Yes, we did. It\'s crossed off over there on the map
yesterday.

MR. JAFFE: Twenty-five is the one I brought up to you.

MS. DILLEY: I\'m sorry, 25. Thank you, Greg, sorry Pat. Misspoke. In
terms of the United States selling products and well, let me get there
first.

MS. LAYTON: The ability of the United States to sell transgenic crops
and other commingled varieties.

MR. JAFFE: I brought that up because the United States doesn\'t sell
transgenic crops. Producers or somebody else sales transgenic crops.

MS. DILLEY: You know, as we did with previous documents, you know, the
language stands as is and that\'s the default. If it\'s controversial we
revert to the original language, but if people had examples like that,
that maybe help fix, correct things then it would be helpful, I think,
to at least raise those if they\'re easily done and we can get through
those fairly quickly terrific. If not, then we want a document that we a
provisional agreement, if not in a finalized by the end of the
discussion of this before we move into the new topics.

So the question is, I would imagine that people want to, that we take
one more glance. I know you\'re tired of this document, but it would be
helpful to get those out of the way if we could before we move to the
next round of topics, so that we can put the document to bed. So if you
would take just at least some of your lunch hour, and we\'ll have an
hour, if we could come back at 1:30, could we do that, delay it 15
minutes since we\'re getting a late start to lunch? That people take a
quick glance at that.

But those are the two questions. Is there anything that\'s preventing
anyone from signing onto the document as a consensus document? And are
there any, what you would pose as technical or facts, I\'m not saying
right.

MR. DYKES: Are there any outstanding \--

MS. DILLEY: Questions of fact.

MR. DYKES: Are there any topics we\'ve not covered?

MS. DILLEY: No. We\'ve gone through the entire document between January
and this meeting.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And we\'re missing the one sentence providing the actual
statistic in number five that people think is non-controversial.

MS. FOREMAN: If you would go back to the very, to the top of page 2
where we were trying to get the caveat sentence about the different
views expressed. I was trying to come up with something that was a
little smoother, but I can\'t remember what the original one said.

MS. DILLEY: You mean the read it in the full it\'s a consensus document,
etcetera language?

MS. FOREMAN: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: I thought we finished that.

MS. FOREMAN: I\'d like to see it because I thought that it \--

MS. LAYTON: Top of page 2.

MS. FOREMAN: I don\'t disagree with it. I thought that I at the time
said I thought it was a little awkward and could I \--

MR. DYKES: It is just above the past decade and the next decade.

MS. LAYTON: This paper is as a whole a consensus. You\'ve got it right
there.

MS. SULTON: Where here?

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: Yeah, that\'s fine.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so if we can come back after lunch at 1:30 and just
pose those two questions, and then we\'ll wrap up that discussion and
move into our new topic number one. But before we break, Michael.

MS. FOREMAN: I might just say, just let me try one thing there because
Leon had raised some issue about it. We could say, the paper as a whole
is a consensus product, however, for topics so on in this report the
reader will note a range of views from different members as presented.

MS. LAYTON: Greg didn\'t like noting to the readers.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay, I didn\'t either. So that\'s fine.

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

MR. DYKES: Yes. I was just going to ask in terms of your two questions
are fair, but I\'d like to ask though, once we come back after lunch and
we have those discussions, the rest of the process is going to be?

MS. DILLEY: And that\'s what we need to talk about the process for
actually finalizing, drafting a cover note, and that may be done all
electronically, subsequent to the meeting.

MR. DYKES: I was going to propose that one of the things we\'ve done in
the past is we\'ve all had a chance to go back and read it, and then
maybe we have a conference call. If there\'s some outstanding reason \--

MS. DILLEY: Do you want that process?

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. DYKES: I would suggest that, yes. Because if, I don\'t envision
anything, but I think to get it one time, print it with no brackets, no
colors, just to read it to say.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Then we\'ll very much limit, then really the main
question then is maybe we should just put a time limit on it for like
half an hour and just do, just to get a sense of what people have, if
there\'s anything in terms of the first question of preventing
consensus. And then if there are any quick statements of fact, or
questions of fact that we can address.

But, people will then have a time frame to review the document in full.

MR. DYKES: That\'s why I raised that issue, because it may shorten the
time after lunch Abby.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. And any other next steps for finalization of the
document.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. And then I guess before lunch then, I know Bernice
has joined us and I thought you might want to \-- you\'ve come to say a
couple of words to the committee and say goodbye.

MS. SLUTSKY: I promise you it\'ll be very short. I just wanted to say,
to thank you all for your, you know, for all the hard work that you\'ve
put into this. And I think when I started USDA I, after the first
meeting I attended at the AC21, I was just so impressed with, this is
the best advisory committee I\'ve ever been involved in, and I\'ve been
involved in quite a few of them.

Not just at USDA, but you know in other agencies that I\'ve worked at.
So you\'re just doing really, you know, very useful work and I know that
the Secretary will be very interested to read this report, and you\'re
done almost. So and just to thank you all. And I know I\'ll see some of
you in my new job, I\'m sure.

MS. LAYTON: Will we see you in your new job?

MS. SLUTSKY: You\'ll see me.

MS. LAYTON: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: We\'ll see you back here at 1:30.

(Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.)

MS. LAYTON: While you were away, for part of you, and I ran out, there
is a new membership list of the members. I distributed it as far around
as about Greg or Ron, and they\'re making some additional copies. Did
anyone else pick this up? It was sitting out.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: It\'s actually supposed to be just for \--

MS. LAYTON: Just for members.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: \-- just for committee members.

MS. LAYTON: But we\'re going to get enough so that every member has a
new member list.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, for the schedule, as Michael announced earlier, we
didn\'t break for lunch until 12:30 so we\'re getting back at 1:30 and
we need, we have, we wanted to devote the first half hour to just, and
it may not take that long, but to two questions. One is, if any of the
committee members had any remaining points of concern that would prevent
them from signing on to the document as a consensus. And then lastly, if
there are any questions of fact.

Just to get a sense of whether there are some, not so much to go through
them all, because we will have a period of time and we\'ll put up a
proposed schedule for getting the document, the finalized document or at
least the provisional final out to all of you for one last review, and
then scheduling a date certain after that at which time we\'ll conclude
the document and there may be a phone call to field any additional
comments on the document per statements of fact, etcetera.

And then finalize shortly after that. And then present to the Secretary
shortly thereafter and maybe an opportunity to present it. So we need to
schedule that out. But it shouldn\'t take, hopefully, it won\'t take
very long. And of course fitting in there some amount of high five given
that this is a conclusion of a three-year effort by the committee to
tackle its first charge, or the second piece of the charge.

Okay. So we\'ll start off with the presentations at around 2 o\'clock.
We have, as Michael mentioned, one speaker who was fogged out
unfortunately and couldn\'t make it to the meeting. So we have two
presentations and are scheduled to conclude by 4 o\'clock this afternoon
for today. And then start back up tomorrow.

Any questions about the overall agenda? Okay, so to the first question
of any remaining issues that people have that would prevent signing on
to the document as a consensus? Obviously high bar. Anything you just
couldn\'t live without? Going.

MR. KREMER: Just a minor thing, but I do have a problem with it. Is this
the time to speak?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. KREMER: Okay. This is the last chance and I hate going. But, and I
apologize because I have been, I am a rookie, and I appreciate this
opportunity. But on number 20, you\'re just, it talks about farmer
demand and when we discussed this I guess I felt part of this was, \-- I
think everything else, all the other issues have been fairly impartial.
This one here seems to be very, too much of an emotional piece.

I would be satisfied, what bothers me I think is the third to last
sentence from the end where it starts with most farmers have embraced
this stuff enthusiastically, and I think that is very subjective, and I
would be satisfied if we could change, if the committee would consider
changing that sentence to many farmers who have grown transgenic crops
are expected to grow additional varieties containing new traits.

I\'ll read it again before you type up there just to get the feel of the
committee. A simple sentence that just says many farmers who have grown
transgenic crops are expected to grow additional varieties containing
new traits.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, and Russell, just to be clear, so this hits the bar of
it this doesn\'t change, then you\'ll really have a hard time supporting
the document?

MR. KREMER: I can\'t continue \--

MS. DILLEY: To grow additional varieties with new traits are you saying
in crops?

MR. KREMER: Yes. To grow additional varieties containing new traits, and
I\'m sure that that can be \--

MS. LAYTON: New transgenic traits.

MR. KREMER: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, Duane.

MR. GRANT: So there\'s two parts of this issue that are changed then if
that language were adopted. The descriptor most farmers changes to many.
And then enthusiastic changes to are expected to grow.

MR. KREMER: Yes, that\'s the two words that I have trouble with, and
that\'s the two words that I\'d like to see changed.

MR. GRANT: I guess, I think most farmers is a factual statement.
Enthusiastic we could lose that, and say are expected to grow. But I
believe the statement that most farmers who have grown transgenic crops
-

MS. DILLEY: So it\'s specific, the qualifiers to those farmers who have
grown transgenic crops are the ones who are expected to \-- what do you
think about that Russ? I mean that\'s kind of a compromise.

MR. KREMER: You say those farmers?

MS. DILLEY: It\'s the farmers who have grown transgenic crops and most
farmers who have grown transgenic crops are expected to grow additional
varieties containing new transgenic traits? So it addresses your point
on enthusiastic and keeps that language, but it\'s more farmers because,
you\'re talking already about a subset of those who are growing
transgenic crops in saying most as opposed to many. Is what Duane I
think you\'re proposing. Okay. You\'d go with that?

MS. LAYTON: Just to be sure we read it. Could you change many to most in
that red sentence? Let\'s more sure everybody\'s comfortable there.

MS. DILLEY: He was modifying the proposed modification, if you will.

MR. SLOCUM: And that\'s meant to replace the next most farmers?

MS. LAYTON: Right.

MR. SLOCUM: Whose expectation is it, is my question. What does that mean
are expected to grow? Is it anticipated that the farmers that are
growing these transgenic crops that they will continue to grow?

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

MR. SLOCUM: They\'re not expected to. That sounds like there\'s an
obligation. It\'s anticipated that they will.

MS. DILLEY: Are anticipated?

MR. SLOCUM: I don\'t know, I\'m asking that.

MS. DILLEY: No. I think it was trying to get around the enthusiastic
qualifier.

MR. SLOCUM: Well, I don\'t \-- that\'s fine with me.

MR. DILLEY: Expected, if you got a different word. Leon?

MR. CROZINE: You can just put in will. Will grow additional \--

MS. DILLEY: I think it\'s kind of trying to capture the sense of
there\'s enthusiasm. I mean, the topic is farmer demand, so I would
think there\'s some, we\'re trying to find that right word of
enthusiastic.

MR. DYKES: How about most farmers who have grown transgenic crops are
interested in the prospect of additional production benefits and will
choose to grow variety containing new traits. So take out, replace
enthusiastic with are, what did I say?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Interested.

MR. DYKES: Are interested in the prospect.

MS. LAYTON: So actually you want to go to the other sentence and change
it. Take are interested in the prospect \--

MR. DYKES: All we\'re changing now is the enthusiastic part, right?

MS. SULTON: Right.

MR. DYKES: So we\'re going to keep most in there.

MS. DILLEY: So but it wasn\'t expected. It got changed. Most farmers who
have grown transgenic crops are interested in the prospect \--

MR. DYKES: Of additional production benefits from other new traits and
will choose to grow varieties containing new traits. We could say will
likely choose.

MS. DILLEY: Can we just make sure she cut.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Mardi.

MS. MELLON: Perhaps we, could we just ask Russ, since he wasn\'t, he was
brand new at the last meeting. I mean I really, I sympathize with his,
you know, his kind of feeling that this is very imbalanced in terms of
its, of the farmer perspective. And so maybe he could just give us a
couple of sentence of what he sees as, you know, why he would use the
word is expected to, and maybe we could all, so we could all help him
find the right word.

MR. KREMER: Okay, thank you. My problem with the, I guess, the
enthusiastic and even the interested thing is that, I guess, and I\'ve
been polling farmers to see whether that word is, you know, why they use
genetically modified crops, and it\'s because they\'re available.
They\'re more available, in fact, than conventional traits. But they
have a whole lot of problem with the system as far as, you know,
they\'re angry at times as far as, you know, having not enough choices,
not being treated as fairly, as the members in other countries.

So I don\'t think that enthusiastic or interested are good words.
They\'ve adopted this stuff for other reasons, and they\'re not
necessarily driving this demand because they have this idea for a trait
that\'s going to really, you know, be economically beneficial for them.
They have problems with the whole idea that it\'s being promoted as
something economically beneficial when net farming continues to go down.

You know, there are studies that I can cite, for instance the Leopold
Center, the Iowa State University that said it\'s basically a wash
economically. But I just wanted to down town the promotional tone to
this piece by taking out enthusiastic and interested, or you know going
down to the bottom and putting some factual information about why
farmers, you know, aren\'t necessarily happy about biotechnology in the
tool chest.

MS. DILLEY: So we\'re back to struggling with enthusiastic. Leon?

