UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

	WASHINGTON, D.C.





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
:
:
USDA ADVISORY BOARD MEETING		:
:
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X



The USDA Advisory Board Meeting was held on Thursday, 
December 9, 2004, commencing at 9:10 a.m. at the Economic 
Research Service, Waugh Auditorium, 1800 M Street, N.W., 
Washington, D.C.


	APPEARANCES
Ronald Olson
Carol Tucker Foreman
Duane R. Grant
Randal W. Giroux
Vincent Vilker
Elizabeth Milewski
Daryl D. Buss
Michael D. Dykes
Gregory A. Jaffe
Terry L. Medley
Bernice Slutsky
Cindy Sulton
Patricia A. Layton
Michael Schechtman
Abby Dilley
Angela Agosto
Margaret Mellon
Keith T. Triebwasser
David A. Hoisington
Leon C. Corzine
Lisa W. Zannoni
Carole L. Cramer
Jerome B. Slocum
Juan Enriquez-Cabot
James Maryanski


	P R O C E E D I N G S

MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Good morning.  This is the seventh 
meeting of the U.S Department of Agriculture's Advisory 
Committee on Biotechnology in 21st Century Agriculture or AC21. 
 My name is Michael Schechtman and I'm the Executive Secretary 
and designated federal official for the AC 21.  I would also 
like to welcome our committee members.  I believe we have about 
13 of our members here at this point.  I know at least one more 
will be here a little bit later.  Two more should be here a 
little bit later during the day today.  To my left is the AC 
21's Chairman, Dr. Patricia Layton from Clemson University.  
I'd also like to welcome our ex-officio members.  I think we 
have two of them here thus far, and since I can't see them all 
particularly well, there could be others sitting there hidden 
from me by this post.  To my right are our facilitators, Ms. 
Abby Dilley and Ms. Angela Agosto from the organization 
Resolve, and to my left, two seats over, is Ms. Cindy Sulton 
from the organization HW&W, who are partners in helping us make 
this committee process work.  Also here today is USDA Special 
Assistant to the Secretary for Biotechnology, Bernie Slutsky, 
who is the Secretary's point on biotech and she's located at 
this corner to my left, and she'll help guide us to about 
around 9:30 we'll have the USDA Chief of Staff, Dale Moore, 
come in to offer a couple of words.  This is our last minute 
addition to our agenda, so that's why it's not there.  We're 
going to have a very full agenda, so we ask that when the 
meeting is in session, conversations need to be limited to 
those between members.  The public will be invited to provide 
comments and participate in that way to the committee and USDA 
this afternoon between 3:30 at 5:00.  We will be preparing 
minutes of this meeting and a computer transcript of the 
meeting will also be available within a few weeks.  We hope to 
get all the minutes and all the meeting announcements up on the 
web.  The website address for the committee is 
www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/ac21.html.  For any members of 
the press, you're welcome to speak to whomever you wish during 
the breaks of our meeting and before or after the meeting 
itself.  We ask that you not conduct any interviews or request 
comments from members while the AC21 is actually in session.  
Dr. Layton, our Chair, and I will be available for questions 
and comments at the end of each day of the meeting.  I'd like 
to request that all members of the AC21, as well as all members 
of the audience and the press please shut off your cell phones 
and beepers while in the meeting room.  For your information, 
bathrooms are located down the hall and just out the door in 
that direction.  In the opposite end of the room there are two 
tables with meeting documents and background documents.  Please 
take only one copy.  For the information of the members of the 
public, let me indicate that the AC21 is charged by the 
Secretary of Agriculture with preparing two reports.  The first 
is a report examining the likely impacts of biotechnology on 
agriculture and on the work of USDA over the course of the next 
five to 10 years.  And second, a separate report on the impact 
of the proliferation of traceability in labeling regimes in 
other country and how industry is addressing those 
requirements.  Let me emphasize that these are two separate 
reports.  Work groups have been set up to move these processes 
along between meetings, and they've made much progress through 
lots of hard work.  We'll say a good deal more about the work 
groups and their work as we go along.  Let me mention briefly 
the official meeting documents and backgrounds to this meeting. 
 First the background documents. They are (1) the official AC21 
Charter, (2) the AC21 Bylaws and Operating Procedures, (3) a 
package of biographical sketches of all of the AC21 members, 
and (4) the draft meeting summary prepared from the sixth AC21 
meeting held on September 13 and 14th of this year.  Specific 
for this meeting we have the following official documents:  
first, a provisional agenda for this meeting, second, a package 
of draft summaries from the work group sessions from each of 
five work groups since the last plenary.  For the first report 
there were four work groups that meet.  One on the issues to 
consider chapter, another on a chapter on preparing for the 
future via examination of the force and shaping the future plus 
development of some educational scenarios, three, a work group 
upon definitions, key definitions for the report, four, a new 
group on the reports introduction.  Finally, there was a fifth 
group that worked on preparing a draft of the second separate 
report on traceability and labeling impacts.  With all these 
work groups there are a lot of documents.  The work groups have 
met differing numbers of times since the last plenary.  Some 
once, some twice, one, three times.  Some you'll need to look 
carefully at the package of summaries which is combined in that 
one stapled thing on the official document table to see who did 
what.  We had lots of work groups meetings and preparation for 
this last week, and for this meeting, and we have summaries for 
all of those except for the last two, which were on Thursday 
and Friday of last week.  Their work product, however, are all 
captured in the official documents.  So some of those are the 
next documents.  The third official document is the most 
current draft version of the issues to consider chapter.  The 
fourth is a document addressing the two introductory chapters 
for this report.  That document contains an outline for the 
first chapter and revised text for the second.  Fifth, the 
latest draft of much of the chapter entitled, Preparing for the 
Future, which contains an analysis of certainties and 
uncertainties driving the future, as well as three informative 
scenarios for thinking about outside of the box about what the 
future might look like.  Sixth, there's a draft definitions 
list based on the work of the definitions group, and finally, a 
full draft of the second report the committee is charged with 
preparing which is entitled, Global Traceability and Labeling 
Requirements for Agricultural Biotechnology Derived Products: 
Impacts and Implications for the United States.  This report 
has had extensive work from the work group and during the 
portion of the meeting devoted to discussing it, we'll talk 
about how close various parts of it are to completion.  A key 
goal of this meeting is to see if the committee can identify 
what's needed to bring it to closure at this meeting or the 
next.  On the right table among the official handouts, you will 
find copies of the detailed meeting agenda, as I indicated.  
We'll go over it later, but please note that there are breaks 
scheduled in the morning and afternoon.  For members of the 
public who wish coffee, coffee is available downstairs and 
across the street, there's a coffee shop.  Also on the agenda, 
please note that we're planning for a period of one and a half 
hours for public comments from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. today.  We 
want to be responsive to the needs of the public and we'll see 
as the meeting progresses how we need to structure that time.  
Members of the public, please be sure if you wish to make a 
comment, please be sure that you have signed up at the door if 
you've not already done so, so that we can plan that window in 
the afternoon.  Now from USDA's perspective, there are three 
main objectives for this meeting.  They are for the committee 
to finalize for submission to the Secretary or identify the 
clear path for finalization, the draft report on other 
countries traceability and mandatory labeling requirements for 
biotechnology derived products, the implications of those 
regimes and how the US industry is addressing those 
requirements for products shipped to those countries.  Second, 
to review and move closer towards finalization of the other 
draft report examining the impacts of agricultural 
biotechnology on American agriculture in USDA over the course 
of the next five to 10 years.  And finally, determine processes 
for finalizing the committee reports.  We'll have more to say 
about the status of each of the documents as we turn to them.  
Let me indicate though right now that I think the committee is 
in an important period of transition.  This is not only because 
there will be a new Secretary of Agriculture, but also in a 
number of other ways. The Charter for this committee is in the 
renewal process.  We've started the process for soliciting 
nominations for places on this committee and the terms of half 
of the members on the committee expire in February 2005.  And 
finally, we're at a point where we really need to see what kind 
of progress you all have made on your two major reports.  Let 
me make one general point.  We've been working since late 
spring 2003 with the goal of producing one then two reports by 
the end of 2004.  There's been a great deal of work, difficult 
work, by committee members in getting us to where we are now.  
We here have worked you all pretty hard and we're grateful for 
your willingness to let us do so.  Obviously the initial aim of 
getting two reports finished by the end of 2004 is not going to 
be met.  But the work is going to continue.  Now in preparing 
the materials and focusing discussions of this meeting, in a 
couple of instances the work groups have opted in the documents 
you've received to err in the direction of less is more.  The 
work groups in some instances are presenting only those pieces 
of work that have been gone over by them in a bit more detail 
and asking you to focus on those rather than carry over other 
pieces from earlier discussions and maybe lose a bit of focus. 
 That's not true in all the documents, but in several of them 
it is.  Now let me turn the microphone over to our Chairman, 
Pat Layton, for your words of welcome and thoughts for the 
committee.  Pat.

MS. LAYTON:  Good morning, everyone, and happy 
holiday to you all too.  It's hard to believe that it's almost 
December 25th.  But it's here we are in the middle of December. 
 I want to reiterate what Michael has said.  This is a major 
meeting for us because of the fact that we are nearing 
completing of one report and working very hard on the other 
report.  
I've listened in on some of the committee meetings, 
although I've not participated in all of them.  And I know 
there's been a tremendous amount of work done.  I also know who 
the half of the committee is that are about to either be 
renominated or who may be leaving, and some of you I know I've 
spoken to, so most, at least a couple of the members may not be 
back with us at our next meeting.  So I think it's very 
important, because we are a group that have worked very hard on 
these reports, to get as much done so that the folks who are 
not going to be with us can feel that their participation has 
been valuable and feel completed.  I know that's always 
important when you've worked very hard to feel a sense of 
completion and a sense of accomplishment, and I want to thank 
those people now for their service and to pledge my support in 
helping to move us along as quickly as we can, but as 
thoroughly and as thoughtfully as we can during our two-day 
session.  

I encourage all of us to be very constructive as we 
move through the next two days and to work very hard to have a 
very constructive process for dealing with issues and 
accomplishing our goals.  I know that we have a hard two days 
and that we can work very hard during the next two days to get 
those things accomplished, and I encourage all of you to 
please, you know, speak with me offline if there are things 
that I can do to help move this along in a more efficient and 
effective manner.  I think it's important to get everyone's 
issues on the table at this point in time and to understand why 
they are issues and to understand what solutions might be 
available to those issues.  So encourage you when you bring an 
issue up, that you talk about the why and the how.  So with 
that in mind, I welcome you all here today, both our public, 
our ex-officio members and the members of our committee, and I 
hope that we have a very, very productive meeting so that we 
can all finish the year of 2004 feeling we've done our best to 
accomplish as much as we can in this year.  Thank you.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Thank you, Pat.  Now perhaps I'd 
like to turn over to Bernice Slutsky, the Secretary Special 
Assistant for Biotech, who will offer a couple of thoughts as 
well, as we get started.

MS. SLUTSKY:  Thanks, Michael.  And again, I'd like 
to welcome everyone here.  You'll be hearing more from Dale 
Moore in just a few minutes, but this is going to sound like a 
broken record, but I too have tried to at least listen in and 
participate on as many of the working groups as I've been able 
to and I can't tell you how impressed and appreciative we are 
of really all of the hard work and creative work that's going 
into these documents, and I've been involved in many advisory 
committees before and I've really never seen a group, you know, 
try to be as constructive and produce reports that are clearly 
going to be very valuable to the department.  As I said before, 
the issues that are addressed in these documents are ones that 
will continue to have an impact across the department.  And 
beyond the importance and usefulness of these reports, we will 
also be discussing future areas of work for the committee.  I 
think as you know, biotechnology is of interest to virtually 
every agency in the department.  I've said before, if ever 
there was a cross-cutting issue in the department, this is one, 
and I think that it will be important as the committee moves 
forward in finalizing the traceability and labeling document 
and moving towards finalizing the other report, and as we 
discuss in the department and with you new areas of work for 
the committee, that we try to determine how to have more 
interaction between the groups in USDA that are coordinating 
this issue for the department.  As I believe I mentioned to you 
a couple meetings ago, we have two different coordinating 
groups in the department.  One at the senior staff level, and 
these are the people that deal with these issues every day 
within their respective agencies, and then one at the policy 
level consisting primarily of Deputy Under Secretaries.  I 
imagine that these two groups are going to consider, can 
continue to be functioning through the transition and with the 
new Secretary of Agriculture when he is confirmed, so I think 
it will be important for that interaction to take place as we 
move forward in the committee.  With that, I'm going to turn it 
to Michael, and I believe Dale will be here in a few minutes.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let's then move on while we are 
waiting for the Chief of Staff to arrive.  Maybe we can just 
have a very, very quick review of the meeting from September 
13th and 14th from Cindy Sulton.