MR. CROZINE: I guess Russell, the question is, you\'ve got a qualifier
here with most farmers who have grown the crops, and everything that
I\'ve seen, and I\'ve talked to a lot of folks that if they\'re growing
transgenic crops, I mean people make a choice, do you want to use this,
what we call a tool in the tool box, you figure out what tool works for
you and what if it is, it doesn\'t work economically, don\'t use it.
Nobody\'s holding a gun to your head, and there are other choices.

The ones that, and that\'s where you get into most, I would, are
enthusiastic, they\'re ready to try the new traits. I mean, really all
you have to do is take a look at the data, factual data of what is
available and what folks are planting. And I would think that it would
maybe address, you know, I think it was your language on the some or on
the sentence below where it says some farmers believe there are down
sides to modern biotechnology and the similar benefits obtained through
other methods.

Which I think that offsets what concerns you might have. Now, because
what is driving the market, I mean, if you look even, you know, I have
2004 data that really isn\'t quite as relevant now because farmer use
continue to go upward at a pretty high rate, and the new traits to help
with some of the environmental and agronomic benefits are in demand. And
one of the things that we work hard at is helping hold them off the
market until they have their full approval or have gone all the way
through the regulatory systems in the U.S. and other countries.

So I guess the question is, I would have thought that the last sentence
would have taken care of your concern there, Russell. And I would say
that in my, also in scientific polling I have people upset with me
because they think I\'m holding back biotechnology that they can use. So
the enthusiastic is definitely appropriate word I would say for most of
the producers out there that are currently using. And that\'s what it
says. That have grown transgenic crops.

MS. DILLEY: Can I suggest maybe some language. I don\'t know, I mean,
Leon I would suppose that you\'re asking Russell that does the last
sentence get to his concerns. But I wonder if we can go back up to that
sentence and say, farmers who have grown transgenic crops and are
interested in the prospect of additional varieties. I mean part of it is
really driving the demand, and I think if we have farmers who have grown
transgenic crops and want them, that we capture it that way because I
think maybe your concern, Russell, is kind of a more blanket statement
of most farmers, and it\'s not quite captured. So if we can be specific
to those who have grown them and are pushing the demand, maybe it\'s
framing it that way helps.

Duane, I don\'t know if that helps for you, but I\'m not capturing
exactly the right language, but its focusing around farmers who have
grown them and want new transgenic traits are expected to grow
additional varieties. Or something along those lines.

MR GRANT: So can I respond?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. GRANT: Well, I\'m interested in having the statement reflect the
reality of what is out in the field, and that is that, you know, the
reality of it is no matter how you slice it, farmers who have been
growing transgenic crops are expected to continue to grow transgenic
crops. Most farmers, there will be some that don\'t. Most are expected
to.

So my question would be, does that sentence that starts with most
farmers who have grown transgenic crops are expected to grow additional
varieties containing new transgenic traits, does that work Russell for
you?

MS. DILLEY: And then just put period and then cut off are interested in
the prospect. So it\'s most farmers who have grown transgenic crops are
expected to grow additional varieties?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Michael Dykes had added stuff to that. That\'s the
question.

MS. LAYTON: Actually, he didn\'t add it to that, he was trying to add it
to this.

MR. DYKES: So we dropped the whole concept of prospect of additional
production benefits? I thought, maybe we should just ask for
clarification. Russell, your concerns were two as I heard.

MR. KREMER: Most and enthusiastic.

MR. DYKES: One was most. But I thought we had talked through that most
is only referring to of those who have grown. So the first question
would be, are you okay with most?

MR. KREMER: Up to that point, yes.

MR. DYKES: Okay, and then the next concern you had was enthusiastic. And
I suggested replacing enthusiastic with interested in. Are you okay with
interested in?

MR. KREMER: No, I\'m not. And the reason being is, you know, if you can
still some me some substantial evidence that, you know, like farmers who
are using this stuff are polled, and they\'re looking forward to more,
I\'d be satisfied with that. But, I guess, when I poll my people
they\'re saying that, you know, there\'s confusion between demand and
choices and availability.

And my people are saying that you know, they\'re growing them because
they have to. They\'re growing them because their seed supplier has got,
you know, 9 out of 10 varieties, in soybeans for instance they have
available are GMO, they\'d like to have more choices, but this happens
to be a battle over choices.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so there\'s two options there. One is for interested
and is, you know, the data issue, and we don\'t have time to do that.
The other is to try and find an alternative word that could be
acceptable to everyone. So if people do have, Leon?

MR. CORZINE: I think you\'ve either got to go with the way it is or
maybe go to the are interested in. I think that waters it down some. And
Russell, I think you\'ve got, you know, every year there\'s data. People
are polled by the industry because as they\'re doing the marketing and
you can pick dones (sic), you can pick from individuals, others in the
industry and some of the states, and it is overwhelming that, I think
enthusiastic is the appropriate word, and I don\'t think I\'d move very
far from that because otherwise then you aren\'t factual.

MS. DILLEY: Let\'s see if we can try a couple more swings at language,
and then if we can\'t then \--

MS. LAYTON: Can we delete what you put up there Abby, that farmers who
have grown, \-- can we delete that piece?

MS. MELLON: One approach might be to modify the last sentence so that it
would say, some farmers believe there are downsides to modern
biotechnology, and they believe similar benefits can be obtained through
other methods and are frustrated by the limited choice of seeds in the
marketplace.

MR. CORZINE: I can\'t live with that.

MS. DILLEY: Ron, do you have a suggestion?

MR. OLSON: If we\'re going to leave the top part, then I would pick up
some of what Russ\'s concerns. Some of what Mardi said, I don\'t think
use that language, but I don\'t have a suggestive language for the last
sentence, but I think I would move, it gets into some think and others
think, and I think we\'ve got the some think and there seems to be
stickiness there. I think we can offset it if you put some of us is
concerned in the latter part of the paragraph above.

MS. DILLEY: So going with some \--

MR. OLSON: Which gets into, you know, the issues of choice or which they
could do something else kind of thing. I don\'t have the right language.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I have one suggestion that might replace the most
farmers sentence. It takes parts of one and parts of Michael\'s idea. I
don\'t know how this will work with people. Most farmers who have grown
transgenic crops are expected to grow additional varieties containing
other agronomic benefits.

MS. CRAMER: The whole point of this thing was that because of the
successes for a large group of farmers, this is actually a driver. So
the whole point is that those people who have done it before are
actually enthusiastic about the technology and the benefits it brings.
And that was the particular point of this topic was that the Secretary
needs to be aware that that is a factor in looking at how agriculture is
going to move forward.

MR. CORZINE: See if this helps any. If you take that last sentence, at
the bottom of that sentence, and if you want to break it into two
that\'s fine, but after other methods put, and want continued choice of
seeds or something like that. They want continued broad choice of seeds.

MS. DILLEY: So trying to capture your point in the last sentence,
Russell? So we go back up and then it would revert to the other
language, is that right?

MR. CORZINE: Yes, and everything else goes back the way it was.

MS. DILLEY: So it\'s strengthening the last sentence to raise the
concerns that you\'ve raised.

MR. SLOCUM: What language, tell me what language we\'re supposed to be
considering right now.

MS. DILLEY: Yeah, that\'s a good question. So right now you\'re looking
at most farmers who have grown transgenic crops are enthusiastic or are
you going with are expected to \--

MR. CORZINE: Yes. Go back to the original.

MS. DILLEY: So most farmers who have grown transgenic crops are
enthusiastic about the prospect of additional production benefits with
other new traits and will choose to grow varieties containing new
traits, and then this demand will help drive the development of the new
traits. Some farmers believe that there are downsides to modern
biotechnology and that similar benefits can be obtained through other
methods and want continued broad choice of seeds.

MR. SLOCUM: Actually what they want is a broader choice of seeds. And a
part of Russell\'s complaint, and it\'s to the point, is that there\'s
not a very broad choice of seeds. Not nearly as broad as there once was
we should say.

MR. DYKES: Is that acceptable, Russell?

MS. DILLEY: So is that maybe some farmers believe that \-- however, some
farmers believe that there are down sides to modern biotechnology comma,
similar benefits can be obtained through other methods comma, and want a
broader choice of seeds. I mean, is there a list of things that they
have concerns about? Does that help?

MR. KREMER: It helps. I mean, I still have a problem with enthusiastic.

MS. DILLEY: Well, we\'ve got to find a term that works.

MR. KREMER: Disconnect between you know actual purchasing and their
enthusiasm and willingness to \--

MS. LAYTON: Do a thesaurus on enthusiasm, please.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Actually, I fixed a couple of words in it. Let me just
read this slightly improved version. Most farmers who have grown
transgenic crops are likely to grow additional varieties offering other
agronomic benefits.

MS. DILLEY: And then this demand will help drive the development of new
traits.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: And then the last sentence.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: To grow additional varieties offering other agronomic
benefits.

MS. MELLON: Would it help to strengthen the last sentence by saying some
farmers believe there are economic and environmental downsides to modern
biotechnology? That similar benefits can be obtained through other
methods and whatever a current formulation of, you know, and a broader
choice of seeds?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: How do people feel about that sentence that I just
offered?

MS. DILLEY: Michael you had a comment?

MR. SLOCUM: It\'s certainly a true statement. I can certainly live with
it.

MR. DYKES: Is this one of those that is some think and others think?

MS. DILLEY: Not the committee. It\'s while we\'re describing the farmers
aren\'t we.

MR. DYKES: Well, but farmers are on the committee.

MS. DILLEY: I know, and we\'ve got different views on farmers.

MR. DYKES: Yes. We have some views and other views, and so if we are,
just call it that and leave the other sentence like it is and let\'s add
whatever we want to to however others.

MS. DILLEY: We can do it that way.

MS. DYKES: Because otherwise I think if we keep working on this we\'re
going to get down to where it\'s kind of going to be, we\'re getting
progressively more negative.

MR. SHURDUT: But I guess the question how much do you want to dilute it
by doing, by breaking it in two. I mean, aren\'t we almost there?

MS. DILLEY: I think we\'re almost there, but if we\'re not, then I think
Michael\'s point is well taken, and that, you know, we go to some think
and others.

MR. GIROUX: As a member of the community here, I\'ve been very patient
for the last half hour as we\'ve worked on blue text, that I believe at
the beginning of this meeting the rules of engagement were we were not
going to change the text.

MS. DILLEY: That\'s correct.

MS. GIROUX: That was agreed to by the committee and I entertain
Russell\'s, I understand what he\'s saying, but I also understand that
we are in my mind almost at an impasse on this one. And I don\'t think
it\'s fair that we would take this section, take the blue off and then
craft a whole new statement around then when we\'ve spent so much time
and everybody here is looking to be finished with this report.

So I think if we can\'t come to resolution on this in the next five
minutes, I\'m not sure that I\'m willing to entertain us opening this
wide open and recrafting it, and given some of the comments I\'ve heard
around the table, we all agreed to this.

And I understand Russell, at the last minute, you haven\'t been on the
committee, but this was, you have been at a few of the meetings where
this has not been blue text. So I just want to make, I am starting to
lose my patience that we\'re overdoing it.

MS. DILLEY: So we can see if we\'re close, and if we\'re not in the next
couple of minutes because we said we would conclude at two for
presentations, then the options are to go back to the blue text and then
Russell and others need to make other decisions about signing onto the
document. So let\'s see if we\'re there and give it a couple of minutes.

I thought we were getting close, but if we\'re not, then we\'re not. And
we move on. So right now we have what Michael proposed on most farmers
who have grown transgenic crops are likely to grow additional varieties
offering, that may, you know, and then the last sentence that\'s up just
above it in red. I think that\'s where we are.

Let\'s see how people respond to that, and if that doesn\'t work, then
we\'re at the point that you\'re \--

MR. CORZINE: I\'m frustrated like Randy is because I thought we were
past this because, you know, there are a lot of, everybody kind of
worked together to get to this language, to get where we are, and we
have factual stuff in here, and now we\'re changing it. And now all of a
sudden we\'re even becoming more on the negative side where we did have
a sentence in there to address the concern before, and that was your
language before Russell, and to go back and rework that, we\'re getting
clear away from the point of the bullet.

MS. DILLEY: Okay, so we\'re not there is the bottom line.

MR. CORZINE: Yes.

MS. DILLEY: So then we\'re at the point that if we don\'t have any
suggestions for alternative language that could maybe build that bridge,
then we call it a day and then if Russell can\'t support the document
because of this paragraph, and that\'s where we are. That\'s what the
question I asked to everybody, is if there was a point \-- what Mardi?

MS. MELLON: I said if Russell won\'t support it, I won\'t. I mean, I
think he deserves this opportunity for one I think very small changes to
provide balance.

MS. DILLEY: Then we\'re down to offering language that gets us there.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I have a suggestion because I think I heard what
Russell\'s concerns were, and I\'d like to suggest the following because
there was additional language that kind of got thrown in there that I
don\'t think was what Russell\'s point was. And that\'s what I think
we\'ve opened this up to address was Russell\'s concern, not other
language that wanted to come in. So, how would it be, most farmers who
have grown transgenic crops anticipate growing varieties containing new
traits. This demand will help drive the development of new traits.
However, some farmers believe that there are downsides to modern
biotechnology, that similar benefits can be obtained through other
methods and they want a broader choice of seeds.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: You did that very quickly.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Basically everything that\'s scratched out is
scratched out and economic and environmental get scratched out because I
didn\'t hear that that was the concern that Russell raised.

MS. LAYTON: And then economic and environmental goes out. Okay. Is that
it?

MS. DILLEY: So that\'s the question. Russell, does that do it for you?
Leon, are you comfortable with that? Duane? Others?

MR. DYKES: Russell, does that do it for you?

MR. KREMER: Yes. That\'s all I asked.

MS. DILLEY: Leon, can you live with that?

MR. CORZINE: I think I can live with that.

MS. DILLEY: Duane?

MR. GRANT: Give me a minute. I\'m not happy with it at all.

MR. CORZINE: And I don\'t know about the broader, and that was the
broader choice of seeds, and they want broad \-- some farmers and they
want a continued choice of seeds or they want choice of seeds. I don\'t
know about that word broader.

MS. LAYTON: Could you live without broader?

MR. KREMER: I didn\'t offer that suggestion.

MS. LAYTON: Yeah, that wasn\'t his suggestion.

MR. KREMER: I appreciate it, but all I wanted was just to down tone the
thing. That\'s all I wanted.

MR. DYKES: Are you okay with ending it after methods then, Russell?

MR. KREMER: Yes.

MR. DYKES: Russell\'s okay with ending it after method.

MR. CORZINE: End it after methods.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So are we there? Don\'t take out methods though.

MR. CRAMER: Could you move us to the top of the phrase now.

MS. LAYTON: Just wait. Let\'s get it back to where we were. You can\'t
finish that sentence like that. Some farmers believe there are downsides
\-- there\'s an "and" missing between biotechnology. Now.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. Carol were you the one who wanted to see the top?

MS. CRAMER: Yeah. I just wanted to see if this made sense.

MR. DYKES: All we did was take enthusiastic out basically, which is
Russell\'s concern.

MS. DILLEY: Duane?

MR. GRANT: In the context of the entire issue, I can accept it like
that.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. All right.

MR. CORZINE: Question. If we\'re going to accept this like this, we\'re
not going back to this paragraph again, is that right?

MS. DILLEY: That\'s correct.

MR. CORZINE: Okay. Because, you know, this is a compromise language.
Everybody should know that we\'re finished with it. Okay?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MS. FOREMAN: Actually, that\'s not broken to bits. And I want to make
that point that with the other two documents that we did, although
people tried real hard to avoid making changes after we had a complete
document, there were changes made by two or three members in the
committee that said, you know, I\'m going to insist on my wording in
order to sign on. So the reality is that whereas we should all try real
hard not to change these things after today, some people will come back
with some changes and the decision has to be made as Abby just put it,
does that mean we\'re \--

MS. DILLEY: Right. We, the way we \--

MS. FOREMAN: So, that\'s part of the ground rules that we had from the
beginning.

MS. DILLEY: Right.

MS. FOREMAN: And those haven\'t changed.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: If I can sort of go back to what my recollection of what
we did for the last document. There were two sorts of things that came
up. One was questions of fact, and in the process after the document was
completed, questions of fact were allowed to be brought up with the
presumption that they were non-controversial. If they were
controversial, if they were disagreed with, we stayed with the initial
version of the text. If people did not think that that was a correction
of fact.

We did have a few of these things where people had life or death things,
and they were discussed on those phone conversations.

MS. FOREMAN: And we worked them out.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: And we worked them out.

MS. FOREMAN: And the deal was nobody brought them up at that point
unless it was a life or death thing.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That\'s right.

MS. FOREMAN: But when they did, we worked it out. I wasn\'t going to get
involved in this because, but you know, we\'ve gone through a lot of
this language and worked out people\'s problems, and I don\'t think that
it was uncalled for to work this one.

MS. DILLEY: Right. No, it\'s just the I think people are stressed at
three years of work and wanting to get it finished. So where we were at
the last, we had talked about this before, that this is now a
provisional final document. Is what we have. And that the only things
that, we are going to have a time frame, and Michael and I were just
talking about when we would get a full completed document to all of you
for review for questions of fact, and then if we need it, which is very
similar to what we did with the last two documents, if we need it,
we\'ll have a phone call to address questions of fact.

If they are controversial as Michael said, the operating procedure was
to revert back to the original language of the provisional final, if it
becomes at all controversial. And then people need to make their
decision about supporting consensus or not. So that is the same process
that we propose for this document at this point in time.

MS. FOREMAN: Okay. That\'s what I thought.

MS. DILLEY: Yes. Greg. And then we need to close this out and move on to
our \--

MR. JAFFE: Okay. My view would be not just questions of fact. There are
a couple, as I pointed them out to you yesterday, sort of, I wouldn\'t
call them questions of fact, but they\'re ambiguities that make it,
suggest like that the same group of committee members when there are two
different groups or something like that. Not a question of fact. I just
want to \-- my view of it is we can point out points, not editorial
things, but there are certain places I\'ve seen ambiguities where either
a sentence is wrong or there\'s a reference that needs to be clarified
to make it clear. It\'s not a factual question. And I think we should
have a right to at least bring those up.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I had included those within questions of fact, but
that\'s fine.

MR. DYKES: But I also, not to beat the dead horse, but I also think to
Carol Tucker Foreman\'s point, this is exactly what we did on the last
document. We\'re just doing it earlier now. If someone says I can\'t
sign on for consensus, we attempt to find a solution. And if we can\'t
then we move forward with original text and it\'s noted that there
isn\'t consensus. So I think we\'ve done what we say we\'re going to do.
We\'ve just lived up to it.

MS. LAYTON: The key was we all need to get one final copy in our hands.

MR. DYKES: Absolutely.

MS. LAYTON: Read it through. And go from there.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. So we have a provisional final.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I came prepared for this actually.

(Discussion off the record.)

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Well, I guess we\'ll be moving on now, and I am
delighted that it\'s now time for the committee to turn to its next two
topics which are contained the last one page handout, which I presume
everyone has picked up, and which read, what avenues of technology
transfer or actions by USDA are most likely to result in the production
of biotechnology derived crops other than large scale commingled major
commodity uses that would have the greatest positive impacts on domestic
markets, rural communities in the United States, and developing nations.
That\'s one.

The other topic, what are 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.

Now we\'ve kept the order of those two on the original sheet, but we\'re
going to start with the second topic. We will have some presentations
today to help set the stage for your discussions starting in a few
minutes. What I would like to do to start off is to reiterate the
context that Bernice framed this topic for you a few meetings ago. The
context in which USDA is interested that you consider this topic.

We would like you to look at this topic in a future-oriented way. We
understand that there has been an ongoing process of adaptation, not
always a smooth one, as farmers growing biotech crops, conventional,
non-biotech crops, and organic crops are dealing with the fact that the
different crops with different commercial specifications are being
grown, and the implications that has for their own agricultural
management decisions and for downstream decisions as well.

That context is important for helping to address the topic. Now we
don\'t envision this question, however, as being primarily about
biotechnology versus non-biotech or versus organic. That\'s not the
context. In a future where an even greater variety of products are being
produced, more specialty products, perhaps some nutriceutical crops, and
there\'s a need to address coexistence issues not only between biotech
and non-biotech, but also between biotech Type A and biotech Type B, if
you will. How are all of these considerations going to play out for
farmers in communities in the marketplace?

We\'re not presuming that it\'s going to be that state for all farmers
and downstream players in all crops within five years or even 10. But we
expect that the trend is maybe going to become a wider reality. This is
going to increase, there are going to be an increased variety of
products on the market, biotech and non-biotech, and also different
biotech crops, some of which will be subject to varying kinds of
specifications.

I\'d like to, if I can though, to be able to get this discussion
started. To postpone more discussion of the charge right now until we
can have a couple of presentations to get this going. Now as we
mentioned earlier, we had originally scheduled three presentations for
today, but Mother Nature intervened with one of them and a flight
didn\'t get here. And we will work on having some additional
presentations coming up in the future.

We\'ll have two presentations today, and the first of those
presentations will be from Dr. Greg Wandrey, who is the Director of
Product Stewardship and Compliance at Pioneer Hi-Bred International. And
he\'ll speak on a seed company\'s perspective on coexistence needs. Dr.
Wandrey.

MR. WANDREY: Thank you. First of all, good afternoon, I appreciate the
opportunity to talk to you about how seed company\'s use coexistence.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Hold on. We need to get you miked.

MR. WANDREY: Let me start again. Thank you again for the opportunity to
give you a seed company\'s perspective on seed quality and coexistence.
A little bit of background about myself. I\'ve been in the seed industry
about 19 years, the last 9 with Pioneer H-Bred International. I\'m
located in Des Moines, Iowa, and as you can see on the slide, my role is
Director of Stewardship and Compliance. And so I spend almost all of my
time in biotechnology.

I\'m not a seed production expert. We have those in our company. We have
lots of those in our company. But I want to give you a perspective of
how Pioneer and other seed companies think about coexistence and seed
production and seed quality. I\'m not going to talk about commercial
grain production and coexistence. I think there\'s other speakers that
can do that. I just want to give a seed company\'s perspective on high
quality and coexistence.

First of all, this probably looks familiar to some of you, and probably
not familiar to others. But this is a seed production field that you can
find in just about any state in the Midwest. With the green plants there
without the tassels those would be the female plants. They\'ve been
detasseled mechanically and by crews of kids and adults that go in and
pull the tassels. The other rows that surround the female plants are
male pollinator plants. And so all the pollen in a seed production field
for corn comes from those two outside rows that surround the middle four
rows that are female plants that have been detasseled.

So one that you need to recognize is that we have two thirds less pollen
in a seed production plant than in a commercial field. In a commercial
field where all the plants have tassels that are showing pollen, here,
because we\'re making a specific cross between a male and female plant,
we want to make sure that all pollen comes from those male plants. From
those male parents. That\'s an important differentiating factor between
seed production and commercial production.

This slide is from the U.S. Grains Council, it\'s a couple of years old,
but I think the point is still valid. In fact, a number of specialty or
identity preserved-type corn plants and products. Food gray white or
food gray yellow, white seed production, waxy high oil, non-biotech,
highly extractable starch, and there\'s others as well, but these would
be some of the main segments that have an identity preservation
requirement to maintain and preserve high quality of that end product.

This is a view from ASTA, the American Seed Trade Association around
coexistence. And this is around commercial production of not seed
production, but what they say is that regulations should support
coexistence and viability of conventional bio-tech and organic
agriculture. Like Michael mentioned, I think there\'s room for each type
of those production systems. Coexistence is an economic issue, not a
safety issue.

And it\'s the responsibility, I won\'t read the whole thing, but it\'s
the responsibility of the individual grower or entity to make sure that
they have practices in place to assure quality that the market demands.

A key consideration in seed production, and I think these other identity
preservation systems as well in segments is the notion of adventitious
presence or AP, which is the technically unavoidable naturally occurring
presence of foreign materials in a product. So in the case of seed corn
production, we\'re mainly concerned about unwanted genetic material. A
couple of reasons for that.

One is you if you have off-types in the seed bag that\'s planted by the
farmer, that field is not going to be a uniform-looking field, and
farmers are very proud of their fields, so they want to make sure that
it is uniform. So we and they don\'t want off-types.

The other factor is that if you have a herbicide- or insect-resistant
product for the plants without the resistance gene, for example, with
herbicide-resistant product and there\'s plants in there that are not
herbicide- resistant, when you go through and spray the herbicide,
farmers are not happy about that because those plants die and it\'s very
obvious from the road going 60 miles an hour.

And so those are a couple of reasons why we\'re concerned about unwanted
genetic material within seed production system. A couple of causes of
adventitious presence. One is just the physical mixing during handling,
transport, bagging and other cases where that seed is being handled. And
that would be the case of corn, soybeans and other crops as well.

Another cause would be pollen flow. We talked a little bit about that
when I showed the seed and production slide, primarily the form with
pollen blowing in from areas outside of that seed production field.

The Federal Seed Act says that adventitious presence is considered the
same as long as the crop does not change. So if you have corn, AP within
corn seed it\'s, the crop doesn\'t change. If you have soybeans within
the crop, the corn crop, then obviously the crop has changed. And
secondly AP of a kind of variety less than five percent of hybrid is not
need to be labeled. So 95 percent purity, I don\'t think most farmers
would happy with 95 percent purity. So Pioneer and other seed companies
have standards that are substantially higher than that 95 percent
threshold for purity.

We also know that the challenges with adventitious presence have
increased with biotech traits authorized or regulated in one, or
deregulated in one country, like the U.S. for example, but not yet
globally approved or regulated. So for example, products that are
produced, seed products that are produced in the U.S. have different
standards if they\'re going to be used in Europe and some other
countries as well.

So the standards are different. And this has been a challenge for all
seed companies to make sure that they fall within the limits of
acceptable adventitious presence when producing in one country and
selling that seed in another country.

This is going to be really difficult to read so I\'ll just make a couple
of points. What this shows is the predicted adventitious presence level
at various market penetrations of a single biotech trait. It doesn\'t
have to be a biotech trait, but we\'re using biotech in this case.

On the left hand it goes in five percent increments from five percent to
100 percent marketed option. And so this would be the penetration of
that product. The second column is average outcross, and this .082
percent is an average that spans many locations, many years, many seed
fields. And that\'s a kind of an average across the industry of out
crosses. So that would be pollen coming in from outside the seed field
that would be crossing with the female plants. So that\'s not what you,
you don\'t want that. But it\'s .082 percent.