MS. SULTON:  A very brief summary.  The sixth plenary 
session was held September 13 through 14, 2004 and focused 
almost entirely on the two reports that Michael referenced 
earlier, the long-term report, as well as the one on 
traceability and labeling.  The meeting began with opening 
remarks by Dr. Schechtman and Dr. Layton, followed by a review 
of the minutes from the June 3rd through 4th meeting and a 
discussion of the agenda outline.  The meeting then turned to a 
discussion of the progress on the traceability and labeling 
work group and of the report that they had generated.  The 
members discussed and offered comments and suggestions both on 
the first and the second day of the deliberations and offered a 
lot of direction to the work group who went back, were charged 
to go back and revise part and expand parts of the report.  The 
next area of discussion was the work group progress on 
scenarios development.  The committee discussed the draft 
chapter entitled Preparing for the Future, focusing on the 
three scenarios that were intended to depict various possible 
futures and not intended to predict the future, as well as on 
the driving forces of what do we know and what is less certain. 
 Again, the committee gave a great deal of direction to the 
work group for their future efforts.  The discussion then 
turned to the progress of the work group on issues and 
concerns, and again, the chapter developed by this work group 
was discussed during sessions over the two days of the 
deliberation.  In addition to raising issues and giving 
direction to the work group, it was suggested and agreed that 
the work group would be expanded in its composition.  On the 
afternoon of the first day of the meeting there was time 
allotted for public comment, and we had before us Ms. Kari Ann 
Powell of the National Association of State Public Interests 
Research Groups (PIRGS), and Ms. Powell spoke for a short time 
with the committee asking that when evaluating cost, AC21 
consider the true cost of labeling when using true data and 
urging the committee to operate with transparency to provide 
information to the public when needed and to encourage FDA and 
EPA as well to hold discussions around labeling and policy in 
the United States.  The committee discussions continued and 
focused in on the revised draft introduction to the report.  As 
regards Chapter One, the committee agreed to the overall 
purpose of the introduction and deliberated on specific 
elements on the introduction outline and then supported an 
outline for this first chapter.  The second chapter, Current 
and Future State of the Art was discussed in depth with great 
discussion of the scope of future products to be included in 
the report, and as a result of the discussion there was 
developed a proposed outline for the chapter, however without 
consensus on all its parts.  It was agreed that its next steps 
there would be a drafting group to revise chapters one and two, 
and a small group to collect and draft definitions for the 
terms contained in the report.  There was then discussion of 
the work plan and next steps where we spent some time 
addressing the issue of the period of transition for the 
committee acknowledging that the terms of half of the members 
would end in February, and also the fact that the USDA Charter 
renewal process would begin and there would be a Federal 
Register notice for member nominations.  The definitions work 
group was constituted and members were asked to submit 
suggested definitions or terms needing definition in advance of 
a conference call.  The drafting work group was also 
constituted and it was proposed that there be two conference 
calls to organize and write the next draft of those chapters.  
The committee members were again asked to provide their 
comments in advance of that meeting.  The work group on issues 
to consider agreed to have an additional set of conference 
calls, and again, the committee members were asked to provide 
additional comments in advance.  The work group on preparing 
for the future was to convene to revise the chapter and to 
consider whether making the chapter an appendix to the rest of 
the report or to address other steps to clarify better how the 
scenarios are storytelling tools.  The traceability and 
labeling work group asked that the committee members provide 
them with any additional editing suggestions in advance of 
their next work group conference call and then agreed to 
develop a new draft of that report incorporating the explicit 
suggestions made during the meeting and any additional comments 
that might be provided subsequently.  That group was to convene 
to consider the executive summary and implication sections and 
to draft the provisional final draft of the report.  The 
meeting then came to conclusion with Dr. Layton thanking the 
committee members for all of their hard work and the meeting 
was in fact adjourned at 3:30 p.m.  This obviously is a summary 
of the minutes.  Does anyone have any questions or any 
modifications they might want to make to the full summary?  
Without such comments, can we assume that we have a summary 
ready to be posted on the website, and we'll do this subsequent 
to the meeting.  Thank you.

MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Thank you, Cindy.  Since we are 
still waiting for Dale to get here, let me just talk perhaps 
just for a minute about the status of the Charter and 
membership nominations.  As you all know, the Federal Register 
notice announcing solicitation of nominations was published, I 
believe it was November 23rd, it was the 22nd or the 23rd, and 
half of the current committee members' terms expire.  Since 
nobody has served on the committee for six consecutive years 
which is the limit established by the Charter, all of the 
current members whose terms expire are eligible to resubmit a 
nomination to be considered to continue on the committee.  That 
process is going forward when the nomination closes on the 
23rd.  We'll gather all of the things up through the normal 
departmental processes to categorize the nominations and group 
them according to the various kinds of expertise that are here, 
provide the information to the Secretary's office so that they 
can move forward on making the choices.  The Charter is in the 
late stages of going through the rechartering process.  I guess 
that sounds a little funny but -- and hopefully that will be 
done pretty soon.  In terms of member appointments, I can't say 
exactly how fast or slow the process will be with the change of 
Administration.  If we can get it done before the current 
Secretary leaves, we will certainly do that.  It takes a little 
bit of time and often there's transition time is a little bit 
confused.
MS. DILLEY:  Will the rechartering process be 
completed before the Secretary?

MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The rechartering process should be 
completed by the end of the year we hope.  To aid the members 
who are on the committee whose terms expire who may wish to 
reapply, just in case you do, I have copies of the AD-755 form 
here and if you wish one you can just catch me at a break and 
I'll provide it to you.
MR. JAFFE:  Do you have electronic copies also?
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  They're certainly available 
electronically as well.  This was for those who wanted to have 
a piece of paper in their hands.  Otherwise, we can send it to 
you if you request it.  And our timing was just great. We 
welcome Dale Moore who is the Chief of Staff for the Department 
of Agriculture, and he'll offer a few words.

MR. MOORE:  Good morning everybody.  I apologize for 
running a little behind.  I forget this isn't southwest Kansas 
and there's traffic on the roads or streets, I guess a better 
way to put it.  And particularly with our good friends and 
advisory committee on the Hill in session this week.  That 
always adds a little bit of excitement to the process because 
I've learned, while I thought I'd been following all of their 
advice throughout the year, I realized that the last couple of 
days that there was a lot of it that I'd missed, at least 
according to the phone calls I'm getting.  So I've been kind of 
catching up on that.  In visiting with Bernice I had, my good 
fortune, I guess David's as well because he's living in Italy 
now, but when David moved on, Bernice and Michael were asking 
how do we keep the Secretary posted on, you know, in particular 
what you all are doing, but what's going on also in the world 
of biotech and the developments there.  So once a week, whether 
she thinks I need it or not, Bernice comes in and gives me an 
update and I've noticed that like any good teacher she, we 
sometimes have the same thing on the agenda for two or three 
weeks in a row just to make sure I'm understanding what we're 
talking about.  
And I know that there are a couple of items in 
particular that the Secretary has been extremely interested and 
very appreciative of the work that you all collectively are 
doing and that's these reports.  I know that there's been, you 
know, from some of you, you know, through Michael, through 
Bernice and a couple of you have contacted me directly, a 
little nervous about the time frames that you have on the 
reports that you're working on.  And I want to assure you that 
while we are in, and we being the Secretary's office, are in a 
period of transition.  Those reports are both timely.  The work 
that you all are doing is very much needed.  

While those of you not familiar or perhaps seeking 
some assurance that the process hasn't changed, as Governor 
Johanns goes through his confirmation process in anticipation 
that some of you might ask a question or two as to what his 
position is on things relative to matters involving 
biotechnology, the answer is we will find out when the Senate 
has its confirmation hearing.  If you don't particularly like 
that answer I've got the White House number you can call and 
explain to them you didn't like my answer.  But, we have a very 
firm policy, and I think a very important policy that it is the 
right and purview of the Senate to ask those questions and I 
have little doubt knowing some of you sitting around the 
conference table here are very much already engaged in visiting 
with your favorite Senator or two or three to make sure some of 
those questions get asked at the appropriate time.  

I am encouraged that, you know, as we look back, you 
know one of the first issues that I got to work on as I came on 
board for the President and the Secretary was to StarLink.  You 
know, like any form, you know, I sort of figured well, I've 
kind of grown out of that phase of my life, but then that's not 
true.  You never grow out of it.  And it has been, you know, 
the work that you all, you know, have been doing and have 
continued to do throughout that process, I think last, I've 
kind of lost track.  Was it this past summer in Burkina Faso?  
It's kind of been one long Monday for the past four years, but 
this past summer in Burkina Faso as we got the reports back 
from Dr. Pinn and the team that was over there visiting with, 
not just, you know, sort of our collective counterparts and 
particularly that of the African countries, but the leaders of 
those nations who stopped by and visited and made it clear that 
from the Secretary's Science and Technology Conference in 
Sacramento, which again, I know several of you participated in 
and contributed to the success of that particular meeting, the 
growth just in understanding and in interest and in desire to 
learn more about how we in the United States work with 
biotechnology, how we're addressing, you know, some very real, 
you know, conundrums that the solutions, you know, tease us now 
and then with presenting themselves and then kind of slipping 
back and hiding in the weeds and kind of forcing us to dig a 
little deeper or go a little sideways or sometimes just back up 
and take a look at something we may have already bypassed to 
find that solution that works the best in terms of, you know, 
what the mission is.  

We've got a lot of wonderful technology that, you 
know, can address, in some cases solve, a lot of problems.  At 
the same time there is a responsibility to assure public 
health, environmental health, and frankly understand that our 
regulatory process which we believe is second to none, and I'm 
not just talking about at USDA.  We're looking at, you know, 
our co-workers and friends and colleagues at EPA and FDA and 
certainly at the White House, these opportunities to, you know, 
make some progress forward they're going to rest on the work 
that you all do.  Not that we're looking for somebody else to 
blame if everybody's like where did that come from, but as one 
of my former mentors, not former mentor, but former bosses and 
mentors made the observation that, when I was working for him 
on the Hill the most important thing I could do was remember 
that as smart as I thought I was, there was usually somebody 
smarter somewhere else in the process, and you know, being a 
smart-alec didn't really count for much.  
We have a tremendous amount of faith, by we in the 
Secretary's office, her team up and down the subcab it has a 
tremendous amount of faith in the work that you all are doing. 
 We put a tremendous amount of confidence in the work that you 
are doing, and whether it is a report that Secretary Veneman 
receives before her tenure officially ends or that Secretary 
Designate Governor Johanns receives shortly after his tenure 
begins, I can guarantee you two things.  One, we need those 
reports.  They are going to serve as tools and as foundations 
for ongoing work and moving the pegs forward on biotech, and 
the second thing is that I can promise you they will get read 
because you all frankly are the cutting edge on this process.  

We've got battles on the legal front with our dear 
friends on the European continent.  We've got acceptance issues 
that, you know, as we learned with the StarLink process that 
the biotech community as well as the government has some 
responsibilities to help make that progress keep going, and 
frankly, I think the promise of what biotech holds in some of 
the regions or some of the arenas in terms of addressing, you 
know, health issues or nutrition issues, and frankly in some 
parts of the world just plain addressing economic issues, kind 
of puts a heavy burden on you all.  I know you all are up to 
the task.  
On behalf of the Secretary, again thank you for the 
work that you're doing.  I know that you probably feel overpaid 
but you just have to accept that and accept our gratitude for 
the hard work that you all do.  I will be happy to answer some 
questions and I've got plenty of time because you all are my 
excuse for not being in the office this morning.  At least at 
my desk.  And if they are to hard answer questions, I'll just 
obfuscate and dance around them and the easy ones I'll, you 
know, answer in very short sentences.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. DILLEY:  Questions for Dale?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Maybe what we can do to make --
MR. MOORE:  Observations.  I'll take observations, 
how's that.
MS. DILLEY:  Here's Mardi.

MS. MELLON:  My name is Margaret Mellon, I'm with the 
Union of Concerned Scientists, and I've been interested for 
decades now in issues of biotech regulation, and it seems to me 
that, you know, while a lot of these issues have been kind of 
swirling around in the regulatory arena that not much has 
really happened to push the, first of all forwarded basically, 
we're still living with the now 25-year-old biotech framework 
that we, you know, that emerged in the mid-1980s and so this is 
a good one for obfuscation, but do you see anywhere in the 
federal government a kind of interest in, I mean really serious 
interest in kind of examining the biotech framework, reforming 
it, on kind of the same scale as was done in the mid 80's.
MR. MOORE:  Mardi, that's an excellent question and I 
would have to let that, to answer the first part of your 
question, yes, there is an interest and it's not an interest 
that you know folks who are concerned about biotech and what it 
may be unleashing, you know versus you know those that stand to 
profit from biotech.  It seems to be a universal desire to, you 
know, examine the framework and you know, save the good parts 
and add a few wings onto it and all that good stuff.  The 
challenge seems to be, from my perspective, and you'll forgive 
me if I throw in a few Delaney reform analogies, I had 
extensive experience on that front in a previous life.
MS. MELLON:  I was watching from the sidelines.

MR. MOORE:  Abby was keeping a close eye on me too. 
When we went through that process, I started on the Hill in the 
early 80's and over about a 10 year period there was this 
constant drum beat we need to reform Delaney.  And what 
fascinated me is that over that time frame there's sort of a 
collective desire, you know, to fix it or fix something and 
when Pat Roberts became Chairman of the Ag committee and Tom 
Wiley became Chair of Commerce, you know those, politically 
those things kind of lined up and they had Mr. Dingle and we 
had Chairman de la Garza, and the balls really started moving, 
and what fascinated me was that within a week after we had 
announced, you know, full committee markup on Delaney reform, 
on something that for Mr. Roberts perspective, I'll be very 
candid, we had worked very closely with the industry and the ag 
community.  

You know Mr. Dingle's folks had worked with their 
committee and Steve Garves (phonetic sp.) and so forth.  We got 
to the point and we're just about ready to push all the buttons 
and lay out here's the Chairman's mark to get all the reaction 
and the chemical industry came in and said, you know we've 
worked on this for a long time but we really think we need to 
drop about two thirds of this section 3 cancellation stuff, and 
we're like okay, fine, but I thought that was sort of the 
cornerstone.  Well, we've been thinking about it, you know, and 
so let us think about that and it wasn't but two days later 
that Administrator Browner and her team came in and had the 
exact same conversation.  And we were kind of sitting back, 
it's like okay so everybody wants to fix it, but when it looked 
like we were, then everybody started pulling back saying, no, 
no, we're not sure we're there yet.
That's the sense I get on biotech, that everybody 
runs up and, you know, grabs a hold of that wire and says okay 
we're all going to grab it together and hang on to it and 
they're ready to start moving forward and then the pieces start 
getting laid out, well we need to work on this and just one by 
one people start letting go of the wire and we back up again.  
And so, yes, there's a desire to fix it.  Is reform just around 
the corner?  I honestly don't see that as yet critical mass of 
all the political will, the policy solutions and that sort of 
balanced cooperative desire that on the ideological spectrum 
you've got, you know, everybody from the right field foul pole, 
the left field foul pole ready to move forward.  It's still the 
fairly no channel down the middle.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's a good answer.
MR. MOORE:  Is that obfuscating enough?
MS. MELLON:  No, actually that was much more 
forthright than the usual answer and I actually thank you.
MR. MOORE:  I'm a short-timer so -- that's me being a 
smart-alec.

MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Any other questions?  Thank you very 
much, Dale, we really appreciate it.
MR. MOORE:  Thank you all.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Maybe we can extend your stay a 
little bit by taking just a few-minute break and if people want 
to talk to you individually.
MR. MOORE:  That would be cool, because my car 
doesn't come back for another 10 minutes.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let's take a 10-minute break.
MR. MOORE:  Thank you all very much.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MS. LAYTON:  Today's meeting, however, I've had 
significant conversations with several of you this morning and 
I'm going to opt to not review the agenda because I think we're 
going to have a floating with the one scheduled thing being 
that we break at 3:30 for public comment and that we begin on -
- two scheduled things, one, we break at 3:30 for public 
comment and two, we begin by working on the traceability and 
labeling numbered document number one.  Meeting objectives are 
the same.  We are planning to finalize for submission by the 
committee to the Secretary the draft report on Other Countries 
Traceability and Mandatory Labeling Regimes for Biotechnology 
Derived Products, the implications of those regimes and how the 
U.S. industry is addressing the requirements for products 
shipped to those countries.  To review and move toward 
finalization the other draft report examining the impacts of 
agriculture biotechnology on American agriculture and USDA over 
the next five to 10 years. So, with that in mind, and we're 
already a little behind schedule, we're going to work very hard 
and entertain how we get through traceability and labeling, but 
we're going to do it very thoroughly and with everyone working 
hard to meet the objectives of getting that report the way we 
discussed and everyone comfortable with it.  So with that I'm 
going to ask Cindy to start, Mike, are you going to talk a 
little bit?  Michael's going to talk a little bit of what we've 
gotten done so far and then we'll get started on the actual 
work that work product.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  I'll shorten my normal wordy 
remarks.  The work group on traceability and labeling composed 
of Randy Giroux, Ron Olson, Leon Corzine, Lisa Zannoni, Greg 
Jaffe and Dick Crowder have but in a lot of work on this 
report.  They've gone back and tried to address at least most 
of the points raised last time and they're enthusiastic about 
seeing the end of the tunnel on this document.  

For the public, let me just mention briefly what the 
structure of the report is.  It starts with an executive 
summary which is followed by the bulk of the report.  The 
report as a whole it has a brief introduction, then dives into 
different approaches that countries have adopted in setting out 
biotech labeling and traceability policies.  The policies are 
described very generically and associated with each one is a 
description of how industry is attempting to address the stated 
requirement.  There's now a description on relevant different 
international agreements, treaties that relate to these things. 
 Following that there's a large portion entitled, Commercial 
Impacts and Realities, and this section addresses more 
specifically a set of particular concerns, market tools and 
trends in seven categories that you'll hear about.  Following 
that, there's a final section in which the work group has 
highlighted certain policies and issues raised in the report 
for the Secretary to take note of.  

What's the current status of the document as of the 
work groups work?  From the prospective of the group the 
document is pretty close, but the work group had not finished 
its last go-through of all of it, and the work group 
particularly recognized that the policies issues raised section 
may need a more thorough going-over, and I'm sure that'll 
happen here.  Additionally, in the last conference call a week 
ago after extensive discussions, the work group members asked 
me to take a shot at reorganizing the existing text in one 
part, in section two on adventitious presence, and the group 
hasn't had a chance yet to review the reorganized version of 
that.  So again, the ambitious goal for this discussion is to 
finalize this report for submission to the Secretary, or at 
least to identify the very clear path for how that will happen 
in the very near future.  So before I turn the discussion over 
to Cindy, let me ask if work group members have any comments 
that they want to make before we start.
MS. SULTON:  On the proposal mode of attack on this 
that we ask the committee to give first your reactions to the 
document as a whole, the general approach, and then we would 
also ask if you have editing comments we would very much like 
to get them, but the best way we think to do that would be for 
you to submit those afterwards, and then we'll spend a great 
deal of time talking about the implications section before 
coming back and going section by section.  Is that an agreeable 
way, Carol?

MS. FOREMAN:  Given the way that we're going to 
manage the session ahead, I think I have some comments that are 
more general.  We'd like to go forward with only part of the 
report.  I know this was requested separately, but given the 
fact that the Charter expires, that the committee has to be 
renewed and new members will be coming on, I think that there's 
a possibility that the momentum for the rest of the report will 
disappear and this will end up being the full product of this 
committee.  That's a very serious problem for me.  This chapter 
is acknowledged as being written from an industry point of 
view.  It deals with very narrow, important but narrow set of 
issues and so I have real problems with going forward with it 
as a separate and independent document. Pat and I have 
discussed altering the executive summary so that it states very 
explicitly that this is the first of a three-part document, and 
that the new Secretary and the public can anticipate that the 
rest of it will be completed. I would prefer if we had a date 
on that, but I think that if we can do that and then I'm going 
to have some substantive suggestions.  But as a matter of 
process, if we can do that I think that it would ease my 
concerns.
MS. SULTON:  What is the pleasure of the rest of the 
committee about putting something like that in the Executive 
Summary?  Terry, did you want to start?

MR. MEDLEY:  I had another point, but I'll respond to 
that one.  No, I think that the committee had two very distinct 
but yet connected charges.  We were looking at completing those 
within a two-year period of time, and so I think I would 
support what Carol is saying in terms of somehow having 
language which makes it very clear that as a committee, you 
know, the first report which was the short term report we're 
responding, but also the second, the longer term, five to 10 
years, that that also and maybe we could even say that, you 
know, we intend to complete that within that time frame before 
the Charter of this committee expires. so therefore we have 
kind of a time frame.  Now, whether we can do that, I don't 
know.
MS. FOREMAN:  But a commitment always.
MR. MEDLEY:  A commitment, yes.  Yes, I think.  So, 
I'm supportive of that.  As I said I had another point I want 
to raise so.
MS. SULTON:  Any other comments on that suggestion?
MS. DILLEY:  So would the proposal be that, to draft 
specific language to reflect that and have the committee, maybe 
we can do that at lunch or something and review that post-
lunch, but the full intent of the committee to convey to the 
Secretary is this is the first of two reports that the 
committee fully intends and has made a commitment to complete.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  May I just ask one quick thing, 
Carol.  I thought that I heard you say first of three.
MS. FOREMAN:  Well, it's first of two.  I was 
thinking other chapters.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
MS. FOREMAN:  I was thinking scenarios and issues and 
I know that --
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  Thanks.
MR. MEDLEY:  Could I now ask my --
MS. SULTON:  Yes, Terry, go ahead.

MR. MEDLEY:  I think that as you went through the 
only statement I'd like to make is, as we look at the policies 
and issue section to the extent something is really a 
recommendation, I would suggest that that's not responsive to 
the charge that we had.  The charge was specifically looking at 
kind of the state of it and how industry is responding to that, 
not to necessarily make recommendations of what should happen.
MS. LAYTON:  So Terry, could you suggest which things 
you see as recommendations that --
MR. MEDLEY:  Well, I mean, not being a part of the 
work group I just, you know, I can just give you an example and 
one of the issues where I think it's a recommendation.  I mean, 
it's one that I support, but it's still a recommendation.  You 
know, number five in the policy issues is very clearly is a 
recommendation.  It says that, you know, we should establish an 
adventitious presence policy.  Now, I support that and I think 
it's needed, but I think it's not responsive to what was asked 
for in this report.
MS. LAYTON:  So you would propose deleting number 
five?

MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, and as we go through I think, 
yeah, that type of, anything which ends up that we feel is in 
fact a recommendation and not just a policy or an issue, but a 
recommendation of action, I think that, because otherwise I 
think it might adversely impact our ability to come to closure 
on the first report.
MS. SULTON:  So to be clear then, we're just talking 
about rephrasing things so that we clearly outline what the 
implications are without making recommendation, what that what 
you said?
MR. MEDLEY:  If that works or deleting if that works. 
 Whatever is appropriate.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I might just suggest that if, you 
know, we certainly don't mind getting recommendations that the 
committee as a whole has consensus on, and maybe, you know, 
they can be individual ones might be left in if everyone agrees 
on them, but if they're stumbling blocks, that makes sense and 
we may possibly, you know, a possible bit of future work that 
could come out of this is if all the recommendations are 
stripped out of this, you know, there could be possible future 
work on recommendations if the group can work on those.  We get 
the report, do what's necessary to get the report done at the 
short --

MR. MEDLEY, I mean, it's kind of like the commercial 
they have for the investment firm which says, you know, I kind 
of give my customer more than they asked for.  And I guess all 
I'm saying is as we go through this, I think it's very critical 
that we be able to finish and push the report on if 
recommendations will be a barrier and inhibit our action of the 
group, then I think it's not what was asked.  That's all I'm 
saying.  I'm just trying to give us the best way of completing 
the task.
MS. DILLEY:  You're placing the emphasis on 
expeditiousness of expediting the report as opposed to making 
recommendations?
MR. MEDLEY:  Right.  And being responsive to the 
initial request.
MS. DILLEY:  Charge.
MR. MEDLEY:  The charge from the department.
MS. SULTON:  Leon.
MR. CORZINE:  I was just wondering, Terry to address 
that concern rather than delete it, whether it was reworded, 
rather than a recommendation as this is an area of concern.  
And I don't think we would want to delete that one in 
particular.
MR. MEDLEY:  As I said I --
MR. CORZINE:  You'd be alright with that.

MS. DILLEY:  I think, I mean, I think what's been 
proposed is to get the report completed as soon as possible. We 
don't to presuppose before we review it.  However, just my 
experience and going through a 27-page document with 
recommendations is a tall order for a single meeting, so I 
think what Terry is suggesting is let's see what we got.  If 
it's going to hang up expeditiously moving the report forward, 
let's delete it because the emphasis here is on getting the 
report completed.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  But if everyone agrees to that 
sentence, then there's no problem.
MS. SULTON:  If we could return just to reaction to 
the overall report before we get to the implications section, 
to the general structure and the rewriting in accordance with 
what was said at the last meeting.  Is everyone -- Mardi, do 
you have a comment?
MS. MELLON:  I just have one observation and maybe 
it's too late to respond to it, but it does seem to me that, 
you know, that this is written from the perspective of the U.S. 
as an exporter in the grain market, and that one of the things 
I see coming in the future is that we might become importers or 
become folks, you know, where we would be getting the genes 
that have been put into grain by the Chinese, by other folks, 
so it seems to me that it, and at this point I don't think we 
want to go back and try to analyze what those issues might be, 
but it might be good to just, you know, provide some sort of 
placeholder that we're not always going to be on the exporting 
end of the stick.  We might be either on the importing end or 
the, in the position of discovering genes that are in our, you 
know, in food coming to us that are the result of adventitious 
presence in other countries.

MS. SULTON:  Carol Tucker Foreman and then Carole 
Cramer, then Terry.
MS. FOREMAN:  The chapter says in its first paragraph 
that its written to talk about impact on the agricultural food 
and feed supply chain.  There is nothing here about the impact 
of labeling and traceability requirements on the consumer and I 
think we have to acknowledge that in fact it does have an 
impact on the retail consumer.  Consumers in other countries 
get information that American consumers don't get.  And we 
don't have to say that it's good or bad that some countries 
have it and other countries don't have it, but I think we have 
to have some language that acknowledges the differences and 
that there is an impact of these differences on consumers.  
That there is some value to consumers for labels.  There is, 
and because again the product, the labeling has an impact on 
the product that the consumer gets.  In Europe consumers get 
products without genetically modified ingredients.  In the 
United States you don't unless you want to buy USDA organic or 
something makes a claim.  So we just, I think that there just 
has to be a few paragraphs that say that this is the reality 
and we don't need to get into good or bad or structures of what 
other countries do, just a discussion of the fact that this is 
the case.

MS. DILLEY:  So is that part of, just for 
clarification, is that part of explaining what the committee 
did and did not address in the bigger picture and you would 
want it to talk about, or those paragraphs to maybe talk about 
the fact that it's not talking about the perspective from the 
importer issues as well as some of the consumer issues?
MS. FOREMAN:  I think --
MS. DILLEY:  To separate those out?
MS. FOREMAN:  I think, and I'd have to think about 
the exact wording there, but I think it'd just be saying that 
the statement of fact that labeling does have an impact on 
consumers, and a little explanation of what that impact is.
MS. SULTON:  Would you be willing to draft the 
language in that regard so we could take a look and consider 
it.
MS. FOREMAN:  I would and I'm, my problem is whether 
in the light of trying to finish this today and tomorrow I can 
do that.
MS. SULTON:  I know others had their card up.  Duane, 
did you ant to respond specifically to what Carol said?

MR. GRANT:  Yeah, just specifically to that point, 
Carol.  It's kind of in there on page 6, paragraph (c), it 
talks about a little toward frameworks for agricultural 
biotechnology that require mandatory biotechnology specific 
labeling and it talks about in the text that these requirements 
are based often on a right-to-know policy.  I think that that 
might be a place where the emphasis on the consumer's right to 
know in specific markets might be drawn out perhaps a little 
bit more and I'd suggest that as a place to add some 
modification directly acknowledging the role that consumers 
play in those markets.
MS. SULTON:  I'm going to take a priority here and 
stay on this same point, Greg, please.