So right now these market penetration of biotech products for corn is
around 50 percent, maybe a little bit higher, but it\'s easy to do the
math at 50 percent. So you take 50 percent market penetration times that
.82 times another 50 percent or half, because the half the pollen will
be biotech, half the pollen will not be biotech, that leaves the
outcross. So a 50 percent market penetration .82 percent average out
cross, the average biotech expression level for a single event, single
biotech event would be .205. Now that\'s the average expected based on
calculations.

So it ranges from something less than that to all the way to 1.3
percent, which is a couple standard deviations away from that mean. When
you add in other traits, other biotech traits, those numbers increase.
So the bottom line is that adventitious presence levels of zero is
impossible. It\'s completely impossible using these data, because to the
biotech products out, there three\'s outcrosses, that\'s part of life
when you\'re in the seed business, and so you\'re going to have
adventitious presence at those levels.

As market penetration increases you can see the numbers increase as
well. So when a company starts thinking about seed production, it really
starts long before seed production. It goes back to the research and
development project and breeding nurseries that are scattered throughout
the country for seed companies. So this would be an example.

It\'s a simplified schematic of a couple different nurseries in a
research program we\'ve labeled simply non-biotech, regulated biotech,
deregulated biotech. And this shows the distance between those different
nurseries to maintain as much isolation as possible. So between the
regulated biotech and non-biotech and deregulated biotech, we have at
least 660 feet of isolation. So this is really where it starts. We want
to make sure that you have great purity at this level because everything
from that point on, when you get to large-scale production will be based
on the purity you have in these nurseries.

This is kind of a messy slide as well. But the point here is this would
be a schematic of seed production fields for corn. So the yellow blocks
there are seed production, corn seed production fields surrounded
isolation by soybeans. And so when you think about coexistence and seed
production, you can see there\'s a lot of factors that go into
maintaining seed purity and making sure that you minimize the
outcrossing coming from pollen outside of the seed production area. So
outside of those two rows outside the four years (sic) of females.

So we go through a lot of efforts to make sure that we have isolation.
I\'ll go through some additional points here that lead to where we end
up with placing our fields. So we look at crop rotation. Seed corn
production needs to be on rotated soybean ground. The map also points
out the importance of understanding the characteristics of the
surrounding fields. So when are they planted? What is planted? Is it
soybeans? Is it corn? Is it alfalfa? Some other crop? So knowing the
area surrounding those fields is critical.

I mentioned on that previous schematic the importance of knowing and
having a parent seed that\'s pure. Because again, that leads to
everything else when you get into seed production. Isolation standard,
roguing practices. I\'ll talk a little bit about that in a second. Time
isolation. In a lot of cases we have to know exactly the time that a
male parent will produce pollen. Because that may not exactly sync up
with the extrusion of silk of a female plant. So we have to isolate
those in time, and in many cases we\'ll plant a couple of different male
planting bays to make sure that the pollen match with the females is as
ideal as possible.

We prioritize harvesting operations. We also have a continuous quality
management system. So we use sigma and ISO to, and those are applied to
our production processes to maximize purity. And then we also have an
aggressive seed quality testing program, and other companies do as well.
And this really extends from research all the way through a production
cycle making sure that you have a seed quality that you\'re looking for.

Just a little bit about detasseling and roguing. It\'s really a pretty
simple operation. First of all, for detasseling we\'ll come in with a
machine that cuts off the top part of the female plants. After a couple
of days another machine will come through that actually pull the tassels
out. And then there\'s, after a couple of days after that we\'ll have
crews of detasselers walk through corn seed fields two to four times
looking for tassels and off-type plants.

So a company like Pioneer has, we employed about 25,000 teenagers and
young adults every summer to go through and do this work. And a lot of
times the crew leaders are teachers that have the summers off. And so
they put together teams of detasselers and go through and do this work.

So that\'s the way it\'s done today. And there\'s also a number of
methods that are being looked at using genetic systems to increase seed
purity. Talk a bit about seed quality testing methods. There\'s really
three major types. The first one is a spray test, so for example, we
talked herbicide resistance. You simply do a spray test. The ones that
don\'t have a trait don\'t survive. The ones that do have a trait do
survive.

ELISA which is a protein specific method. Very simple, commonly used at,
in seed companies and at grain handling locations. And there\'s also the
PCR DNA-based technology that\'s more sophisticated, has higher
investment costs, and takes a little bit longer than the ELISA method.

One of the problems with a number of these methods, at least for the
last two, and especially the PCR based, is that the error rates are
relatively high. So for the example of false positives, which would say
that the PCR test shows that the trait is there or gene is there when
it\'s not there. And a false negative is when it\'s actually there, but
it doesn\'t pick it up. It was told by Mike Gumina who is our Vice
President of Production, that if a PCR test was done the first cross
ever made in corn by the founder, or one of the founder\'s of Pioneer
back in 1946, they would have had these error rates. And so one of the
things that\'s being looked at is how can we get these error rates down?

So when you think about the testing and the level of purity, what is it
based on? It\'s really based on a couple of different things. One is, we
talked about the seed will already be 95 percent, that\'s, again,
that\'s not acceptable to farmers. We also have an internal standard.
Every company has their own internal standards. And there\'s also
contractual specifications.

The type of purity test depends on the intent and the desired result.
So, for example, if you want to make sure that a biotech trait is
actually in that seed, you do that test. You also want to make sure that
a biotech trait is not present in a non-biotech item. And so these are
two different reasons why you do the testing.

So that was a short course on seed core production. But I think the
bottom line is that despite all the quality control practices and
management practices available to maximize seed purity, a 100 percent
purity is nearly impossible to achieve, and I would say, I would take
out nearly in most cases that it\'s possible to achieve. We\'re talking
about the outcrosses and that\'s one of the main reasons why that\'s
difficult to achieve.

So just to wrap up here, I think I\'ve used up my 20 minutes. Individual
entities are responsible for the IP practices. Similar RD solutions and
opportunities exist for growing organic specialty forms and seed corn
production. So some of the methods I talked about for maximizing purity
in seed corn production also apply to other IP type systems.

The goal is to achieve meaningful coexistence of all types of systems,
and in using available tools for IP this balance can be achieved. Not
everything applies to every system. But some of the same principles that
apply to seed production also apply to other types of specialty segments
that I showed on one of the earlier slides.

So with that I\'m going to wrap up. That was the shortest seed
production course I\'ve ever given. So I appreciate the opportunity to
do so, and I\'ll entertain questions.

MS. MELLON: Could you help us understand what those adventitious
presence numbers mean in two contexts?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Could we just take one second before you do that. Maybe
you can come up to the table Greg.

MS. MELLON: I have questions about what those adventitious presence
percentages mean in two contexts. One is, are they additive in terms of
two traits? If you have two traits in corn, do you get 2.6 percent or
not? And what do stack traits mean in that context? And then my second
question, which is an extension of that is, do you expect adventitious
rates to increase over time as the number of new traits is introduced
and the number, and the adventitious presence in the seed goes?

MR. WANDREY: The first question is, I took off one of the columns
because this was complicated enough already. But the column I took off
actually had what happened when you had a second trait.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Could you face the microphone so that it goes on the
table?

MR. WANDREY: I like to talk to the person who asked the question, but I
understand. So what I was saying is if you look at the slide I took of a
column that accounted for the second trait. And so the number actually
of .2, .205 goes to .3. Okay, so it\'s one and a half times that number.
So you would do that all the way down. So when you get down to 100
percent, that number is actually .6. Okay.

So and the second question is, \--

MS. MELLON: I mean, but if you had, if Pioneer has 8 or 9 different
transgenic events out there, then over your entire seed production the
number would be \--

MR. WANDREY: Well that adventitious presence comes from outside the seed
field. So that\'s why market penetration or adoption is critical to
these calculations. Because when you get to 100 percent, then all the
seed, or all the acres that are out there would be biotech. Okay, so
then you would have more adventitious presence and it goes to a
predicted level of .41 for one trait, .6 for two traits, and then that
number continues to increase.

MR. CORZINE: Greg, along that thought though, if they are, if it\'s a
stacked trait, I mean that is they wouldn\'t go up like that, would it,
is that, am I accurate or not?

MR. WANDREY: I think, and you guys can help me who are in the seed
business, but I think the answer to that question is it depends on how
they\'re stacked. Is it a breeding stack or is it a molecular stack? So
that\'s the key answer to that question because it depends on how that
stack is made. So if it\'s a breeding stack it counts as two genes. If
it\'s a molecular stack it really counts as one gene.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: But the impact of two traits that are genetically linked
in a plant regardless of how you put them there affecting the
outcrossing, would that change?

MR. WANDREY: The outcrossing will not change. I mean, that\'s an average
of a lot \-- that\'s a constant number. So we\'re assuming that based on
lots of data, lots of locations, lots of years. The average across the
seed industry is .82. Now, knowing if .82, I think everybody that\'s in
the seed corn business is trying to say, okay, what can we do to reduce
that number?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I guess what I was trying to say was, that the average
expression of two traits if they were linked in the same plant, as
opposed to two separate populations of plants one of which has trait A
and one of which has trait B, if you have them both in the same plant,
that\'s still going to behave as one?

MR. WANDREY: As one.

MS. MELLON: But the bottom line is that the adventitious, the rates of
adventitious presence are going to go up over time as we introduce more
and more genetically engineered traits into corn?

MR. WANDREY: Yes. And based on market penetration. I mean going back to
the discussion we had before I got out this doc.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Can I clarify that. So, I mean, presumably we\'re not
going to get any higher than 100 percent market penetration, right?

MR. WANDREY: A lot of us are trying to get above 100 percent.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: So the worse case, if you just want to think worst
case scenario, would be 2.63 percent of which could be made up of 50
different genetically engineered corn varieties, but it\'s not going to
be higher than 100, \-- I mean, if you add a second variety that\'s not
going to make that number go higher.

MR. WANDREY: Right.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Right? So 2.63 is kind of a worse case scenario?

MR. WANDREY: Well, 2.6, I mean that\'s from one trait and that\'s
standard deviations away from that mean of .41. Okay, can you see why I
hesitated to put this slide in here. It\'s very complicated. But the
main point is as market penetration increases, the ability to isolate
seed production fields will become more difficult.

MR. CORZINE: Greg, you projected out new technologies and you can\'t
probably go very far with that, but this is assuming no advancements in
technology for isolation or segregation, right? I mean, that\'s with the
current, \-- for example, you can do some things genetically that will
change this \--

MR. WANDREY: Right.

MR. CORZINE: \-- to the plus, lowering the adventitious presence?

MR. WANDREY: That\'s right, you can. Yes. And those are based on
practices, production practices. And what you do back in the breeding
nurseries. Yes. So, I mean, there\'s no doubt these are calculations
based on market penetration, average outcross, and then the fact that
you have half the pollen will be biotech, the other half won\'t be in
this case from the outside commercial fields.

MR. DYKES: Just one question to make sure I\'m clear on what you said,
and then another new question. If you have 50 percent penetration, but
you have two genes stacked as opposed to a single gene, did you say that
that number increases by 1.5?

MR. WANDREY: Yes.

MR. DYKES: Even though you\'re still on 50 percent of planted acres?

MR WANDREY: Yes. That\'s the column I took off and that\'s, maybe I
shouldn\'t have taken it off, but the .205 becomes .3.

MR. DYKES: Still the same number of planted acres, just planting two
genes to the one?

MR. WANDREY: Right.

MR. DYKES: Okay. Then the other question, you had mentioned that there
are new genetic systems for increasing seed purity. What are some of
those that you guys are using and how do those work?

MR. WANDREY: That\'s not something I\'m prepared to talk about. I mean,
there are systems that are being, that are in experimental stages for
increasing purity. And that\'s all I can say about that right now.
Because they are proprietary and they are under development, and
they\'re not commercial.

MS. LAYTON: Any other questions? Ron?

MR. OLSON: Do you have studies on pollen flow? I know I\'ve seen some
about decreases as you go, but I mean, do you have any \--

MR. WANDREY: There\'s thousands of them out there. In fact, I took two
slides and if I have a minute I can go back to those slides. I just
showed one and it was based on proceedings of the National Academy of
Science a few years ago. There was a couple that are just under review
out of Iowa State. They more or less all show the same thing that the
vast majority of pollen from corn, because it\'s a heavy pollen, falls
in the vicinity of the plant that produces the pollen.

I mean, it goes from, I mean without quoting numbers, that\'s what I\'ll
say, within five meters of the plant the vast majority of the pollen
falls within that five meters because corn is a very heavy pollen
compared to some other plant species.

MR. GRANT: A couple of different questions. First of all, given your
chart, do you, how difficult will it be for you to meet the .5 percent
tolerance for a seed in the EU?

MR. WANDREY: Yes, that\'s a good question. Let me put it this way. It\'s
more difficult than it was before. So one of the things that a seed
company has to consider if they\'re selling seed in Europe is where do
they produce that seed. In most cases it\'s more cost effective to
produce that seed in the U.S. It\'s less cost effective outside of the
U.S.