MR. JAFFE:  I guess I would have a, I think Carol's 
raised a very good point.  I think this chapter is, and I've 
been on the working group, the one thing is missing is sort of 
the last part of the chain which is the impact on consumers, 
and I think it probably does deserve several paragraphs, three 
or four paragraphs to sort of talk about that.  I guess I would 
put it somewhere different, Duane.  I wouldn't put it there 
because that's just sort of an explanation of different 
regulatory frameworks, but I think in our section two, 
commercial impacts realities, it would be logical after 
markets, you know, as one of those seven bullets, seven 
different headings to have a heading here that said impact on 
consumers.  We have impact on new market segmentation and we 
have a whole bunch of different things there, and we would just 
have an eight section there that would be impact on consumers 
and it would be three or four paragraphs or something like 
that.  If it's not to be written in the next day and a half, 
I'd be happy to help Carol write it, but if it's something to 
be done the next day and a half, I don't have the time for that 
at this point.
MS. SULTON:  Okay, Ron.
MR. OLSON:  I'll just add to what Greg has said.  
It's also on page 26 in the food system, we talk about right to 
know and how, if we haven't expanded it uses the word consumer, 
but we've talked about the marketing and stuff like that, and I 
don't have a problem expanding that somewhat.  Whether you use 
the word consumer or whatever, I mean, we can add some language 
in there to expand, but I think the reports hit at it, and then 
what Mardi said earlier too, there is a section about, you 
know, it's also talked about events approved elsewhere but not 
in the U.S., but we just didn't expand on it because the idea 
was to describe what's happening today more so than what's 
going to happen in the future in this particular report.  The 
big report is what's going to happen five to 10 years from now 
and this one was more what's going on today, and today we 
really don't have a scenario, we talked about it but only 
briefly and the work group debated that quite a bit, that's why 
that piece is small.  It's there, but small because it doesn't 
exist today. But we did put it in there just to alert the 
Secretary that this could be an issue that comes up in the 
future.

MS. SULTON:  So we have a proposed suggestion on this 
point.  Is there anybody else on this particular point?
MR. MEDLEY:  Yes.  I have a comment on this point.
MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Terry.
MR. MEDLEY:  I think that having it under the section 
that Greg talked about in terms of commercial impact or 
realities is fine.  I think the extent to what Carol has raised 
and the types of comments, but it seems to me that so far what 
I've heard is incomplete.  I mean, if you're going to talk 
about, I would say commercial impacts and realities, you would 
not only talk about the reason why consumers wanted labeling, 
you would also have to get into cost that might be associated 
with specific labeling, and that, you know, that's another 
impact and that is a reality.  And so I'm not exactly sure of 
what are the components per se would be in this section, but I 
think clearly when you talk about traceability labeling on the 
commercial impacts and realities, that is an area that needs to 
be addressed.

MS. FOREMAN:  Can you provide information about what 
the additional cost is in Europe now to non-source?  The 
labeling itself.  Once you've got all of these things that 
everybody's getting, the identity preservation, mechanisms for 
controlling adventitious presence, you've already spent that 
money.  So the money that would be in addition for labeling I 
think is just the cost of changing labels.  In Europe right now 
you're already sourcing to get non-GM products.  The only thing 
that would be added there would be the cost of the label and 
there's a lot of data about the impact of nutrition labeling, 
the cost of nutrition labeling, the initial cost was fairly 
substantial.  I'll defer to Ron, but I think now the continuing 
cost is really not significant.
MR. MEDLEY:  Then Carol, I think in that context then 
I would go back to what Duane said in terms of under right to 
know than in why wouldn't you put that in that concept?
MS. FOREMAN:  Because I think that what it needs is 
something that says that there is, a subhead that says consumer 
impact, different affects on consumer information.  I'm not 
sure what we'd call it, but it needs to have a little subhead.
MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
MS. FOREMAN:  And it is touched on in these areas. 
It's really touched on in terms of what the impact will be on 
the industry without a discussion of what the impact is on the 
people who eat the food.
MS. SULTON:  If we don't have time to draft it, is it 
possible we could get just a delineation of the major points 
that you want to make under that?
MS. FOREMAN:  That I think is a more realistic 
assignment during the period of the meeting.

MS. SULTON:  All right.  Carole Cramer.
MS. CRAMER:  So initially I was just responding to 
Mardi which is, I think our job here is in this report is to do 
the now so that the import I think is more of a topic for the 
next report, but one of the things that I did sort of look at 
and not see, and mostly it's just a question, but right now we 
actually have a couple of small market crops that are biotech 
crops on the market, and I was just sort of to the committee, I 
guess the working group, the report has a lot of bias toward 
commodity crops which I think was where the issue really is, 
but we might just want to consider whether or not we've covered 
things like, you know, the papaya issue and exported papaya and 
see that those things that we've addressed cover sort of small 
market minor crops as well and whether or not there's a little 
bit of added language where we should see whether traceability 
is an issue for these crops and whether it's been integrated in 
the same way or is anticipated.
MS. SULTON:  Randy.

MR. GIROUX:  I believe that I agree that we should 
have some additional information on the consumer.  I think 
that's appropriate, but at least from my perspective, the 
supply chain serves the consumer and strives to produce those 
things that the consumer wants.  So to say that the consumer is 
not part of, you know, that the industry is doing this but this 
is what the consumers are doing, it seems like, it just seems 
like a disconnect to me.  I mean, from my perspective, the 
development of all these non-GMO programs are a direct response 
to what the consumers want, and so those, the commercial 
impacts of the needs of the consumer in countries that don't 
want biotech develop non-GMO programs and the industry responds 
to their consumer need, desire and develops those programs, so 
I, to have a separate section about the consumer, suggesting 
that the consumer is not part of the supply chain, that the 
role of the food company is not to serve the needs of the 
consumer.  That makes me feel a little uncomfortable, so I 
don't know how we figure that out.

MR. CORZINE:  I'm like Randy, I'm a little confused 
by that because I think at the end of the day I've been to a 
number of things, we talk about consumers and the economics are 
the driver and the consumer pays with, they vote, I guess you 
would say with the food basket, what they put in their food 
basket and how much they pay for different things that are 
labeled is determined by, we have a lot of those niche markets 
here.  I also wanted to mention, you know, I think there's a 
misconception.  If you want to make the statement, Carol, that 
there's very little cost to labeling and traceability in 
Europe, because it's just absolutely not true.  Greg and I were 
both at a conference not very long ago where we were talking 
about that and they don't know yet how they're going to 
implement their labeling and traceability, and the longest 
presentation was on a fellow with a company that was trying to 
figure that out and had a system that turns out basically to be 
a witch hunt that is only accurate one out of three or two out 
of three, one out of three is going to be inaccurate.  And 
Greg, if you remember, they wouldn't even talk about the cost. 
 It was probably going to be in the billions of dollars for 
them to get this implemented across Europe so, I guess a 
comment is just there's, don't, let's not have an impression 
that there's no cost in Europe to what they are trying to do 
out there and they certainly are not there yet.
MS. SULTON:  Carol.

MS. FOREMAN:  Responding backwards.  I did 
acknowledge that the initial costs are substantial after that, 
or at least they were on nutrition labeling.  Right now because 
the companies are taking steps to have non-GMO sourced products 
in the EU there is no cost.  Consumers are getting a different 
product there than they're getting in the United States.  I 
don't want to put any value judgments on that, that's a reality 
and I want it stated as a reality.  Randy, by definition the 
retail consumer is not part of the supply chain.  The supply 
chain ends either one it leaves the hands of the food processor 
I would say or the food retailer and then the consumption of 
the product begins.  We're not part of the supply chain.  We're 
supposed to drive it.  But in the case of this technology it 
was, I think, acknowledged in this document in several places 
that so far its been a supply-push rather than a demand-pull 
technology.  So, in fact, right now it is not a reflection of a 
consumer demand.
MR. CORZINE:  Just one other thing, Cindy.  For the 
record I strongly disagree that Europe is not paying a cost and 
they're continuing to pay a huge cost if you really take a hard 
look at what's available to them and what they're paying.  
There definitely is a big cost.
MS. FOREMAN:  You think that there's a cost to 
consumers?
MR. CORZINE:  Definitely.  No doubt.
MS. LAYTON:  To be more specific, are you saying 
that, for example, I hate to be naive, but I want to really get 
clear on this.  That, for example, they're paying more for 
grain in order to source it, non-GMO and therefore it's, the 
price of bread, not bread because it's not wheat, but the price 
of Tostitos might be higher, not to use a brand name.  The 
price of corn chips might be higher because of sourcing it in 
non-GMO?

MR. CORZINE:  I think there are a lot of examples. 
The consumers paying more at the store.  They are paying, and I 
think that's the ultimate cost.  I think, I know there are also 
examples, now they're getting some GM-labeled products that 
they are able to sell at a lesser cost than they are selling in 
Denmark, in Germany, in other places.  It's not large yet, but 
so there is a price differentiation that people are paying so 
there are a lot of examples.  The consumer is paying the higher 
cost in Europe.
MS. FOREMAN:  You know, somebody is going to have to 
show me the data on that because, in fact, I think what you're 
seeing is that the competition within the market is bringing 
the price down, but my argument is that all the way through 
this chapter is the discussion of all the steps that are being 
taken to implement steps to get products separate. Those 
expenses have already been absorbed or are already being 
absorbed.  I just want to talk about the fact that the consumer 
is getting something different in Europe than they're getting 
in the United States, and either that or they're getting 
information we're not getting in the United States.  We don't 
have to make a judgment about whether that's good or bad, I 
just want to --
MR. CORZINE:  I agree, but just don't put out the 
misconception that they're not paying a price because they are.
MS. SULTON:  Terry.

MR. MEDLEY:  I guess on the point.  Maybe one path 
forward might be picking up Carol on your last statement.  
There are discussions throughout the document in terms of where 
because of the labeling requirements food manufacturers will 
source non-GM so to avoid the labeling.  So maybe if we can 
then build upon that and have maybe just a few bullets of major 
points we wanted to raise about the consumer getting a 
different product, then we'd have an essence of the kind of 
what we want to add so we don't get into the others, and then 
maybe we could move forward.  We do make that statement in here 
that they are sourcing non-GM to avoid labeling.
MS. FOREMAN:  But that is all, I agree with you, 
Terry, those things are all stated from a point of view of the 
supplier.  I just want a couple of paragraphs about from the 
point of view of the people who eat.
MR. MEDLEY:  So that's what I'm saying.  If we could 
what those key points are then I think, you know, we can kind 
of move forward on it.
MS. SULTON:  And Carol, you've agreed to give us 
those key --
MS. LAYTON:  Well, could we have a little group get 
together at lunch, Carol and Greg also said he would help.  Is 
there a possibility of getting together at lunch and sort of 
jotting those down so that we can work them into language?

MS. FOREMAN:  I have some commitment at lunch and 
unfortunately I can't stay late this evening.  So I don't want 
to hold up the whole group while we negotiate the details of 
this.  When we break for lunch let's get together and see what 
we can do that can handle this in a timely fashion.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay good.  Is everybody comfortable 
with that?  Randy?
MR. GIROUX:  Yeah, I just want to make sure that we 
give whoever the people are that leave at lunch a very clear 
work product to go and develop.  It would be unfortunate for us 
to not clearly understand and agree as a committee what is the 
deliverable to come out of that lunch group so that we, and 
when they do bring it back potentially we could go through that 
list and we could get agreeing on committee at yes, nos, are 
the key bullet points and now somebody go develop some text 
around that.  If we could come back after lunch and have that 
and talk about what those key points are, get consensus that 
those are points and they need to belong somewhere in this 
document and they need to be articulated in paragraph.  I'd be 
comfortable if we could get to that point with this group, not 
just to send them off and say, you know, develop some key 
points.  Why don't we take a few moments to make sure that 
whoever our subgroup is clearly understands what the committee 
would like to see when they come back, I'd feel a lot more 
comfortable.
MS. SULTON:  Would you like to make some suggestions 
in that area?  Anyone else?  About what that small group should 
approach.

MS. FOREMAN:  Obviously the key points that I think 
should be there are that there is a difference that consumers 
in some countries have access to information about whether 
products contain genetically modified ingredients, and that in 
some countries consumers are getting as a matter of course 
products that are free of genetically modified ingredients, 
that in the United States that information is not generally 
available and the products are generally as we know genetically 
modified.  I think there probably needs to be a paragraph that 
talks about the value of labels for consumers. There are 
paragraphs all the way through this chapter that talk about the 
value to different parts of the food chain for specific things 
that apply on the other end, and I can read you some of those 
paragraphs if you want.  And, those are the key points that I 
would see.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Could you expand on what you mean by 
the value of the label to consumers?
MS. FOREMAN:  Consumers are benefitted by having 
information.  This gives them information that in this country 
an overwhelming majority of consumers say they would like to 
have.  From the consumer end we believe that information helps 
you make an informed decision and therefore spend your money in 
a way that is most effective and efficient in getting you the 
product that you want.  I don't know what more I can say about 
it then that.

MS. SULTON:  Juan and then Greg.
MR. ENRIQUEZ-CABOT:  I'm not a member of this group 
so if I say something that you've already discussed, excuse me. 
 I think part of the problem that we're having is we're 
discussing three things that are completely different and three 
completely different objectives in the idea of tracing and 
labeling.  
The first issue is sometimes you want to have tracing 
and labeling because you want consumer education and you want 
consumer choice.  Then there's a second objective which is you 
want food safety.  And then there's a third objective of this 
which is you want environmental safety.  And the break points 
on what you have to do in those systems and how much you're 
going to spend are completely different because there's a 
hierarchy of these things, and I think if you broke it out and 
you said okay, here's part of what this committee or this group 
came to.  The following things should be traced and labeled 
immediately, and you know, basically if you're going to move 
this from here to here.  

All of us agree, let's go and do that.  Then these 
things we think should have standards set soon because they're 
breaking commerce or they're making things more difficult, but 
it's not an issue of environmental or food safety.  
Particularly with things like Tommy Thompson's comments and 
other things, these are issues that are now being mixed with 
things that have nothing to do with food, they have to do with 
geopolitics and stuff.  
And I think tracing and labeling, you know, it's not 
the same doing tracing and labeling because you want educated 
consumers as because you want to ensure safety in the food 
system, which you're going to do in one system and another, and 
the cost you're going to put in one system or another, and 
who's going to bear the cost of one system or another are very 
different requirements depending on why you're asking for that 
tracing and labeling.  
And I think in the measure that you say here are the 
minimum standards for environmental safety.  Here are the 
minimum standards for food safety.  And here are the minimum 
standards for products that really are very different from what 
is sitting out there and here's why they're different.  Then 
you can take a whole chunk of this thing and say, in the short 
term let's make these changes to the system and let's not take 
on the entire system and try and agree on absolutely every 
product, on absolutely everything here, and then let's agree to 
disagree on how soon the following things should be done, and 
then let's say, you know, these are things which are relatively 
minor changes.  