So a company has to make that decision is what practices do you have in
place if you\'re going to produce in the U.S. that can maximize the
opportunity to make that seed saleable in Europe? And so part of that
question is answered by very extensive seed testing for quality for
adventitious presence. Some of those tests I mentioned before. I guess
the other choice is to produce it somewhere outside of the U.S.

And that\'s a decision that every company has to make for themselves.
But certainly, the seed that\'s going for sale, to be sold in the EU,
for example, is aggressively tested to make sure it reaches the .5
percent.

MR. GRANT: I\'m sorry, Nick\'s been trying to get in.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: He\'s next.

MR. GRANT: So kind of a follow-up question then. Corn, of course, is
openly pollinated, and I\'m not familiar enough with what Pioneer does
to know if you have other seed groups that you sell as well.

MR. WANDREY: Soybeans.

MR. GRANT: Soybeans, okay. So the question is, in a crop that\'s not
openly pollinated, how easy is it to maintain the level of seed purity
to the .5 percent level?

MR. WANDREY: It\'s much easier because the pollination occurs within the
closed flower, and so the rate of outcrosses for soybeans because it\'s
a self pollinated crop, with an enclosed flower, is very, very low. And
so a, I should say, the vast, vast, vast majority of adventitious
presence would come from seed handling.

MR. GRANT: So can you give us a feel for what that number might be as it
goes through the system?

MR. WANDREY: For soybeans?

MR. GRANT: Yes.

MR. WANDREY: I mean it\'s .00 something. I mean, so it\'s \-- I\'m not
sure if I added enough zeros, because it is a self-pollinated crop. I
mean, I don\'t know any exact figures. Maybe Michael or Brad or somebody
else knows what it is for soybeans, but it\'s very, very low out
crossing.

MS. MELLON: Right, but the actual contamination is about the same in
corn and soy.

MR. WANDREY: From physical mixing.

MS. MELLON: Because you\'ve got two, \-- there is, in both cases you\'ve
got contributions from physical mixing and then pollen flow, and so, and
in one case there\'s a big differential in pollen flow, but it\'s hard
to say whether there\'s really a big differentiation in handling and
physical and seed mixing. Physical seed mixing.

MR. WANDREY: Yes, I\'m sure there\'s data out there on that. I just
don\'t have it.

MS. MELLON: Yes, we did it. I mean, our members were about one percent
from soybeans.

MR. KALAITZANDONAKES: I think your explanation about how you service
Europe today probably need to be qualified that you are servicing only
very small size markets, Austria, Italy.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Can you speak up, Nick, a little please?

MR. KALAITZANDONAKES: Yes. I was saying that, the question that Duane
posed is can you satisfy today\'s markets with a .5 percent threshold
and how it is do, and Greg\'s answer was with extensive testing and
production in the United States which is economically reasonable you can
do so. But you can only do that for a small size of market like Austria
and Italy. If you were going to produce in, under coexistence whether in
Europe or in the U.S. or elsewhere, would you be able to say how easy it
is to service at .5 percent threshold?

MR. WANDREY: Well, maybe one thing I should have said is that the
management practices that go into producing seed with that type of
threshold dramatically increases costs because you have to have more
isolation, more buffer rows. It\'s just a bigger area that you need to
dedicate to produce that seed. And so, I mean certainly there\'s a, \--
so everything else being equal seed production in the U.S. is less
expensive. But when you add on the other factors like isolation, more
male rows, more buffer rows, it becomes much more expensive because
you\'re trying to meet a threshold that\'s .5.

MR. KALAITZANDONAKES: That was Duane\'s question and I was just trying
to mediate, yeah.

MR. WANDREY: Oh, okay. I might have missed that.

MR. DYKES: Can you put a percentage increase

on \--

MS. LAYTON: Randy and then Joe.

MR. GIROUX: Greg, I\'m glad you finally brought up the issue of cost,
because when I think of AP there\'s really two things going on. There\'s
practical AP and there\'s an economical AP. And even if you look at the
numbers you posted here on the board, these are based on your current
practices or the industry\'s current practices, or whatever. This is
based on certain level of management practices, that\'s what\'s
economical.

And so a lot of the conversations we have around AP is what, you know,
is possible or what we want what\'s practical, not what\'s economical,
and I think it\'s probably, their somewhere in the middle of, you know,
where is that happy the median? What is practical? What\'s economical?
And we talk about AP, what should we be talking AP? My question was,
when we look at these numbers and we talk about this, you know, there is
some level below which is just not practical. You can\'t do it. And you
know at a 100 percent there\'s some level.

But then there\'s also this discussion of what\'s economical and that
distinction is an important distinction and hopefully we\'ll talk about
that as we talk about coexistence, we talk inside this groove, because
it is, \-- it\'s very much a dynamic and I think it\'s something we want
to look at. Would you agree?\'

MR. WANDREY: Yes, I would definitely agree. In fact, some of the things
we just talked about is increasing isolation distances, having more
buffer rows, having more male, I mean, we could get the outcrossing
below that average by doing that. But is that economical? And I think
most companies would say it gets less economical as you expand the area
you need to produce the same unit of seed.

MR. GIROUX: So why is that? You can\'t pass on those added costs to the
customer who\'s demanding those higher levels? Help me understand what
the economics is there.

MR. WANDREY: Some costs you can pass on and some costs you have to eat.
I mean it\'s like any other business.

MS. LAYTON: We have a couple of more speakers, but we\'d like Jo and
then Alison have questions.

MS. HUNT: I\'m Jo. You\'re in a bad position with the pillar there. I
had a question. You introduced the three different kind of tests that
you can apply when you\'re looking at seed purity *et cetera*. Could you
talk a little bit about your criteria for when you may use one test over
another? And I guess this also links into the level of AP, *et cetera*,
requirements that are being asked for your customers?

MR. WANDREY: I asked the vice president of seed production from Pioneer
about that question, because I didn\'t know the answer to that question.
He said that\'s something we do not publicly disclose. I don\'t know
why. I can give you his phone number. But, there are different tests
that we run to make, \-- to test for presence of a biotech trait in a
biotech seed. There\'s another set of tests that we run to, make sure I
get this right, \-- to make sure that a biotech is not in a non-biotech
product.

And so what you\'re doing is you\'re looking at either the presence of
where you want it, or the presence of where you don\'t want it. And that
would, a couple of different type of tests could be done to do that. So
that\'s about all I can say about that.

MS. HUNT: Maybe you\'ll have to give me his telephone number then.

MR. WANDREY: He\'s really quite a nice fellow.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I had a question about, sorry, just let me get my
brain back. Go on. Come back to me in a second.

MS. LAYTON: Well, you\'re the last question.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: You were talking about the fact that if you had two
traits in that there would be an increased amount of adventitious
presence, and I guess I want to clarify, is the male and the female both
homozygous for, ‑‑ when you cross your male and your female, is one of
them homozygous or are they both homozygous?

MR. WANDREY: Well one is without, one is with. The male would have a
trait.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: In a homozygous condition, okay. So that increasing
would only then be true and it get backs to my first point, when those
two loci weren\'t linked together, right?

MR. WANDREY: Right. Yes.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: If you had them together then it would be the same.

MR. WANDREY: Right.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I don\'t know how you normally stack.

MS. LAYTON: They\'re the same chromosome or not all the same chromosome.

MR. WANDREY: Yes.

MR. DYKES: They\'re all in one stack that I\'m aware of. It\'s a vector
stack that\'s a molecular stack. All the rest are breeding stacks.

MR. WANDREY: Right.

MS. LAYTON: I don\'t understand the difference between a molecular stack
and a breeding stack.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Well a molecular stacks at a single loci.

MS. CRAMER: So they all came in in one vector.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Right.

MS. LAYTON: Okay good. Thank you. I understand.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: The others they crossed.

MR. DYKES: But my understanding is one that\'s, all of them are breeding
except one vector stack.

MR. WANDREY: Today.

MS. LAYTON: So what I thought I heard you say is breeding stacks, that
numbers goes up. Molecular stacks it does not. They don\'t segregate.

MR. WANDREY: Right, because molecular stack, even though you would have
multiple traits within that stack \--

MS. LAYTON: It\'s not big enough to cross.

MR. WANDREY: \-- it\'s only one, it\'s considered one loci.

MS. LAYTON: Thank you very much. You\'re going to stick around for a
little while so maybe we\'ll have a chance again for some follow up but
we do want to get to our other speaker.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Our next speaker, and our final speaker for today will
be our newest *ex officio* member, Kansas Secretary of Agriculture
Adrian Polansky. I mentioned earlier that we would be putting him to
work right off at this meeting, and his remarks will be on state
perspectives on coexistence impacts.

MR. POLANSKY: Well thank you, it\'s good to be here, I think. I do have
copies of my presentation, nothing like a high level of confidence,
right? I\'ve been asked several times how did I end up here, and I guess
one explanation is that I am Chair of the NASDA Biotech Task Force that
has really wrapped up our activity in the last year and, as some of you
know, have a series of workshops currently under way in a collaborative
effort with Pew initiative on a number of issues relating to
biotechnology, and we also have not updated, as you\'ll hear in a minute
or two, in my prepared comments, our NASDA policy relative to
biotechnology. So we\'re, I guess, the point is that we\'re focusing on
biotech in our State Parks and Agriculture Association.

The State Departments of Agriculture have a unique perspective and
responsibility relative to biotechnology issues. First, there is the
expectation that we, state secretaries, are aware of genetically
enhanced organisms, GEO\'s, within our state borders and that we can
confirm the safety of crop varieties, and further that when test plots
are planted we can confirm that regulations, such as buffer zones, are
followed.

Second, we have both constituents that benefit from GEO technology and
support its use, and constituents who that have strong views in
opposition to any adoption of the technology. Significantly, as State
Secretaries, we\'re physically close to people that express their views
on a constant basis. Change is also a part of the equation.

Change brings challenges. GEO crops certainly have created more
challenges. Bio and seed business is an example. Life was easier before
GEO crops. Genetic traits were easier to access. Technology fees were
insignificant. Changes also causes uncertainties, and in some cases,
impacts business success.

The impact of GEO technology is comparable to that of hybrid corn
earlier in the last century. The introduction of hybrid corn created
winners and losers in the seed business. Businesses who had
open-pollinated corn lost customers. Businesses which had hybrid corn
varieties gained customers. The real winners though were farmers, the
consumers and the general economy.

It is important to recognize that the overall benefit to producers and
consumers alike must drive policy, not our own personal situation. GEO
production has created economic opportunity for the users of the
technology and has made the organic and conventional food production and
sales much more lucrative than it would be in the case without GEO
crops.

Certainly genetically drift of GEO crops can cause discounts. On the
other hand, premiums for conventional production would simply not exist
without GEO production. To find solutions we must first agree that
conventional, organic and GEO production options all have the right to
exist. Shortly after I was first appointed Secretary of Agriculture in
Kansas, I was asked, are you for organic or for GEO\'s? And my answer
was, don\'t make me choose.

I am still of that opinion. This is not, or at least should not be an
either or issue. I believe biotechnology-derived crops provide the
opportunity for everyone to win. I think it is important for agriculture
to have the opportunity to take advantage of GEO characteristics that
provide an economic advantage to producers and provide safer, lower
cost, more nutritious foods for consumers.

At the same time, GEO\'s provide the opportunity for producers who
choose not to grow them to capture premiums for their conventional or
organic foods. These premiums would be lower or simply would not exist
if GEO crops were not grown. Having options also benefit GEO production,
in that it relieves the pressure to eliminate GEOs because people who
prefer non-GEO can purchase that type of food.

The point should be made that a non-GEO crops production costs are
generally higher and yields are lower, frequently resulting in higher
food costs. We must find a way through reasonable marketing standards to
allow each production method to flourish, and we must not get so bogged
down in the minutiae of the challenges we face that we forget the big
picture benefits of GEOs.

At a recent meeting with members of the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture, agriculture interests and the Pew Initiative
on Food and Biotechnology we discussed choice. Peaceful coexistence is
certainly about choice for the farmer, for the customer, and for all
levels of the food industry in between.

A worthy goal has been set. The obligation we have, it seems to me, is
to find ways to achieve that goal. Many spoke at that meeting about the
difficulties inherent to achieving peaceful coexistence. It is very
complex and the road to peaceful existence will be full of potholes.
When NASDA and the Pew initiative began organizing that dialogue
session, we recognized there were several issues that would need to be
addressed.

Let me touch on a few of them. Concern about the ability to deliver to
GEO-free foods to specialty markets, like farmers markets, roadside
stands, whole foods, and health food stores. How is free defined, and
does it allow for adventitious presence? Concern about the ability to
produce food, pure foods for niche markets, especially international
markets.

How is pure defined and what remedies exist? Concern about the ability
in the future to deliver GEO food with health advantages without the
presence of non-GEO in the product. Concern in the future when there are
GEO varieties with different health benefits that the varieties are kept
distinct from each other in the marketplace. What is adventitious
presence? What limits now exist or could exist? What is the European
Union experience? Who has the authority to set tolerances? And what are
the limits of zero?

Concern regarding city and county governments passing ordinances that
prohibit growing, selling or researching GEOs within their
jurisdictions. At some point in the future biotechnology traits will
have a benefit to the producer and to the consumer. When that happens,
will we look back and wish we had redefined the issue when we had the
chance? For example, if in the future a genetic trait protects a crop
against mycotoxins, in wheat for example, will the concerns about
biotechnology be the same as they are today?