And I think part of what's going to happen in this 
group is if you try and take those three issues and everybody's 
arguing about live modified organisms moving from one place to 
another, and other people arguing about whether the small 
change in X corn seed really means that is it a different 
product or not.  You're going to start butting heads on this 
thing because you've got three very different objectives in 
agendas going here, and by the way, you may have agendas that 
have nothing to do with agriculture or this department that are 
going to come in and impose a series of things regardless of 
what we decide if we don't take those into account.
MS. SULTON:  Juan, I think when the committee was 
deliberating they stayed away from why countries came up with 
particular frameworks but rather just described what is, and I 
understand perhaps that makes it more difficult to move into 
recommendations without having that, but that's not -- I don't 
think it's structured that -- but Greg, you were on the 
committee and you had another comment anyway.

MR. JAFFE:  I mean I agree with what they're saying, 
Cindy.  I'm not sure that's what Juan was getting at, but I 
mean, I do, I strongly believe that we should not get into in 
this report explaining why we think different countries have 
identified, set up regulatory systems that have labeling in 
them.  I think that's just a, I've been a strong believer that 
that becomes a "he said, she said," you know, somebody thinks 
it's a trade barrier, somebody else thinks it's an information 
access.  There's a whole host of reasons and I don't want to 
get into saying why the EU has it, I think we should be value 
neutral and say this is what they have and so forth.  But I 
don't think we have to get into that to discuss what Carol 
wants to say and what I agree with in terms of a separate 
section on consumer impacts or consumer realities.  
And I was trying to get at, what Michael questioned, 
that he asked of Carol, and a little bit of what I think would 
go in this section, I think all those points Abby made are 
correct and just trying to espouse a little more on the value 
of labels, and I think what would fit in to me in the few 
paragraphs that would be written in this section would be a lot 
of our other sections, and I think it would fit in very well 
with our other sections, we don't talk solely about biotech.  
We talk about market segmentation generally.  We talk about 
identity preservation generally.  We talk about ways that the 
system is beginning to differentiate products.  

I think labeling and consumer information and 
education is a similar activity that's happening these days. 
People want to know whether they have free-range beef and there 
are systems being put in place for that.  Country of origin 
labeling, organic, the internet, people want more information, 
they want to differentiate it, be it for environmental reasons, 
they want to support a certain environmental method, they think 
one is more nutritious for them, whether or not it is, and I 
think what those points, the points that are up there are 
specific to biotech and I think those are good, but I think 
we'd also want a paragraph here saying generally that in 
today's internet information world knowing whether something's 
biotech fits in very much with the consumers who want to know 
information about a host of things, country of origin labeling, 
how their beef was made and so forth and so on.  
And I think that, and that there are market systems 
being put in place to address those currently where there's a 
demand and so forth, and I think that would very much fit this 
three or four paragraph section in with some of the other 
sections under the commercial realities where we talk not just 
about the biotech specifically, but we talk to a degree about 
how markets and things are dealing with setting up systems.
MS. FOREMAN:  Sounds like an introductory paragraph 
to me.

MR. JAFFE:  And I think that'll get to the value of 
labels, that consumers these days, it's not so much valuing 
labels, but consumers are much more valuing information about 
their foods for health reasons, for safety reasons, for 
whatever reasons they're doing it, they're placing a value on 
that and voicing that value in the marketplace for the kinds of 
products they pick, and the marketplace is responding by 
setting up different systems, and I think that could be a 
context for this.
MS. SULTON:  Michael did you?
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, actually I wanted to just 
probe a little bit further for you and Carol on this issue 
because I know Carol spoke initially about the desire to link 
the two reports or to make specific note in this report of the 
other report and also there is very specifically an issue that 
I think, it's not before the committee today, but it's an issue 
I think that you, if I'm not mistaken, Greg, worked on 
consumers are looking for more information.  That there's an 
increased demand for information, so I'm trying to think of how 
to, to what extent it needs to be repeated here or linked to 
the other and just what the correct interplay is between the 
two.
MS. FOREMAN:  I would suggest that we can handle it 
that way if we handle adventitious presence and all the other 
issues that are discussed in the issues chapter the same way.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay, I just wanted to see where the 
touchiness is.
MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Terry.

MR. MEDLEY:  I'm just trying to get clarity on where 
we are at this point in time, and I'm hearing a couple 
different things but I like the point, Greg, that you raised 
last about trying to address this from a more generic 
perspective of what's happening in the market place as it 
relates to consumers and information about their food rather 
than the specific biotech response.  And I think that that 
might provide a way to move forward because when I look at the 
initial list, I was starting to wonder how responsive it is to 
the charge which is really looking at this proliferation of 
different and varying traceability labeling requirements and 
then how does that impact, what's the impact it has and I think 
that in a more generic sense it then fits in when you start 
talking about food systems, there's one section on food systems 
you can actually get into that in a more general sense, so I'm 
much more comfortable with that type of general prospective 
than the more narrow specific biotech, but --
MS. SULTON:  Greg, could you --

MR. JAFFE:  Terry, I was suggesting both.  Having 
that first and then the specific.  And I do think the specific 
fits within the charge because one of them was, what is the 
impact, and I think what Carol wants to say is one of the 
impacts is that the products in Europe are different from the 
products in the U.S.  The consumer gets a different product, 
one having biotech, one not having biotech.  A second 
difference is they get information on a label that other 
consumers don't get.  Now whether those are material, some 
consumers may think those are material or not material, but 
those are impacts.  I do think our charge while it's not just 
to talk about, was to talk about some of the impacts.  I think 
those do fit in.  But I think they'll feel better in the 
context of the way consumers are wanting information these days 
about a host of things.
MS. DILLEY:  Procedurally yes where we are and I 
think the committee was trying to respond directly to Randy's 
suggestion which is if we're going to have people go off and 
write some language, what are we asking them to write.  Where 
it goes in the report we'll need to figure that out when they 
come back with the language, but I think right now we're trying 
to get clarity on what are the particular points that people 
want to see in additionally drafted language.  So if we can 
stick with that and see what other points, if there are other 
points that need to be made and then the group can go off and 
at least draft some initial bullets that can then be turned 
into text later.
MS. SULTON:  Are there any other points that one 
would like to give for the groups that's going off to come up 
with some bullets?  Terry.

MR. MEDLEY:  I guess what I'm struggling with as we 
do this is not the first point in terms of the accessed 
information or the value of information, the value of label, I 
guess what I'm struggling with is this whole concept of 
transgenic-free.  I mean I'm just struggling with that because 
if you don't have systems in place, just how accurate is the 
statement we're making?  That's my only concern.
MS. SULTON:  I guess, the phrase "transgenic-free," 
where are you --
MS. DILLEY:  I was trying to stay away from GMO- 
free.  I think Carol made two points, which was there are 
products that have information, the label provides information 
to make choices and then also the result is the product and I 
don't know what the appropriate terminology is you want to call 
it, but there's obviously an effort that comes through in the 
report that people are sourcing to have products that are 
"transgenic-free," if you will.
MR. MEDLEY:  No, I understand, but it's just the 
commercial reality of even when we get into IP systems there 
are, you know "IP light."
MS. FOREMAN:  Terry, there are other areas of this 
chapter where it is stated, where it is assumed that the 
industry is successfully sourcing non-GM, so if you want to 
open the notion that they're not getting a non-GM product in 
Europe, we're going to have to go back and rewrite a lot of 
this chapter.

MR. MEDLEY:  No, I mean, this gets into the 
percentage, it was just the whole concept of we've talked about 
this whole concept of not achieving zero and not free 
throughout.  I mean even in those systems, so just this concept 
of free was just so positive, that's all I was saying.
MS. FOREMAN:  I didn't, I tried to use the language 
that was already used in the chapter or the report with regard 
to the other sourcing.
MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, that would be good, yeah.
MS. SULTON:  So rather than "transgenic-free," "not 
sourced from."
MS. FOREMAN:  This is a language problem and I don't 
have any objection.
MS. MELLON:  But the issue is sourcing.
MR. MEDLEY:  I'm much more comfortable with that.
MS. SULTON:  Ron.

MR. OLSON:  And I think the report, we tried to leave 
a lot of that in there, I mean there is sections that talk 
about, it depends on what the tolerance is.  You know, if you 
go to Europe there is a defined tolerance which allows you then 
to operate under an environment and you choose whether you can 
manage that risk or not or whether you want to incur the 
expense of operating under that risk level.  We also alluded 
that most of the players in the supply chain prior to the 
consumer probably go tighter than what their regulation is to 
make sure that they don't screw it up, so if somebody wants a 
nine-tenths percent, a lot of the originators are at a half 
percent or less, or one-tenth of a percent.  They don't want 
any.  But not having any is not the right option because you 
can't get there in most cases, whether it's Europe or anywhere, 
zero is impossible.  so that's why we threw in that section 
about acceptable zero, but we also tried to allude that 
depending on where the market is, the cost varies so much 
depending whether it's five percent tolerance or nine-tenths.  
There's a major difference in cost.  And so we tried to weave 
all that through the report.  We just didn't pull it out and 
write it in a paragraph.  But I think it's woven through there 
reasonably well to try to capture it.  Now, I agree with Carol 
we didn't, you know, say this is the consumer's, you know, I 
mean the U.S. has voluntary labeling and you can label products 
non-GMO here, but that's a whole section then on adventitious 
presence because if you label it non-GMO in the U.S., what is 
the tolerance?

MR. MEDLEY:  No, the thing I was raising here is the 
point you just raised and that is when you talk about labeling, 
what I saw and again I didn't participate in this group, it is 
too much "EU-centric."  Another major market for our products, 
of course, is Japan.  Japan has a very different system for 
labeling requirements.  It's a much higher level.  You know if 
you look at South Korea, so that's why I was just saying, I 
just, that was one of the reasons for saying that the "free" 
part bothered me because those systems are all very different. 
 I mean five percent, three percent.
MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Michael.

MR. DYKES:  I just want to comment.  As I look at the 
title, global traceability labeling requirements for 
agricultural derived biotech derived products impacts and 
implications for the U.S., I think one of the things that comes 
out if you look at all these different systems, consumers all 
over the world are going to be getting different kinds of 
things because we've got several different examples of all 
different kinds of systems that are being put in place, and I 
don't have a count of them in this document but they're all 
over the map in terms of systems.  They're all over the map in 
terms of an exemption list, and they're all over the map in 
terms of decimals, .9, five percent, whatever, just the recent 
examples.  So I think that's kind of, it's woven throughout 
this report that there are different things happening in 
different world areas.  One of the comments I was going to make 
about this report is that I think that the latter half of this 
chapter we start citing countries where these things are 
happening.  In the first part of that report we don't cite 
which countries we're talking about whenever you're talking 
about a particular system.  Coming back to the comment about 
the work group and what are we going to do, I'm fine with, and 
I thought, I don't know who made the comment, I don't know if 
it was Carol, someone having, where we talk about the impacts 
on market segmentation impact, having a section in there on 
impact of consumers where we spell out some of those points I 
think that's fine, but I also agree with Randy, I think the 
work we're doing here to get this kind of clear so that we can 
get something to come back and look at so we don't keep kicking 
this can down the field about text and revising text and so 
forth, so.
MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Do we feel like we have enough 
specificity for the group to go away with to come back and give 
us something else to which we might react?  All right.  Are 
there other issues or other responses to the overall report?  
Terry.

MR. MEDLEY:  I think that in the summary of our 
plenary meeting notes, on page four, the comment was raised 
back in September that we were talking about this term list 
that, and I'll read, it says that, at the beginning of the doc 
which you refer to commercial risk and then use consistently in 
that sense throughout the text.  I think that you will find in 
our current version that there still are several places where 
risk is used in an undefined context, and that we need to 
follow this and have it consistent throughout the report in 
terms of we're talking about the type of commercial risk 
because otherwise it gets back to Juan's point of the different 
types, whether its health or environment.  And I think it was 
in more of a commercial risk context and that was raised before 
in our September meeting.
MS. SULTON:  So you're just suggesting that we go 
back through the document and make sure we defined it.
MR. MEDLEY:  Make sure we do what we said what we 
were going to do back then is throughout the document use it 
consistently in terms of commercial risk.
MS. SULTON:  So a word search.
MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah.
MS. SULTON:  Anything else?  Any other points about 
the document as a whole in general and how well we responded to 
the issues that were raised the last time?  Michael.
MR. DYKES:  I do have one specific point to Terry's 
that I also wanted to raise as well on page 22.  Testing-
associated risk is one case in point of what Terry is talking 
about.
MS. DILLEY:  In terms of qualifying that as a 
commercial risk.
MR. DYKES:  Yeah, well I mean I don't think there's 
any real health and safety risk in testing.
MS. DILLEY:  Testing an associated commercial risk.

MR. DYKES:  Yes.  Spell it out or just make it 
testing.  I think testing and risk in the same sentence 
requires more.
 		MS. CRAMER:  If I could add something on that.  I had 
listed on mine as well.  Should we consider in the first place 
where we placed definitions of adventitious presence that we 
add risk in there from a point of view to delineate that we're 
not talking necessarily safety risk but a commercial risk and 
this is what we mean?
MR. DYKES:  I guess to Carole's point on definition, 
that was another point I had on page four, there are several 
definitions there.  I wonder if those shouldn't be moved, now 
that we have a definition section, that those shouldn't be 
moved to definitions.
MS. LAYTON:  Definitions are in the next report, not 
in this report.
MR. DYKES:  Oh, okay.
MS. LAYTON:  This is the definitions for this report.
MR. MEDLEY:  That was a comment I had also, that if 
we are going to make it the definition section, why not make it 
clear because here it just flows into it in terms of multiple 
paragraphs.  But it really is the definition section, we don't 
call it that.  We kind of talk about, it's in the introduction 
we talk about general things, how the report is divided and 
then we list biotechnology, labeling, industry, et cetera.