We may be a long way from resolving these issues, but that doesn\'t mean
we should not be searching for solutions. NASDA's biotech policy, which
was written in 1998, is still germane in many respects today. The impact
on industry clearly illustrates the urgent need to develop an
international accepted, certified marketing system based on sound
science and consumer preferences that can assure all
biotechnology-enhanced products will reach appropriate markets.

As new varieties become available, it will become more important to have
instituted prior to commercialization of these products a proven
channeling segregation, certification program guaranteeing that
tolerance levels are met. This will be necessary to provide customers
with the products they desire while supporting the development,
production and promotion of additional biotech crops that are acceptable
to domestic and foreign customers.

Until such a system is clearly established, new biotech events should
only be approved after international customer acceptance has been
achieved. The tools necessary to implement such a system are:
standardized tests and methodology for detecting biotechnology enhanced
products within food chain, a threshold for tolerance for adventitious
or accidental inclusion of biotechnology derived traits consistent with
sound science and commercial reality, a system to ensure the
availability of pure seed to meet international accepted tolerance, a
stewardship program consisting of biotechnology and seed companies
working together with producers to ensure that crops are grown in
accordance with recommended practices and marketed through appropriate
channels and certification systems. Effective regulatory oversight to
ensure integrity of the marketing system.

We will be looking at revising NASDA's biotech policy based on the
outcomes of the recent workshop. Already a few of the issues raised in
those workshops have caught my attention. Peaceful coexistence is an
economic and marketing issue. While science can help us find answers,
science alone will not lead us down the right path. Branding and how it
may be affected will determine our actions.

Values are integral to decisions that will be made. While facts do
matter, these decisions frequently are not based on sound science.
Freedom of choice for both growers and consumers. It is also an issue in
the right to farm. Do farmers have the right to plant whatever they
want, wherever they want? A need to not whack each other, which will
require communication that is straightforward and factual.

Inconsistencies abound and we may be able to have an impact on some but
not others. So we will have learn to live with it. We live in a culture
that allows us to be fickle. Despite this, dispute mediation involving a
credible authority, without this disputes are left to courts,
legislatures, and initiatives. Preemption issues need to be explored.
This is a political hot potato that should not be ignored. Funding will
always be an issue. Investment is needed in many areas. The one that
stands out is we need to invest in a serious way in finding solutions to
peaceful coexistence issues.

Communication simply is far too inadequate and the need for it is
paramount. Under the current legal structure, we have not found the road
to where we want to go. We need to look at the law, the science and the
in a way that we have not done in the past. Here\'s my laundry list of
topics that I believe are a starting point for our journey to where we
need to be.

Consumer issues. Obviously consumer confidence and the right to know are
issues of importance. Market access. Whether we\'re talking about
domestic or international markets is very important. Neighborhood
issues. Pollen drift. Just an example, in Kansas, in terms of another
issue, we have a good neighbor program to help protect sensitive crops
like grapes and cotton from damaging pesticide drift. Growers mark their
sensitive crop sites with signs and their locations also can be accessed
by applicators over the internet. The success of this program shows that
effective communication can eliminate the need for regulations, at least
in some cases.

Refuge, certainly another issue. Market stream issues. Segregation.
Tolerances. Thresholds. Market standards. Purity. And then there are a
list of legal issues. Liability. Damages. Loss of value in markets. Loss
of traditional market or other disruptions. Nuisances. A right to
decide. Who gets to make decisions. State, county, local, ordinances,
bans, zoning issues, are certainly being needed to be addressed.

What are the potential issues as we attempt to deal with the current set
that we must be mindful of? If we aren\'t careful, we\'ll limit the
value of future crops unnecessarily. What happens when the plan of the
future has a protection that allows a crop to survive, again a
mycotoxin-protected crop, that came about because of pollen drift? Can
the producer benefit from this advantage, or must he and the consumer
forego that benefit?

It is a curious situation that in most all instances we have concurrent
laws and responsibilities in terms of the federal and state government,
and some good and some not-so-good relations between our states and
federal partners. And while it seems nearly universal that states are
not seeking concurrent state authority, the need for communication
between state and federal programs is even greater than when we run
similar programs.

The public, and especially the media expect us to know everything going
on that may affect our states. Peaceful coexistence is not a
destination. It is a journey. Let us proceed.

MS. LAYTON: Thank you very much. Do we have questions? Yes, Steve.

MR. PUEPPKE: My very first question, I get to speak. At the very bottom
of your page one, your statement about to find solutions we must first
agree that conventional, organic, GEO production options have the right
to coexist. Are you at that level yet in Kansas?

MR. POLANSKY: That\'s an interesting question. I think, you know,
you\'re never supposed to answer a question yes or no.

MR. PUEPPKE: I\'m not trying to put on the spot.

MR. POLANSKY: To a high degree yes, I think so. But certainly it\'s not
unanimous.

MR. PUEPPKE: But that adds an additional if it\'s not unanimous or if
significant controversy about that, there\'s a whole other level that
needs to be discussed.

MR. POLANSKY: And that\'s the reason I bring up the point is that
whether it\'s in this room or in Kansas, or elsewhere, or if we\'re
dealing with two countries trying to negotiate some sort of an
agreement, if one or the other country doesn\'t agree that both have the
right to exist, it\'s pretty hard to have successful negotiations. And
it\'s impossible to get peaceful coexistence if we haven\'t arrived at
the point where we believe that there is a right to exist. And that\'s
where I am certainly, is that there is a right for each system to exist,
and we need to find a path to get us all there so that we can make that
choice, whether we\'re producers or whether we\'re consumers.

MR. GRANT: Adrian, I have two questions not related. The first one is
just kind of relevance. Of the issues that state Ag directors face, how
high does the coexistence issue rise on your ladder of pressing
concerns, if you will?

MR. POLANSKY: I think it probably depends on the state and the
Secretary. And in some states I think there\'s a higher level of
interest than other states in terms of citizens. There\'s also a
difference in the level of interest that State Secretaries have. I\'m
one of those people that believe that humanity\'s future depends on
technology and technology advancement, and I\'m not just speaking of
technology in terms of crops and animals, but I\'m talking about
computers and energy and any other topic. If we\'re not successful in
moving forward and becoming more productive and efficient and improving,
then I think the world is in a very difficult position. And I think as a
Secretary of Agriculture, certainly this issue deserves a high level of
focus because I think it is our future. And not just, I\'m not speaking
of producers. I\'m talking about all humanity.

MR. GRANT: Okay. The second question then, this goes to NASDA's biotech
policy and it caught my eye because it was very similar to some policy
that we have at the wheat growers for a number of years that put us in a
box that we simply could not get out of, and so I\'m curious how, if you
find yourself in the same box, and if so, what you\'ve done about it. It
said, your policy states that, until such a system is clearly
established and new biotech events should only be approved after
international customer acceptance has been achieved.

Now achieving acceptance is a fuzzy line at best, and what we found in
the wheat industry was that that\'s simply took us to the lowest common
denominator, the customer that would accept zero adventitious presence
became the bright line which we had to achieve. How is, \-- I would
suspect that you\'ve run into that same issue within NASDA. How are you
attempting to find your way around that?

MR. POLANSKY: A series of workshops. No. I mention those items for a
couple of reasons. One, to kind of show where the State Departments of
Agriculture is, and it\'s certainly points out that it\'s not been
addressed since 1998, which I would contend is probably not the best
situation to be in. And two, to point out that there are some issues
that really need some attention.

And that\'s part of why we\'ve looked at this initiative process of
workshops, not just talking about the issues here, but also in
Coordinated Framework and liability issues having to deal with
confidential business information in terms of states being able to
partner and be not a decisionmaker, but a partner in being able to
assure our citizens in Kansas that yes, the appropriate safeguards are
being followed, *et cetera*, *et cetera*, because a lot of people know
how to find me.

They know where I\'m located in Kansas. Secretary Johanns is a little
more difficult to access, and that\'s not a comment on this particular
Secretary, but those listeners in Topeka or Boise or various other state
capitols are much more accessible. There are a lot of people that know
who they are, and so I think it\'s important for us to be engaged.

I do, to get back to your question, I do think it\'s a very important
issue that we\'ve got to have some very fruitful discussion because if
we waited for that sort of an outcome, we would never have had hybrid
corn or a lot of other technology advances. Because as some of you may
have done, if you go back and read news stories from back in the \'30s
and even early \'40s, you could replace hybrid with biotech and you
would be thinking you were reading a paper, a news item printed today.
So that is an area of challenge that really needs attention.

MR. DYKES: I just wanted to pick up Duane\'s points, and when you look
at the policy, I would even raise the question about that clause where
you say, should only be approved after international customer
acceptance. I don\'t know that today you\'d want to, or I\'d ask the
question, if you\'d want to apply that standard even to approval, which
would to me would imply that market should be a part of the regulatory
approval process.

MR. POLANSKY: Obviously there are a number of issues that need
considerable attention.

MS. LAYTON: Mardi, you have a question?

MS. MELLON: I guess I have two questions not related. One is that, I
think, organic farmers are very proud of their ability over the last
several decades to develop new approaches that allow them to grow high
yields of very high quality food without excessive dependence on input.
I wonder whether you consider them part of the kind of trajectory of
progress?

MR. POLANSKY: Rather than try to evaluate the production system,
certainly on a limited basis organic production can be reasonably good.
I want to be very careful. I\'ve had a, \-- I\'ve got enough gray hair
and I\'ve lost enough hair, I can recall when I first started to learn
how to drive a tractor when I was four or five years old in the
mid-50\'s. We were just beginning to use fertilizers. We were using
yellow blossom sweet clover and alfalfa for rotation and whatever
nutrients from the poultry that we had and the cattle that we had, you
know, so I have a pretty good understanding of what organic agriculture
potentially is, and there\'s a place for organic agriculture.

But I would be remiss if I wasn\'t cranking up to say that agriculture
based on that production system would have a very limited capacity to
produce the kinds of quantities that we need to try to feed the world
today. That doesn\'t mean it\'s not an option.

MS. MELLON: Well I would, I guess I just have a lot of gray hair too,
and I remember the early 80's people in USDA saying to the organic
farmers, you will never be able to produce a commercial quality food at
affordable prices using the methods that you\'re employing.

And in fact, you know, several billion dollars later I think that
they\'ve proved those early doomsayers wrong. So I would just say that
there are some real live disagreements about the potential for that kind
of agriculture or related kinds of agriculture and that it would be, \--
but I guess what I\'m really concerned about is that we not characterize
biotech as somehow new and going forward and organic is not.

I look at them both as moving down a trajectory of progress, and I think
we\'re on a better path. To think about coexistence if, or people have
to think what they believe, but, I mean, but I think that that is a
productive or a fruitful approach to it.

My second question is more specific, and it\'s just whether the Attorney
General of Kansas has weighed in on the National Food Uniformity Act?

MR. POLANSKY: If he has, I\'m not aware of it.

MS. MELLON: Thank you.

MS. LAYTON: Alison.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Yes. I was wondering if you could qualify exactly the
states' role in regulation of GEO, or you have responsibilities to know
what\'s going on. Is there any formal role you have in terms of biotech
oversight at the state level?

MR. POLANSKY: No, we don\'t. At least, I don\'t want to try to speak for
every state. But generally speaking, we don\'t have a formalized role,
and I would be one of those that believe very firmly that we should not
have a decision-making role. For one, to try to second-guess FDA and EPA
and USDA, I think would be less than fruitful.

But I do think we can have a role in partnering in terms of one,
participating possibly in field inspections, for example, in a
participatory way to just provide assurance to the people in Kansas, in
my case, that yes, you know, there\'s, I hear comments by people
generally that well, they don\'t think USDA is monitoring fields and the
boundaries maybe are, but there\'s concern, I\'ll put it that way, in
the public of whether those regulations are really being followed.

I think our role could be very helpful in verifying that yes, indeed,
they are to assist in consumer confidence or citizens confidence that we
are, that USDA and whatever federal agency is doing due diligence. And
since we are closer to the people in Kansas, in my case, I think that,
sometimes right or wrong, we\'re more believable than somebody from
Washington, D.C. Like we\'ve seen the fields and we can verify that the
boundaries are in place, and there\'s dedicated equipment, and so on. I
think we can provide a very helpful role to all concerned.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: And that goes on now or not?

MR. POLANSKY: To a limited degree.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: So you\'re aware of where sites are in your state?

MR. POLANSKY: We are, in fact, undertaking a pilot program in those
NASDA states with BRS, in terms of that particular issue.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Maybe I can just add a comment or two on that. I think
it varies a little bit from state to state, and please correct me, all
of the folks from APHIS if I\'ve gotten it wrong. Different states have
expressed interest and some have at some point had various regulations
having to do with biotechnology.

There is always the potential for federal preemption, but really nothing
wants, the idea has always been that nothing is going to go forward
without partnership with the states, so that there has always been a
process a consultation with states when there are to be field trial that
go on those states, and it\'s an important federal goal that issues at
the state level get addressed before the field trials go forward.

I think there are, as Adrian said, there are new initiatives reaching
out to the states to be able to involve them more in the processes of
inspection and oversight of the field trials.

MS. LAYTON: May I ask a question on that as a follow-up? Is that only
for Ag crops or does that okay for fish or forest crops also? And do you
contact the state Ag department if it\'s a tree? Or do you contact the
state forester if it\'s a tree? Or do you do both?

MR. POLANSKY: This is a pilot is a key here.

MS. LAYTON: Now what he was, following up on what he said about
consultation.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Cindy, would you come up to a microphone. For the
information of everyone, Cindy is the Deputy Administrator for
Biotechnology Regulatory Services at the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service. The group whose name we\'re taking in vain here.

CINDY: Just to follow just a little bit on, in terms of the question on
the inspection process. We have this pilot underway with NASDA we\'re
really excited about. Where we are providing the opportunity to evaluate
the roles that states can play in terms of inspecting low risk field
trials to be additional resources for us, and to provide the state some
more, a better partnership role. That\'s a pilot that we\'re undertaking
that we think we\'ll be concluding our evaluation at the end of this
year, end of this growing season, and so then we\'ll be making a
decision about the long-term relationship in terms of inspections. To
your question, can you remind me what your question was?

MS. LAYTON: If it\'s not a traditional Ag crop, if it\'s a fish, or a
tree, who would you talk to within the state? Or do you consult with
them?

CINDY: We would still consult in terms of trees, but at this point
we\'re not regulating fish. We are in the process of a interagency
discussion across the U.S. government to develop a broader framework for
regulating transgenic animals including fish. Just for transgenic
animals including fish. And so the result of that work will be a more
comprehensive set of regulations expected to be from probably several
agencies. So at this point we\'re not doing that, but certainly for
trees that\'s part of what we\'re regulating currently.

MS. LAYTON: You would talk to the state Ag commissioner? Because in
most, or in a lot of states that\'s not who takes care of trees. So
would you also then consult with the state foresters or the state DNR
where the state forestry group might be?

CINDY: Well, we contact the state plant health regulatory official. And
so it might \--

MS. LAYTON: Which in my state is in the university, and it hasn\'t
anything to do with either of those two people.

CINDY: Okay, all right. I don\'t know if we have \-- do you happen to
know about trees if we, how we\'re approaching those differently from
contact with state perspective?

MS. LAYTON: It\'s more your equivalent the plant health regulatory,
right?

CINDY: That\'s right.

MS. LAYTON: Okay, which could be a third group as they are in my state.
Thank you. That answered my question.

MR. GIROUX: Adrian, thanks a lot for your talk and for sharing these
notes with us. In particular, I was looking at the laundry list you
provided us. I think it\'s a useful list and that these are the kind of
things that I would like to learn more about from you at the state
level, and hopefully, we\'ll learn more about as we go through this
exercise as a committee. What stands out to me on this list more than
anything, good for the lawyers, and probably not good for any of the
rest of us, is that almost half these are legal issues.

And so, from a legal perspective, you know, are these things that have
been resolved for things like yellow corn and white corn, or for other
types of coexistence issues, maybe pesticide drift in your state, or are
these specific to biotech? And maybe you can\'t answer it directly, but
it seems like there\'s a lot of legal issues here, and how much, is this
new ground, or how much is there other things we can look at?

MR. POLANSKY: Well, I think that\'s an area that we haven\'t looked at
yet in depth as far as NASDA is concerned. But I agree, it\'s very, very
important and that I did mention dispute resolution options. I think
that that needs some focus, and of course, that would involve some
investment for that, as well as this good neighbor policy, people
talking to each other rather than not.

We found that, for example, when I started this job three years ago, we
had almost a war going on between our grape producers and farmers,
ranchers with pesticide drift. And there was a clamor for legislation
and legal activity. And my response was let\'s try to solve this in
another way. And we found that by having the neighbors talk to each
other, the country road department having some communications, neighbors
talking to neighbors.

And you know, if you\'re planting corn on one side of the road, if
we\'re talking about biotechnology, and you\'ve got neighbors that
rotate corn and beans, with some conversation and working out a rotation
pattern you can solve a lot of these issues without having to look at
legal kinds of action. So hopefully there\'s some answers there. But,
there are a lot of legal questions, and I assume that some of the same
principles that the courts have followed in some of these other issues
probably would fit in terms of pollen drift and so forth, although I
don\'t know that that\'s been tested. There are others here probably
with more expertise on the legal matters.

MR. KALAITZANDONAKES: Adrian, I believe you mentioned that coexistence
is in communication. Certainly the previous speaker actually said the
same thing. I would follow up a bit to Randy\'s question and ask you how
much do you believe that coexistence is a policy issue, and in effect
make it very specific? For instance, if you look at the laundry list
that you have at the end, how would that laundry list change if all the
standards that policymakers said were process-based rather than purity
threshold-based? In other words, you\'re going to take organic USDA's or
organic standards with the process-based if you extend that concept then
you drive all policy on the basis of process. How does that laundry list
change vis-a-vis if you had a number, you know, for purity and so on?
How does that change?

MR. POLANSKY: I think it would have a significant impact, and I think
that\'s what the discussions really need to be focused on, because if
we\'re really going to coexist, we have to look for ways in which that
can occur without having significant economic impact in any of the three
systems that we\'re talking about. So hopefully after some reasonable
discussion about the options in front us, we can make a decision that
allows these three production systems to go forward without a
significant economic loss to any one of the three. So I think there are
solutions if we\'re willing to accept those or at least willing to take
a serious look at them.

Because zero obviously, if we\'re looking at zero we don\'t have
coexistence in either direction or any of the directions, because zero
is not going to happen, in my opinion, if you have the three systems in
place. So if that\'s, you know, but I guess that\'s enough said.

MS. SULTON: We have a few more minutes. Would the committee like to
spend a little time talking about how we might proceed? How you would
like to proceed in addressing this question of coexistence in a future
oriented way as Mike framed at the beginning? Leon?

MR. CORZINE: I really appreciate you being here, Adrian, because you\'ve
got a lot of information and taking the time to share it is really
beneficial. And the question I would wonder that might be helpful to us,
in your time in office as we move forward, and I agree with Margaret
that, you know, we\'ve got biotech products moving forward, we\'ve got
some growth in not just organic markets, but locally grown.

A lot of things that are outside of both, but in your time, the
coexistence issue, have you seen between the different systems is about
the same as it has been? Do you think it is, and I don\'t know how you
measure it, whether you measure it in tension or the ability to go
along, do you see it moving in the right direction, wrong direction? Can
you help us with that a little bit?

MR. POLANSKY: I think it\'s moving in the right direction would be my
assessment, but I want to try to be very careful in how I couch that
because I think if I see a real significant difference when I have one
on one conversations, informal conversations between people of each one
of those preferences of types of productions. But when you get back into
a room where you have, let\'s say the chair of the organic growers in
the state, and someone else that has another position, there\'s another
organization that maybe takes a different view, there still seems to be
a reluctance to look at a sort of compromise or resolution somewhere
other than the hard line.

So I\'d say publicly there\'s been a lot less movement and I sense in
terms of where significant numbers of people are within each group of
these growers in terms of what reality really is, and starting to
understand what reality is. So my sense is that people generally are
moving in the direction to be more conciliatory and coexist. That would
be my experience at this point.

MR. GIROUX: Can I follow up on that. Adrian, in my state I have known of
legal actions to be filed between seed producers where the issue was
coexistence and, you know, the seed from one seed supplier to another
seed supplier wasn\'t up to the terms of the agreement and result in
this legal action. I don\'t know of any coexistence issues in my state
between organic producers and conventional or GM producers. Have there
been in any Kansas or have you heard anecdotally of cases of your
colleagues, and if so, have they been increasing with the growth in the
organic industry?

MR. POLANSKY: I\'m personally not aware of any legal actions in Kansas
between organic growers and non-organic growers. And I don\'t know that
I\'m aware of any beyond that personally.

MR. GIROUX: And in other states?

MR. POLANSKY: I just, I hesitate to go far beyond Kansas because
there\'s a lot out there that I\'m not aware of.

MR. GIROUX: I\'m giving you lots of rope here.

MR. POLANSKY: I can see that. I would want to be very careful not to say
that I, you know, not to go too far. I\'m personally not aware, but
beyond that I really wouldn\'t want to make a statement.

MS. SULTON: Any other questions? Pat.

MS. LAYTON: I have a question, but it\'s not really of Greg and it\'s
not really of Adrian, it may be of whoever\'s smarter than, I mean,
because I know about how trees breed, but I don\'t know how corn breed.
And I understood what soybeans did. But, when you\'re making seed, I
understand the issue of the purity, but what we sell is the corn product
out of a field and as I understand it, there we\'re not worried about
separation of, I mean, that is, I guess, so the issue is there\'s a lot
more free flow of pollen of one variety versus another, and my corn
field versus your corn field across the road, and that we\'re going to
\-- are they not crossing so that the kernels aren\'t some mixture of
what you sell? Anybody can answer that question, and then, how much
crossing is there?

MR. GIROUX: Are you talking about seed fields or ‑‑

MS. LAYTON: I\'m not talking about seed, \-- I understand seed fields. I
understand that. But now I\'m talking about what I\'m going to take to
my country grain guy.

MR. POLANSKY: Within your field? You\'re talking about within your
field?

MS. LAYTON: No. If I am selling corn, okay, to Jerry, and I\'m growing
variety X that has a trait or I\'m growing conventional variety X. How
much adventitious presence should I expect if there are 50 other people
in my county growing corn that maybe all have biotech? That\'s to me
where, I mean, I understand the purity and the adventitious presence
issue there.

But I think it\'s the product of what I\'m selling to Jerry that then
might be sold somewhere else that has the big, \-- that\'s where the
rubber really hits the road. Because I trust you guys to do my seed
stuff. So, but it\'s what I\'m selling that I\'m going to worry about
right, not just what I\'m buying to plant in the ground? So where is
that piece? How much is that? In other words, because what I\'m going to
have to do is think about, I was looking at your question, you know, am
I going to make different planning decisions? Am I going to sell them to
a different marketplace? Am I going to avoid crop? And I\'d like to know
how much I would expect on average?

MR. POLANSKY: Well that probably would be something better answered by
Pioneer, but or some else that has a lot more knowledge that I. But I
would make a couple of comments just in general. I mean, we, the subject
of white and yellow corn came up earlier. That has been dealt with for a
long, long time, and there are white corn growers within my home county
that grow white corn very successfully over a long period time with
minimal cross-pollination in terms of, but they do some of what I was
just talking about a little earlier, they use the good neighbor policy
and they don\'t put their white corn right next to the fence that they
know their neighbor is growing yellow corn.

And a couple of other thoughts as well. Certainly in terms of a grain
field, there is a lot more pollen right there next to the ears with the
tassels, so you\'re likely to get a lot less drift in in a grain field
than you are in a seed field, and in addition to that, there\'s all
kinds of other techniques. If I plant a variety of that tassels in 90
days on the first of April and my neighbor plants 110 day corn with
tassel 10 days later, I\'m likely going to have minimal risk of cross
pollination. I mean there\'s all kinds of ways, scenarios that make it
tremendously difference in terms of if your potential pollen drift in
reality. So, but you know, on the average I would go to, a friend from
Pioneer to be able to make some reference to that. All these variable
and if you do a little bit of planting you can minimize it dramatically
is what I\'m saying generally.

MS. SULTON: Nick, you wanted to respond to that too?

MR. WANDREY: He took the words out of my mouth. It really depends, but I
think the point about the abundance of pollen from a hybrid field versus
a seed field is a key point, as well as the isolation distance and the
temporal isolation based on time which you described. So I have nothing
else to add to that.

MR. KALAITZANDONAKES: So we just finished a study on the economics of
non-GMO corn production in the U.S., and so we\'ve studied several
different locations in the Midwest, production taking place right in the
same area where a GMO production is taking place. The typical system
involves anywhere between four to 12 border rows of corn being harvested
separately, and when you do that in most cases even in counties that you
would have in excess of 65 percent adoption rates of GMOs, you would
need typically less than a .75 threshold at the delivery point. That
means at the wet miller. So after \--

MS. LAYTON: .75 percent?

MR. KALAITZANDONAKES: \-- .75 percent. So that would mean whatever was
already in the seed since we don\'t have 100 percent purity, plus
whatever you picked up at the field, plus whatever you picked up at the
doing transport, equipment, and the bin, and then eventually through the
truck, to the gate, because there\'s where it\'s being tested. So at
that level, the, I mean I have rejection rates 2000 fields or so, and
depending on the location they vary between one percent and five
percent, but you know, I mean, I\'m sure Randy can add to my numbers,
but those are real numbers from the last couple of years.

MS. LAYTON: So .75 percent \--

MR. KALAITZANDONAKES: Less than that. So if you were testing at .75
percent you would reject anywhere between one percent to five percent,
depending on where you are and depending on which field it came from and
so, you know, because field size, field shape, all of those factors play
a role. But generally speaking, this is a feasible system right here in
middle of biotech crops.

MS. LAYTON: Thank you. That\'s what I hadn\'t gotten out of all the
talk.

MS. SULTON: We had Greg and then Ron.

MR. JAFFE: I was trying to answer your question, Cindy, about, you know
we\'re having discussion now. It seems like we are. We seem like we\'ve
gotten beyond, maybe we haven\'t, the question and answer and period.
But I wanted to sort of, I guess ask Michael a question about sort of
our direction about what, you know, this issue of coexistence is huge. I
mean the Europeans have studied it for months and written huge reports
and books on it.