MS. LAYTON:  So, one point, I mean if the 
introduction was 1.0 then 1.1 would be, if you can have a 1.1 
without a 1.2, definitions.  Or at least an italicized heading 
right above the term, while the broad term biotechnology refers 
to the use of, we would have a section that says definitions or 
key terms.
MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, other words like what Carole just 
raised, they would fit and you would see it, and you would know 
it as you were going through the report.  Here are key terms 
and how they're defined.
MS. LAYTON:  And so editorially suggesting putting a 
heading before that paragraph that starts off, while the broad 
term biotechnology.  We could say something like key terms or 
key definitions.
MS. SULTON:  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  I guess going to that, I think that one 
of the things that usually is put in a report of this nature in 
the introduction is some discussion about how we did this 
report, some of the procedures, and there is no discussion 
about that.  I mean, I can't remember whether we had any 
presentations that were relevant to this report.  That this 
really is a report just based on the collective knowledge of 
the members in the committee and the companies and 
organizations they represent.  I don't think we did take a lot 
of outside testimony or information about this.

MS. LAYTON:  We did have at least one I know because 
we had the guy talking about the testing systems.
MR. JAFFE:  So I'm saying I think we need to put in a 
few paragraphs about we had a subgroup and we've met how many 
times and what we've done to sort of generate this report.  I 
think that would be helpful, not just how it's divided.
MS. LAYTON:  So add a procedures paragraph to the 
introduction?
MR. JAFFE:  Yeah.  A couple of paragraphs, whatever, 
saying --
MS. SULTON:  A process.
MR. JAFFE:  Process, procedure, yeah.
MS. SULTON:  Michael.
MR. DYKES:  Another general comment in here is I 
think this report is talking about plant-based products, but I 
think it's also on select uses and I think there are other, 
there's a couple of places in here and if we're going to go 
through it section by section because I'm just thinking about 
this generally speaking, there are a couple of sections where I 
think we need to highlight that other biotech food 
applications, and when we talk about the sections on the EU 
that do not require labeling, food additives, food colorings, 
enzymes, those kinds of things.  That's missing from this 
discussion.

MS. LAYTON:  Can I raise a point?
MS. SULTON:  Yes, Pat.
MS. LAYTON:  I wanted to ask is the title still 
appropriate.  We really, we speak a lot about the feed and 
grain industry and so I was just wondering is it impacts and 
implications for the United States or impacts and implications 
for U.S. feed and grain at this rate?  Or food and feed 
industry or supply chains?  I'm just asking a question of us, 
is a little bit more succinct title more applicable on this 
report?  And I didn't write it, and it's very naive and you can 
tell me no.
MS. SULTON:  Duane.
MR. GRANT:  I think it's a well taken point, Pat.  I 
guess rather than change the title, what I would like to do is 
really to follow up on Michael's point, make sure that we adapt 
the text as we go through so that the text can accommodate all 
of the different products that are out there, and I've got a 
couple of notes on mine that I'll bring up as we hit each 
section.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, excellent.
MS. SULTON:  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  I mean, I guess from the committee's 
point of view I think we were pretty much limiting this to the 
feed and, the grain and grain products situation.
MS. LAYTON:  You say that in the document.

MR. JAFFE:  And we say that and maybe we need to say 
it more specifically up front in the introduction, but I mean, 
I would advocate to still limit it to that.  There aren't 
animals out there yet and so to start speculating about how 
animals and things are going through that, and in terms of the 
regulatory things, the response to Michael's comment, I mean I 
think our view, the view is not, we went through for the whole 
first third of the report when we talked about different 
regulatory systems, went through, do we identify specific 
countries and their specific exemptions and we decided not to 
do that.  We tried to make it a generic thing.  

We don't, not one size fits all.  We don't talk about 
every different .9 versus .5 percent threshold.  We don't talk 
about every specific product that they don't exempt or they do 
exempt and things like that, and so I think the committee's 
view we did talk about enzymes and things like that and we said 
not, we made an affirmative decision not to include those, not 
to put discussions about what exemptions different, specific 
countries have.  We wanted to talk generically about the 
different labeling and traceability things in part because 
they're moving targets.  I mean, I think we do identify several 
times in this report that they constantly change.  These are 
regulations that are in flux, they are changing, and as we were 
writing this report something changed in Brazil, and nothing 
changed here in there and a new EU system came into place and 
so the goal was not to, we used them as examples in the second 
half of the report where they are appropriate, we identify a 
specific thing and there are always a couple that represents 
the EU because they have a traceability system that others 
don't have.  But overall we didn't want to have to identify 
every particular kind of exemption for each specific country 
and did it more generically and I think that's something that 
we did think about and talk about.
MR. DYKES:  If I could just respond.
MS. SULTON:  Yes, Mike.

MR. DYKES:  Yeah, I agree, Greg.  I don't think we 
need to get into the whole pages of all the different 
exemptions or the different starches and all those different 
kinds of things.  I just think where it's a matter of a 
difference in policy we should list that.  Sometimes it's 
important to say, and again, I come back to the example, the 
EU, I just think, and when we go through specific section I can 
give you what my thoughts are about that because it's only two 
or three words.  It's important to say what's not included 
because it's a bit contradictory on the policy.  But to get 
through specific items that are exempted, and I totally agree 
with you on that.  My other point about the countries was, I 
just think as you read it and you, and again, not that it's an 
exhaustive list because I agree with you, it's evolving.  But 
as you read about a particular system, if you don't mention one 
or two countries or where it's being implemented or where it 
was just passed or something, you have no context as to, so 
where is that?  Is anybody in the world requiring it or doing 
it or implementing it?  That was my only point.  Not that it 
would be the exhaustive deal end all, but at least you got some 
idea, okay, so that's the kind of thing they're talking about 
Australia, or wherever it may be.
MS. SULTON:  Okay, we'll get to that as we go 
through, when we get back to going through.  Juan, did you have 
another bit issue?  A broad issue?
MR. ENRIQUEZ-CABOT:  I think Pat's comment is exactly 
right on target because I think what you've got is a report on 
global trace and labeling requirements for food and feed 
derived from agricultural biotechnology products, commercial 
implications for the United States.  Because what you don't, I 
mean, what worries me a little bit about this is that it seems 
to be a black and white issue.  

You label and you trace or you don't label and you 
trace.  And if you're going to take on the whole of the systems 
as opposed to just the food or the feed system, you don't have 
a hierarchy of why you don't want to trace these things.  Do 
they reproduce in a different country when they move across?  
Are you talking about an animal or a piece of grain?  Are you 
talking a seed that can go into the ground and reproduce or are 
you talking about a seed that's been processed and won't 
reproduce?  Those are entirely different issues as to how much 
and how accurate you want to be and what your standards are 
going to be.  I think there should be a very different standard 
for a seed that if taken out of that packet can go in the 
ground and reproduce with the same GM application than from a 
seed that has gone into a food and has been processed and will 
not go into the ground and will not reproduce when it crosses a 
border.  Maybe that's just me.
MS. MELLON:  But it is a different port to actually 
go back and develop.  You don't discuss the policies underlying 
all these recommendations.
MR. ENRIQUEZ-CABOT:  That's why this idea of changing 
the title of it and being specific about what you're talking 
about in tracing and labeling it makes a lot of sense because 
otherwise we're going to make recommendations on things that 
can have very different effects when they have crossed borders. 
 And I don't think that's a debate if you label or you don't 
label, right.  I think it's very different when you take a 
piece of grain that can grow someplace else across a border and 
if you take a processed grain across a border, just conceptual.

MS. DILLEY:  Grits is different than corn.  So the 
specific title change would be global traceability and labeling 
and commerce for plant agricultural biotechnology derived 
products impacts and implications for the U.S. food and feed 
supply chain?  To get more specific about what is and is not 
and then a further elaboration along Michael Dykes' points and 
Greg's in terms of this report addresses current plant-based 
products only, that's the last line of the second paragraph, 
and then elaborate on what it does and does not cover?
MS. SULTON:  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  I mean, I guess the question is, I'm not 
sure whether the food and feed does it for me as opposed to 
grain and grain products because food and feed is.
MS. LAYTON:  So get even more specific.
MR. JAFFE:  The papayas and things like that which we 
really don't discuss very much, if at all in the report.
MS. DILLEY:  So grain and grain products did you say?
MR. JAFFE:  Yeah.
MS. SULTON:  Randy.

MR. GRANT:  I guess I'm just getting more and more 
confused because if we say it's the feed food and feed supply 
chain, where does the consumer fit in that because I think 
Carol you just finished telling me that they're not part of the 
food and feed supply chain.  And then if we talk about grain 
and grain products, so we need to be very careful here and 
we're trying, we had a very broad title which was all-
encompassing but all the stakeholders have to be part of this 
document.  If we're going to start narrowing the scope of this 
document down, you know we can qualify what we're going to talk 
about, but if we choose to title this the food and feed supply 
chain, Carol where does that put you?
MS. FOREMAN:  Yeah, I agree with you.  I like it the 
way it is.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, I just brought it up.  Then keep 
the title broad like it is and then just elaborate and what you 
do and do not cover within the text of the introduction. 
Everybody comfortable with that?
MS. FOREMAN:  I think that should be okay.
MS. LAYTON:  Then as we go through, we're going to 
make sure we've got the right words there.  Because we're not 
going to talk papaya, right?
MS. SULTON:  Daryl.
MR. BUSS:  I was just going to note that regardless 
of where that definition fits, it seems to me there is 
significant advantages to being consistent in using grain and 
grain products as opposed to food and feed because food is not 
necessarily limited to grain and grain products.
MS. SULTON:  It could be meat too.

MR. BUSS:  Right.
MS. SULTON:  So we need to do another word search and 
make sure we are consistent in the term throughout.
MR. DYKES:  And that ties in with the comment I was 
making about food colorings, additives and enzymes.
MS. SULTON:  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  I mean it seems to me we need a rewritten 
introduction that is more detailed and sort of explains and I 
don't think it's just as Pat says, when we go through this just 
sort of I'll add a sentence or add a thing here.  I think we 
need a group or some people to go back and actually separate 
out the definitions and have a definition section.  I mean that 
was a good idea from Terry, and to write a page or a page and a 
half introduction that talks about what we want to accomplish, 
what we didn't want to accomplish, what's included, what's not 
included.  We have two paragraphs there for it, but I think we 
need three or four other concepts that we've talked about here 
that need to be included in that introduction.
MS. SULTON:  All right.  The other big bite that we 
wanted to take was on the implications section before we went -
- I'm sorry, Randy, did you have something?
MR. GIROUX:  Did we come to some conclusions about 
what we were going to do?

MS. SULTON:  Oh.  Are we agreeing that we need to 
rewrite the introduction section to include these items?
MR. MEDLEY:  I think that there were two things 
suggested.  One was whether or not we're going to be very 
specific, and I would say if you're going to do it in the title 
in terms of grain and grain products, that was one thing was 
raised by Daryl.  The other which was raised by Greg is, 
irrespective of what we have in the title, that there should be 
a few paragraphs very up front which lays out very specifically 
what we're doing and not doing.  Those are the two things I 
heard.
MS. SULTON:  I also heard that we needed in the 
introductions a discussion of definitions as well as a 
discussion of process.

MS. LAYTON:  What I heard was the following.  We are 
not going to change the title yet.  We're not changing the 
title.  We are going to be very specific on what we are going 
to cover and not going to cover in both one piece of the 
executive summary and some additional language in the 
introduction including the subset of the word definitions 
within the introduction, and that we were going to add some 
process paragraphs in the introduction.  From Daryl's comment I 
heard go back, do a word search and make sure that you don't 
necessarily use the word feed, because we specifically state on 
one of these paragraphs that we were only going to do plant-
based products for one thing and that the term that we were 
more specific to grain and grain products in here and so that 
whenever we start talking about products, that we might use the 
terms, you know, based on a word search as we go through, make 
sure it's grain and grain products that we're talking about and 
not food in general because we're really not doing food in 
general.  Correct?
MS. SULTON:  That's what I heard too.  Daryl.
MR. BUSS:  Actually, the second paragraph of the 
introduction on page three, the last sentence is quite 
explicit.  It says this report addresses current plant-based 
products only.
MS. LAYTON: Absolutely.
MR. BUSS:  I mean that distinction is, it's maybe 
hidden too much, but it's there.
MS. LAYTON:  But we were not going to talk, we aren't 
talking papaya or we are going to talk papaya.
MS. SULTON:  We're not.
MS. LAYTON:  So we're not.  So it really is not all 
plant-based food products current.  It's primarily grain and 
grain products.
MS. SULTON:  Carol.
MS. CRAMER:  I just have a general question though. 
These guys that are involved, are there labeling traceability 
implications with respect to, say, papaya which clearly is and 
how do they compare to grain.

MR. GRANT:  They're basically the same.  I mean, 
there's a distinction between meat and grain, grain products or 
plant products if you will, but so we use grain, grain products 
as the example here, but we can clearly say that the 
implications for grain and grain products apply to other plant-
based food products as well and leave it there.  And that 
should cover it.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so plant-based --
MR. GRANT:  Food products.
MS. LAYTON:  -- food products is the key word.  I 
just want to make sure we get it right, it wouldn't be 
surprising, given the constitution of the committee.  I mean 
it's reflective of the committee that you use most of your 
examples are commodity groups.
MS. SULTON:  Vincent.
MR. VILKER:  Could I just ask what a label on papaya 
might look like and that includes not just whether it's 
transgenic, but how you would identify nutritional value?  I've 
not seen one, perhaps others have.
MS. SULTON:  Terry.