And I guess one of the questions for us is sort of, what is the product
that the Secretary is expecting? Is this an issue-spotting process? Are
we going to \-- Adrian gave us a long list of potential issues. We could
pick a couple of those issues and go into detail on them. I guess, as we
get into that discussion, I think it would be good to have some more
insight as to sort of what is expected of us.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I\'ll give you a little bit now and probably some more
tomorrow as we\'ll continue this. I think the one thing that I indicated
before is we\'re not looking for you to solve the coexistence issues
between, you know, all of the various things that Adrian laid out that
are some the parameters around biotech, non-biotech, organic.

You know, we are asking you to do something thoughtful but brief, but
relatively brief, and not feel specifically bound to the questions of
how do these different types of agriculture get reconciled to each
other. But in a very, very general sense. When there are lots of
different kinds of things that are out there, which are not just these
three classes of things, but are a multitude of different kinds of
quality products, etcetera, what are going to be the kinds that people
are going to be thinking about?

So it\'s not resolving the laundry list. But farmers are going to be
some things, food processors are going to be doing some things, you
know. Give us a short, you know, vision of what you see that that\'s
going to look like. I mean it may be that it\'s going to include some
things, you know, it may say that farmers are going to be talking to
each other a lot more than they do now. Farmers who may not be happy
talking to each other at the moment necessarily. Whatever it is.

But that sort of description of like, you know, in a world where there
are lots of these things, what\'s going to be part of it?

MR. CORZINE: I\'m not a very good artist. But this might help to the
question about coexistence. We\'ve got, Central Illinois, we\'re pretty
flat, the fields are all pretty square, we\'re in nice little modules.
We do harvest. We partner with a couple of our neighbors, and one of
those neighbors grows quite a bit of white corn. He plants both yellow
and white, in the white for a specialty market. He\'s got a section that
he starts over on this side and he plants across, he decides this much
of the field is going to be white, this is conventional yellow. Plants
one right after the other. No temporal difference at all.

So it really goes to what you mentioned. When we get to this, we\'ll
take, we have an eight row harvester. We make one round 16 rows and in
that first 16 rows you can visibly see, and that\'s the nice thing about
the different color corns, you get five percent shows up a lot. I mean
there\'s a lot of kernels, a handful. You get down to a five percent in
one pass. And you got those 16 rows and then it\'s virtually
nonexistent. We\'ve been doing it for about seven years. Very, very
little. Especially when you blend in with the rest of the field,
absolutely no problem there.

Now I have an organic neighbor that we\'re next to, oh, and well, and
then this white, they\'ll be a yellow field over here on this side. This
is the roadway. So it is about 60 or 80 feet and then if this field is
yellow, actually we make a determination when we make that first pass.
Some years you don\'t have to take anything off. But generally just to
be safe for his contract where we make one pass.

So it\'s 16 rows going side by side planting one right after the other.
Now, in other part, in other place we farm, I\'m here, my organic
neighbor whose been doing organic farming for 15 years is here. He has
blue corn he raises sometime, so here again the color really works. We
use a temporal difference. He plants, generally it\'s two to maybe even
four to six weeks later than we do, and you don\'t find any yellow in
his blue from any of the neighboring fields. You\'ll find a little bit
of off color and it goes back to the seeds. So that\'s what\'s been
going on and going on for a good number of years, and really in a
practical sense reinforces what both Greg and others have said. Maybe
that helps.

MS. LAYTON: Thank you, it does. I appreciate it.

MR. OLSON: My question was essentially was Pat did, maybe it gets into
what Michael, lead to a different level but take up what Nick said. The
way your corn gets handled is the market either sets a tolerance or the
market, we make some GMOs and non-GMO products, we test every single
load. So if you bring in 20 loads and one of them tests negative or
positive, it\'s just rejected. And we dump the negative ones. That\'s
how the market handles that process.

So you can\'t say it\'s perfect zero, but it\'s zero on the test. So the
market handles some of those coexistence issues, and I guess that\'s
what the report is we delve into it and that\'s why I didn\'t want to
say too much because Michael was saying what are all of the
alternatives, and those are, that\'s one piece of what could happen.

MS. SULTON: Bob?

MR. HERDT: Yes. Just an observation. Everything that\'s been said has
been said about corn. And corn is corn. Also the same thing with regard
to the field size and shape and all of that. So I mean, that\'s Midwest
U.S. But, you know, we have the whole rest of the world, every other
commodity.

MR. DYKES: I guess one of the reasons we\'re going to talk about is
fairness because \--

MR. POLANSKY: Right. And one of the challenges that I have in
communicating with people about wheat in Kansas, for example, in terms
of peace and coexistence with genetically enhanced wheat, I mean, that
really just gets down to due diligence when the clamor (sic) is clean,
the truck\'s clean, when you\'re at the elevator and it\'s stuffed
separately, there\'s no reason because of the self-pollination nature of
wheat, just like soybeans, if you use due diligence in your practices
you\'re basically not going to have mixes.

If you desire not to. Corn is a bit more challenging because of the
pollination issue. But it\'s still, I would say mostly but not
insurmountable that there are techniques to deal with those issues even
in a corn field.

MS. LAYTON: Let me ask about an insect one. Cotton is insect-pollinated?

MR. HERDT: Exactly. I mean in the big world of plants \--

MS. LAYTON: We got all the variety.

MS. MELLON: As we go forward, I just wanted to make sure that the
committee was going to get the perspective of the organic community. I
mean the kind of challenges and economic issues that folks, you know, as
your neighbor is trying to do Leon, or trying to farm organically what
they face. Because I think understanding, we need to understand those if
we\'re to kind of wade into this issue. So I\'m hoping that, it was Mr.
Williams, I guess, but if not him, I mean we can have, we would have
some opportunity to hear from some people who are trying to make a
living, you know, in the real world faced with having their crops kind
of turned back and losing money.

MS. FOREMAN: Michael, would you say again what, how you think we are
going to narrow this so that it\'s something that the committee can deal
with?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay, I think for the future on this project, what would
be of most benefit will be again, not trying to figure out how to solve
the coexistence issues that are evolving now for biotech, non-biotech.
To wherever that extent is. But, imagine that there is a world in the
future where there are various different kinds of products, at some
point in the future and the kinds of products that were mentioned. There
will be specialty crops for nonfood uses. There will be quality-enhanced
crops, in addition, to other crops. It will be an issue of everything
coexisting with everything.

What are going to be the considerations that need to be dealt with in
terms of planting decisions, markets, on the community level in dealing
with those things. That\'s a little more, I mean in this topic I said on
the development and use. And maybe it makes a little sense to focus it
on the use so we don\'t worry so much about how to get there. Maybe that
narrows it a little bit.

MS. FOREMAN: Well, say a little more about that, because I\'m still not
quite understanding how this particular group of people brings the
appropriate expertise to what you\'re saying. So say a little more,
please. Three of us are going to make planting decisions, the rest of us
aren\'t.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I think there\'s planting decisions. I think there are
whole number of issues having to do with marketing. You know there\'s
going to be responding to consumer demands in that as well as ensuring
the consumer demands are met. There is going to be issues having to do
with impacts on communities.

I think, you know, for every topic that we have in this committee not
everyone has the most focused expertise, but I think the topic impacts
enough of the food chain from consumer to the farmer that everyone has a
stake in this particular discussion.

MS. FOREMAN: You know, Secretary Polansky has put down a lot of issues
here that I think we might as well address. If we go at this on the
assumption that there will be non-food specialty traits grown in food
crops, I\'m not at all sure that that\'s an assumption I\'m willing to
make. And I think he\'s given us a number of issues that we\'ll not
address here. I don\'t think we can possibly address all of them.

And somehow I\'m hearing, I see here, maybe it\'s just because it\'s on
paper, I see a more organized approach to how we might deal with this.
Planting decisions and marketing decisions and \--

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay. No. I think that the point that you raise about
the one group\'s issues in, I forget which topic number it was, abut
non-food uses, pharmaceuticals and industrial. I think we could very
easily in this, if people were willing to accept this, to leave out, to
not discuss products that did not have food and feed approval. If you
wanted \--

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s not the issue. Even if they have food and feed
approval, and they\'ve got pharmaceuticals in Ron\'s cornflakes, he
isn\'t going to like it.

MS. LAYTON: Well, it\'s already got gasoline in it. But what if we had
in tobacco?

MS. FOREMAN: It\'s not a food crop and

therefore \--

MS. LAYTON: But are there coexistence issues?

MS. DILLEY: Part of the exercise, and I\'m not sure we\'ve got the
energy for it at 4 o\'clock after finished one report we\'ve been
working on for three years, *et cetera*, is we\'ve got to get clear on
the definition. Which is exactly what you\'re saying. What are the
impacts we\'re talking about ‑- we\'ve got to do that tomorrow. We can
take a run at it tomorrow.

MS. FOREMAN: Because either now or first thing tomorrow morning before
we have the presentations, I think, I want to address some issues that I
have with what\'s first on the page that seems to be our second topic.

MS. DILLEY: Just so I\'m clear, Carol, well we need to talk about
coexistence, the coexistence charge, which is topic number two I think,
if you\'re referring to the same piece of paper. We need to come back
and take a run at some of those definitions so we can set up a work
plan. And then for the second one you want to talk about the charge in
advance in terms of?

MS. FOREMAN: The enemies of technology transfer.

MS. DILLEY: Before the presentations is what you\'re requesting?

MS. FOREMAN: Well the presentations are going to be on that subject,
aren\'t they?

MS. DILLEY: Yes.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Well they will, but there again will be some
introductory remarks specifically trying to clarify some of that as
well, which will then, I think, we\'ll have a discussion on the charge
for that.

MS. FOREMAN: Let me just say so people, I have real concerns with the
way the question is worded, and I think I could make some suggestions
that will address it. I think it\'s not an appropriate question as it\'s
now written.

MS. DILLEY: Can we do that tomorrow though?

MS. FOREMAN: Okay.

MS. DILLEY: I just don\'t think people have energy. I could be wrong.
Maybe it\'s just me.

MS. FOREMAN: No. That\'s fine. I\'m glad to do it tomorrow, but I just
want to be on record that I don\'t think it\'s an appropriate question
to ask a group to address.

MS. DILLEY: Okay. You have to get to it. I just don\'t know if at 4
o\'clock or after four, and we\'re scheduled to be adjourned.

MS. SULTON: We have one more question from Alison and then \--

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I just want to clarify with question two. At the
pleasure of the Secretary what we\'ve been asked to address, just to
understand this is coexistence issues in these two specific situations,
is that correct?

MS. LAYTON: Specialty crops for non-food uses and quality enhanced
crops.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Quality enhanced crops.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That is correct.

MS. LAYTON: But we don\'t know if those are food or non-food.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: But there obviously is some concern about the question
which we\'re going to have to work through tomorrow.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: I thought that was question number one, but maybe I
\--

MS. FOREMAN: Well, the second on the list, but it\'s number one.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: All right. So that\'s what, they\'re the two
situations we\'ve been asked to address?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: That\'s correct.

MS. FOREMAN: But that\'s one. There are two bullets on this page.

MS. VAN EENENNAAM: Because we had a lot of discussion today about
organic which is not on here.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes. I mean again, I should point out that, you know,
that information is, I mean the coexistence issues that are related to
specialty crops for non-food uses and quality-enhanced crops include
coexistence with other stuff. They\'re not coexisting in a vacuum. But,
you know, this is envisioning a world where there are going to be lots
of different kinds of products.

MS. LAYTON: So a sort of rosy scenario, which I forget what we called
it, but lots of products. It\'s almost if we look at the scenario, okay
in that scenario what are the issues around coexistence for these two
types of things?

MR. SCHECHTMAN: I think your point has not gone away, Carol.

MS. LAYTON: Yes, your point has not gone away, Carol. I\'m uncomfortable
too.

MS. FOREMAN: That\'s still at number two. I have concerns about bullet
number one. I don\'t have to bring them up now.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yes.

MS. LAYTON: So if you have another way of looking at this, you might
want to write it down.

MS. FOREMAN: I have.

MS. SULTON: So tomorrow we\'re going to reconvene at 8:30 at which time
we can get further charge about the understanding of the questions, as
well as prepare for the presentations. With all that mind, we will then
try to come up with a work plan for how we proceed before we close
tomorrow. So is there anything further from the Chair or from Michael?

MS. LAYTON: No. Thank you. Once again I want to congratulate the
committee on an incredible amount of work that we\'ve done to accomplish
getting this report done.

MR. SCHECHTMAN: Are we now adjourned?

MS. LAYTON: Yes.

(Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to reconvene on
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 at 8:30 a.m.)

[]{.underline} Digitally signed by Keena Lukacinsky

[ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE]{.underline}

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC., hereby certifies that the attached pages
represent an accurate transcript of the electronic sound recording of
the proceedings before the

United States Department of Agriculture:

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BIOTECHNOLOGY AND 21ST CENTURY

AGRICULTURE

12th PLENARY SESSION

![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.252083333333333in"
height="0.6798611111111111in"}

Keena Lukacinsky, Transcriber