MS. FOREMAN:  There are, in fact, labels on fresh 
fruit.  You know, if you go to the store right now you'll find 
any number of fruits are labeled.  The lemons are labeled.  The 
cantaloupes are labeled, country of origin among other things 
and there're claims.  The nutrition labeling is specifically 
altered for the purposes of fresh fruits and vegetables.
MR. VINCENT:  The other thing about the papayas, I 
mean, when you're dealing with whole fruits or vegetables, it's 
much easier and different than we're talking about commodity 
grains, and especially with regard to the papaya, there was 
specific variety that was transformed and it's called the 
Rainbow, and it's very specific and they can label it and you 
know very clearly what you have.  I mean it's real easy.
MR. DYKES:  But coming back to the EU system. If it's 
papaya juice and something else that comes from Rainbow, as to 
Duane's point, all the rules apply.  So it doesn't make a 
distinction because it's grain.  If it's kiwi juice, it would 
be the same thing.
MS. LAYTON:  And that's good.
MR. DYKES:  Whether it's detectable or not.
MS. LAYTON:  Thank you.
MS. DILLEY:  So again, just to acknowledge that the 
focus of this is on plant-based products, most of the examples 
are grain and grain products because that reflects the 
expertise or membership of the committee, but the assumption is 
that a lot of these apply to other kinds of commodities.

MS. LAYTON:  Okay, let me ask a clarifying point.  
It's plant-based food products or plant-based products period. 
 I'm asking on the subject of cotton.  That's what my personal 
example was.  Food/feed products or is it all plant-derived 
products.
MR. GRANT:  It's, and correct me if I'm wrong on 
this, there are some experts in the field but, my understanding 
is it's plant-based food or feed products.  Cotton, if it's 
used in a food product, would be subject to the regulation.  
Cotton lint used in the euro, for example, is not subject.
MS. LAYTON:  In the paper money, yeah.  Is not 
subject.
MR. DYKES:  I guess the point I was going to make is, 
and it's going to depend on how broad we're going to be on it. 
 If we're going to add the papayas and the other things.  But 
if we're not, one fix to it would be address as current plant-
based products only for selected uses, therefore, and the 
selected uses we pulled out here in this report are primarily 
grain and grain based products.  That helps get around that 
issue.
MR. JAFFE:  And I think we primarily do it for food. 
 I don't really have any recollection of where in this report 
we talk about feed labeling or feed traceability.

MR. GRANT:  It's in there, Greg in a couple of 
places.  The requirements are much lower, but it is in there. 
And the reason I think it's important that we not narrow it too 
finely is because, feed, grain and products derived from grain 
are the vast bulk, and this is a real-time document, so it's 
real appropriate to use those as the example, but from my 
perspective, and some of my peers being producers of minor 
groups, the implications that emerge from this document are 
very applicable to those other crops, so it's important to 
include them, at least by implication.
MS. LAYTON:  So plant-based products for specific 
uses, and then we're going to define those specific uses.
MR. GRANT:  Food and feed.
MS. SULTON:  So wait a minute.  We're hearing two 
different things.  You added a new phrase and we were, I 
thought the argument was being made to keep what we have but 
make clear that we were talking about grain and grain products 
as an example.
MR. GRANT:  And in the phrase that I may have added I 
think it was included in the context of what we were talking 
about earlier is that the implications that are drawn from the 
examples of grain apply to other food and feed products as 
well.

MR. MEDLEY:  Or they could, so could we just maybe 
say that in that introductory paragraph rather than, because if 
we don't constrain it in that way then whenever you're having 
discussions throughout the document you're going to have to get 
into how does it apply to those.  If we could do that and then 
I think it would address it.
MR. GRANT:  Again focusing on the fact that this is a 
real-time document, it's addressing issues that we're looking 
at this month.
MR. MEDLEY:  The papaya and squash, I mean the 
volumes are just so low.  I mean other than, you know, the 
papayas, the major half of the market is the U.S., the other 
half was Japan and so they're dealing with that but it's very 
different.
MR. CORZINE:  My comment was going to not the title, 
but to that sentence in the second paragraph.
MS. LAYTON:  That's exactly where I was reading.
MR. CORZINE:  Okay.  I just wanted to make sure I 
wasn't confusing.
MS. LAYTON:  No, no.  So we need to work on that and 
I'm going to hope that even a little work group maybe can kind 
of look at this and then maybe even show it on an LCD 
projector.  We don't have an LCD projector.
MS. SULTON:  We have one up there if we just connect 
to the document.

MS. LAYTON:  That maybe show some things before we 
get out of here.  To make sure we're all comfortable with that. 
 Or pass it around.  Something that we can see and feel 
comfortable with.  I think that, in other words, if we can come 
up with this sentence about grain and grain products could 
apply to other food crops or whatever that wording needs to be. 
 So I'm sort of asking for us to have a couple of volunteers 
think about what that word or the sentence needs to be so we 
can pin this down.  Because if not, we're going to be here in 
February or March doing this again.  So we have to actually 
have language and it's language that incorporates the whole 
committee and not just this work group because I think, I'm 
sorry, I'm not sorry to say this, but I think you guys have 
done so much and you're so close to it now it may be hard for 
you to not just go hit your head against the wall instead of 
trying to create new language, and so I want to offer the rest 
of us who are looking at with fresh eyes to try to help out 
here.
MS. SULTON:  Duane and Terry can do it.
MS. LAYTON:  I want you to come back after lunch with 
two sentences.
(Discussion off the record.)

MR. JAFFE:  I hate to be the one to bring up process 
stuff, but I guess I'm, with sort of like an agenda chapter to 
sort of figure out what our plan is the next day and I know Pat 
sort of said everything's off the table, but maybe she had some 
idea of what was on the table.  I'd like to have an 
understanding.  I mean we could spend the next day and a half 
just on the traceability and labeling report and if we want to 
do that as a committee, maybe we could get it done.  I'm trying 
to understand what we're trying to do and maybe, I think maybe 
the most efficient thing might not be to send different people 
off at lunchtime to do a sentence here or a sentence there.  
If we're spending all our time on labeling and 
traceability, maybe we should take the 3:30 to 5 o'clock time 
period.  We've never had more than one comment in our history 
yet, well maybe one or two, and they never take more than five 
or 10 minutes, and maybe break up into small groups and one 
group might write the introductory chapter and one group might 
rewrite the introductory section, one group might rewrite the 
consumer section and things like that.  

That if we're deciding that, I guess, in my mind I 
don't understand what was the goal of this group in terms of a 
traceability and labeling chapter.  Is it to send the 
committee, the subcommittee back to make these changes or so 
forth.  I know I can't work this evening.  It is the Hanukkah 
holiday, I'm sure that other people have other things to do. I 
guess I'm trying to get a feel for what is our broad plan for 
the next day-and-a-half.  I know it's not set in stone, but get 
a feel for what we're trying to do both in terms of the next 
day-and-a-half, and also trying to get a feel for what do we 
mean by our goal which was at the beginning of the agenda which 
was to finalize the traceability and labeling report.  What 
does that mean?
MS. DILLEY:  You've raised two process questions and 
one is a suggestion that I think people are interested in 
entertaining because I saw people's eyeballs go up which means 
they're interested in entertaining it.  One is, what are we 
doing over the next two days, and two is, how can we best 
accomplish what we have in mind in terms of achieving what we 
want to come out of this meeting.  We have to at least assess 
progress on both reports, but the emphasis for this morning's 
discussion is to push the traceability and labeling document as 
far as possible and closer to finalization with the caveat that 
the committee has committed to and fully intends to complete 
the full charge which is both reports.  So that language you 
need to put in there.  

Your second question, so we need to at least a check 
of the other report and plan it.  We need to set aside time to 
do some of that, just in terms of getting some marching orders 
coming out of this meeting and how to move that report forward. 
 But the emphasis will be on the traceability and labeling 
report.  I think your other idea of breaking into small groups 
and actually just getting down and doing some writing is an 
excellent one from my perspective.  I don't know how the rest 
of the committee feels.  We obviously need to make sure that we 
do diligence on public comment, but once that's completed and 
we know how many public comments we're going to have, we can 
certainly take, insist on seizing the opportunity to get as 
much work done as possible and maybe breaking into small groups 
to draft is the best way to do that.
MS. SULTON:  What's the pleasure of the committee?  
Michael.

MR. DYKES:  I like the idea of taking the time we 
need to get the traceability and labeling done because I'm with 
Greg, if we don't, we'll be here next December still rehashing 
this thing.  We might even feel fortunate if we could get it 
done.  But I like Greg's suggestion of breaking up in groups 
and maybe one of the things we should do, and this is a further 
refinement to that, at some point in time we should go beyond 
the general and try to break this up as we have in the 
individual work groups to okay, either do it by pages or do it 
by sections and we go through and we identify what some of 
these other topics may be.  We've got two thus far that need a 
break-out, I would use the term break-out group on it.  As we 
go through this we may decide we've got five that need a break-
out group, for example, then we can divide up who wants to go 
with whatever break-up group and we can break up at some point 
and time during this two day process, come back to the full 
committee and here's the results of the break-out group, we 
kind of try to close in on those and we bring this thing down 
to some kind of closure.  Because we're going to have to come 
with what the concerns are, develop some fairly specific text 
around those concerns and then have that text brought back here 
so people can review it.  And if we don't condense that into 
something that will occur during this two days, we're going to 
be, the horse is going to be out of the barn.
MS. SULTON:  Well, my thought was it would be in two 
areas, the broad points that you've brought up about the 
document as a whole and also in the implication section where 
you would possibly need this work done and that the things that 
we come up with if we went section by section would probably 
would be clarification and not necessarily require that kind of 
a massive, you know, a break-out group.
MR. DYKES:  I would probably make the same 
assumption, but I don't know that that's accurate because as we 
get through this stuff we may find other points that people 
will have that will result in, yeah, that's right, we need to 
blow that up or we need to add it back to the, that too needs 
to be covered in the introduction or that too needs to be 
covered someplace.
MS. SULTON:  Well, it's clear that the implication 
section is not complete.  The Committee didn't feel that they 
had completed and was looking for some amplification from --
MR. DYKES:  Maybe that's another break out.

MS. LAYTON:  Okay, let me suggest this.  It's five 
minutes to 12:00, we have a break coming up at 12:30 although 
we could probably take it any point in time, but at 12:30 we're 
scheduled for a break for lunch and then coming back at 1:30 
for from lunch.  I like the idea and it's probably more 
worthwhile, frankly, to do any writing during that afternoon 
session instead of public comments than it is to try and do it 
over lunch.  Because trying to do it over lunch is awful and 
you never have any of what you need, and the other suggestion I 
have is I see at least one, two, Carol has her laptop 
somewhere, but I can go back and get mine, you have another 
one, I have the document electronically and can use the 
strikethrough kinds of things if we want to be very specific, 
so we know what we're doing.  

So, I'd be willing to type for people.  I'm not 
necessarily going to give you constructive words, but I can 
type.  So I was just thinking that might be, you know, we 
bring, I can get some laptops or make sure we've got four five 
laptops here and we'll go from there if we've got the documents 
on it.  So, what I would suggest is that before we break for 
lunch, I think you said you wanted to do implications, I think 
that's a work group, so I'm not sure I want to discuss that 
right now, but I thought we might could do is we've certainly 
got an introduction piece.  Should we then look at sort of on a 
page-by-page basis, is there something then big enough in a 
particular page that we think needs substantial work and 
identify those.  And then come back from lunch if we cannot 
finish that, identify what those are and try to, you know, pin 
down what it is that needs to be done so that we could just 
work on it.
MR. DYKES:  I'd ask the question, they may not 
require considerable work, but how are we going to manage two 
and three word edits-- insert the word "the export of."  How 
are we going to take care of those kinds of things?
MS. SULTON:  Well, we were suggesting that you could 
send those to us in email.
MR. DYKES:  If we were going to send those to you --
MS. SULTON:  I really can't agree to the --
MR. DYKES:  No, I don't think that works.  We need to 
go through and do them.
MS. SULTON:  Michael.

MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think we're going to have to get 
to those and those may be, you know, when we know that we have 
the big pieces done, you know, we will see how much time we 
have for those, but I think it might be important to just make 
sure about the large things, and I'm a little reluctant to send 
implications off to a work group before, since those are really 
very big picture things, I'd be reluctant to send those off 
without having the group as a whole, you know, take the 
temperature on each of those.  I mean some of them have 
recommendations in them as Terry mentioned, and we want to see 
if those things are controversies or apple pie.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, let me ask this.  Is it possible 
for us to take, it's a page and a half, to sort of do a gut 
check on each of those one by one right now and then come back 
after lunch and do sort of this needs work or this doesn't need 
work, looking at an afternoon time writing session?
MS. SULTON:  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  Two things.  I mean, I agree with 
Michael, the Implications section, I think really we need an 
hour or more discussion as a group about before we then decide 
that there are some of them we might have a working group 
rewrite numbers one and two and somebody else rewrite number 6, 
7 and 10 or something like that.  But I think that, I mean, I 
think that that is something that even as a subcommittee we 
haven't spent a lot of time discussing, but clearly as a large 
committee we haven't spent time discussing and I don't want 
that to be short-shrifted.
MS. LAYTON:  So that's better after lunch.

MR. JAFFE:  Right.  Clearly.  It seems to me we 
should put a running, a list of things that we want, that we 
need to accomplish in the report over the next two days.  I'm 
putting my own little list together, but one is rewrite the 
intro.  One is write a consumer implication section.  I think 
Terry raised the point about the risk and making sure we've 
defined that correctly.  I don't think that's just a word 
search problem.  I think that is something that maybe one could 
do, might do in the afternoon.  Look through and find all the 
spots and do the editing that would need to be done in those 
different aspects.  
Fourth, I think Carole Cramer raised a good point 
about the minor crops and this issue, I think, to respond to 
that will require some changes and some language in different 
parts of the report and somebody will need to go through and do 
that.  So I think if we start putting it together, a list of 
these things on a piece of paper as we move thing, we'll figure 
out some of these may require just one person to work on their 
own from 3:30 to 5:00.  Some may require a group of two or 
three people to get together and then we could then come back 
the next day with all those proposals to work through, but 
those are the four I had.  Somebody else may have other things 
we've captured.  To rewrite the intro has a number of different 
steps and is Carol Tucker Foreman's comment about just one 
being of many reports, it clearly has what the scope and what 
is in and what isn't in this, it also has the discussion about 
our process, so there are three or four things that fit within 
that rewrite.
MS. DILLEY:  When you say the intro, you're talking 
about the executive summary and the intro?

MR. JAFFE:  No, I'm not talking about the executive 
summary at all.
MS. DILLEY: Just the introduction, okay.  I just want 
to be clear about that.
MR. JAFFE:  Anyway, that's sort of my, I don't want 
to lose sight of those, those are the things I think we've 
discussed to date so far.
MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, I think that's very good.  Thank 
you, Greg.  Do we want to break now or do we want to try to 
tackle a few pieces before we break for lunch, because we can 
take an early lunch.  We can do our lunch break earlier and not 
violate the Federal Register notice.
MR. MEDLEY:  The only difference and Greg and I were 
just talking about is it depends upon if you want to be able to 
get into a restaurant and out.  The earlier in this area, I 
think the better.  That's just one factor.
MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, I used to work here so I agree 
with Terry, that the closer to 12:00 you get to the restaurant, 
the better off of getting out of it at a decent hour, yeah.  
Okay, so we're going to do a lunch, 1:15 we're going to be back 
here ready to go.
(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)
MS. LAYTON:  Ladies and Gentlemen, it's now 1:20 and 
we need to get started, please.  
(Discussion off the record.)

MS. LAYTON:  Okay, let's get going.  I'm going to 
remind everybody since I just turned my phone on to turn their 
phones off.  
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. LAYTON:  Can we get started?  Now, I had a 
question during lunch of what was the charge of the committee, 
and so I asked my sources here and they said as close as they 
could get to a written charge is the first paragraph of the 
executive summary.  So that's the answer back.  Page 26.
MS. SULTON:  The way I would suggest, we have here, 
the work group has outlined for you 12 issues, polices, and 
what we're wondering is if we could kind of focus on the ones 
about which we have the most concern. 
MR. MEDLEY:  Before we do that, since I wasn't in 
this particular group, when I see policies and issues raised 
and then you see the 12 whatever, what was the thinking of the 
group in terms of what were they putting in this section?
MS. SULTON:  I'll ask the group to correct me if I'm 
wrong, but after having written what was basically a 
descriptive explanatory report, there was discussion about 
whether or not they would make recommendations and instead what 
they decided to do is to outline the major issues that emanated 
from the descriptive report they had written.  Is that Randy?

MR. GIROUX;  Right, Cindy, that's very close.  We 
looked at this, this document is a very descriptive document. 
Within a lot of the nuances or impacts or issues that this text 
raised, may or may not be clearly evident, so we wanted to call 
those things out of the report.  We wanted to say, you know, 
these are the issues that what's described in these pages 
creates for industry.  Just to call them out and then, and 
really was kind of a brainstorming, we just kind of, what are 
all the issues that if we look at what the implications of 
what's written in these pages are, and these are the kind of 
issues that are raised for us and we threw them out.
MR. MEDLEY:  So just to make it very clear, this 
would be the policy concerns or issues raised by the 
characterization on the current state of traceability and 
labeling globally as it relates to food and, whatever we want 
to call it.
MR. GIROUX:  Right.  That's correct.
MS. LAYTON:  And were they industry policies or are 
they --
MR. GIROUX:  They are all the issues that the group 
threw out, so that included Greg who was on the group, so, I 
can't speak for Greg, he's not in the room.

MR. DYKES:  So, are we going with a clarification, 
Terry, just, because I had a similar question.  This section is 
going to be called policy concerns and issues raised by, what 
did you say, Terry?
MR. MEDLEY:  Well, it was raised by, you know, how we 
characterized the current state of global traceability and 
mandatory labeling requirements.
MR. DYKES:  That's correct.  By the current state --
MR. MEDLEY:  Because I think what's important, 
though, to me is that way as we're going through these, we can 
-- it's not something that someone is just raising, but in 
fact, it does emanate from the document and what's been said 
here.  Because otherwise you don't, you're just way out there.
MS. LAYTON:  Can we reiterate that then what I think 
I just heard a title being suggested.
MS. SULTON:  It's the policies and issues raised by 
the analysis of the current state of labeling and traceability 
requirements throughout the world.
MR. MEDLEY:  And I guess what I'm suggesting is that 
you simply say, the heading would be, policy concerns and 
issues raised.  Then you would have a narrative sentence right 
below that which would explain what this is in terms of these 
are the policy concerns and issues that emanate from the 
previous characterization of the global traceability and 
labeling requirements as they impact whatever we've said 
before.  And we just repeat that.

MS. LAYTON:  Period.
MS. SULTON:  A paragraph just explaining that.
MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah.  And that way people --
MR. GIROUX  It's clear what you're reading then.
MR. MEDLEY:  Exactly.
MS. SULTON:  Okay, so with that as background.  Well, 
what we wanted to do, because some of them kind of fit 
together, what I was going to suggest, some of them not, 
they're related.  Perhaps if we went through and we could begin 
to cluster the ones about which people have ideas or concerns. 
 And Daryl, do you?
MR. BUSS:  Well, along that line, it seemed that 
number 1 and number 3 were really addressing substantially the 
same issue.  It can either be combined or --
MS. LAYTON:  Together.
MR. BUSS:  Yeah, it didn't seem obvious why there'd 
be two separate issues.
MS. SULTON:  You almost, you're suggesting perhaps 
that you deduce 1 from 3?
MR. BUSS:  Well, it seems that number 3 to me was 
already implicit in number 1.

MR. JAFFE:  I mean that was my, I had the same sort 
of question.  I mean, number 1 talks about variability and 
number 3 talks about complexity, and are those different 
concepts?  They both talk about them sort of relating to 
inefficiencies and costs.  So the question is, are they really 
two concepts or not?
MR. GRANT:  I would say they're related.  I mean they 
are variable and they are complex.  They're both.
MR. OLSON:  Number 1 talks just about commodity 
trading, so we'd have to pick up the concept of the supply 
chain in number 3 and get that into number 1.
MS. LAYTON:  You could actually then, couldn't you 
just take that sentence at the end?  Could you add the sentence 
number 3 at the end of point number 1?
MS. SULTON:  Terry.
MR. MEDLEY:  I think it's, the concern that I have is 
that the way in which these are phrased, it isn't clear to me 
what we're saying as the concern of the issues, and I'll just 
give an example.  If I look at 1 and 2, basically an issue 
that's raised is that one, these regulations vary from country 
to country.  Two, that they are complex, and the policy issue 
which seems to be raised here is there's a lack of 
international harmonization as it relates to such requirements. 
 To me that's what I read in those two.  

I think the symptoms that, you know, variability 
imposes inefficiencies and costs are not necessarily enhancing 
safety is in fact someone's judgment about the system.  Now if 
you were to change it and say, you know, a variability that 
isn't conclusive but tries to raise that, you know, an issue of 
whether costs are associated with this, but it seems to me that 
the clear statements of the issues are the regulations vary, 
they're complex and the policy issue is that there's a lack of 
international standards.
MS. LAYTON:  So it's variable and it's complex, 
therefore we should think about harmonization.
MR. MEDLEY:  Well, there's a lack of it.  And I mean, 
what we want to do, I don't, you know.  That's going to be a 
judgment call.  But to me that's what this raises.
MS. SULTON:  So basically what you really are talking 
about is just rephrasing this to make it clearer.
MR. MEDLEY:  And not putting in subjective.
MR. JAFFE:  I mean, I agree with Terry completely, 
but I wouldn't say he's just rephrasing it to make it clearer.
MS. SULTON:  Then tell me.
MR. JAFFE:  He's eliminating a lot of what are 
subjective statements that flow from these more factual 
statements that Terry's going for.
MS. SULTON:  Randy.

MR. GIROUX:  That said, I like the approach of 
looking at each one of these individually because we didn't 
create a distinct format as we laid these out, but sort of to 
lay out what are the factual statements here that we agree to 
as a committee, and then if there is a policy recommendation 
statement that we put that as the last sentence.  So we don't, 
we try to tear them apart.  The factual statements, and make 
them, put them in logical order and try not to tear apart the 
intermingling of the facts with the policy.  That might help as 
a committee on what we agree on, what we don't agree on and how 
to fix it.
MS. SULTON:  With that in mind, Terry has rephrased 
number 1, does that seem to make sense to the committee?  There 
are two basic facts and we'll subtract out that value judgment. 
 Randy.
MR. GIROUX:  I'd like to make another recommendation 
and that is, that instead of us as a whole committee trying to 
wordsmith each one of these individually, we can do that, 
that's fine, but another option might be for us to look at them 
just quickly and, you know, are they okay as they stand, do 
they need major revisions, do they need minor revisions and 
then create some buckets.  And then, because the ones that need 
major revision, then it might be useful for us to send those at 
3:30 or after the public comment to one of the committees to 
rework them or some, just trying to make most, efficient use of 
our time here.
MS. SULTON:  So, with that in mind, does number one 
fall into minor revisions?  Greg.

MR. JAFFE:  I don't know what minor versus major 
means.  I would consider this one a major revision.  What Terry 
said was a major revision.
MS. SULTON:  By that meaning whether we need to go to 
committee, we need to have a work group to rewrite it.
MR. JAFFE:  I would say yes, number one needs a work 
group to rewrite it.  I would say that's a major.  Easily 
rewritten, but needs to be done.
MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Easily rewritten but needs to be 
done is a bucket.
MR. DYKES:  I mean because we basically got the 
tenets there, just needs the words put around it.
MS. SULTON:  Okay, and Angela got part of those down, 
I think.  Number 2 then.  Sorry, Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  And I have another question sort of 
related to number 1, 2 and 3 just so it's clear in my mind.  
Number 1 uses the word country.  Number 2 and 3 used the word 
markets.  I always think of labeling requirements as a country-
specific thing not a market thing.  So I don't know if there 
was a reason when people drafted these.  So number 1 talks 
about differences in labeling varying from country to country, 
and number two talks about different labeling regulations in 
different markets.  Number 3 talks about different markets, I 
would suggest using country unless there was a specific reason 
why we were using markets.

MS. SULTON:  I think it was just probably, your 
point's well taken.  As countries, it takes a government to put 
together regulations, not the market.  Anything else on number 
1 or number 2?
MR. DYKES:  On number 2 the requirements are often 
uncertain and I would replace "or" with "and."  I don't think 
it's an either-or situation.
MS. SULTON:  Uncertain and rapidly involving?
MR. DYKES:  Yes.  Daryl.
MR. BUSS:  Since we're talking about 1 and 2 and to 
the extent 3, I guess I'm wondering if at least a portion of 
number 6 doesn't belong clustered with that group as well.  
Because all allude in varying ways to harmonization or 
differences.
MR. DYKES:  My sense is I'd take number 6 to be more 
along the lines of sampling and testing than I would be, while 
it's got the word harmonization in the sentence, I think it's 
going more to the points about testing and sampling.  I'd see 
it as different, but --
MS. SULTON:  I think so.  Seeing heads shake in 
agreement with Mike on that.  Maybe it would logically follow 
in order.  Terry.  Keeping the harmonization of regulations and 
then of testing protocols.  Terry.

MR. MEDLEY:  I guess I have just a question for the 
drafting committee, and my question is, in the second part of 
2, we say that these uncertainties plus parallel ones 
associated with international treatises create difficulties. 
And difficult to me is not, I mean it's not very descriptive. 
So is there some way we could, I mean what was meant there?  Is 
it additional delay, it's additional requirements, is it, I 
mean, I'm just trying to get a sense around the word 
difficulties.
MS. SULTON:  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  I also was going to have the same thing 
with the word uncertain.  And these requirements are often 
uncertain.  It seems to me that's, I'm not sure I understand 
what that means.  If there's a way we can sort of clarify 
better what we mean by the uncertain.  They're not clearly 
spelled, are they, and they're not transparent, they're not 
defined enough.  I mean I don't know what is meant by they're 
uncertain.
MR. DYKES:  I wasn't on the work group, Greg, but as 
I read that uncertain and thinking back to the text, I think so 
much of this is a broad outline they can put forward, but the 
actual implementation on how it's going to work is still 
uncertain.  Many of the details, especially in the European 
system, some of these grandfathering provisions are still 
uncertain.  So I didn't have any problems with the uncertainty 
because that's the point of view from which I read it.  Again, 
I'm not on the work group, so others in the work group may have 
had a different take.

MR. MEDLEY:  I mean I understand that, I mean, 
because it seems to me then what you're saying is, since the 
requirements are constantly evolving, enforcement, compliance, 
you know, it's made more difficult because you don't know 
exactly what the requirements are.
MR. DYKES:  Absolutely.
MS. SULTON:  So we'll put this one in that needs to 
be rewritten but fairly easily can be done.
MR. DYKES:  Well, I think the only question we're 
down to is what do we mean by the word difficulties --
MR. OLSON:  If you captured what Michael said that 
solves the uncertain issue, defines it cleaner, and then it's 
just a matter of picking up with what do we mean by 
difficulties.  I don't think we need to send it on.  I think 
it's being solved.
MS. SULTON:  It's a procedural burden, is that what 
you mean?
MS. DILLEY:  It's the challenge of complying with a 
moving target.
MS. SULTON:  Greg.

MR. JAFFE:  I mean I take what Michael said.  I 
think, I guess what was troubling me in part was the first 
sentence, which I'm not sure even needs to be in there.  
Followed by the sentence because not all of them are 
necessarily uncertain and the fact that they're different isn't 
what's leading to the uncertainty here, it's the fact that 
they're not defined or clear or how they act in practice, so 
that's what was confusing to me was the whether we use 
different twice in the sentence before and then we get to 
uncertain, so I think we need to get rid of either the first 
sentence or say for some of these regulatory systems --
MR. OLSON:  That's right.  I think we cross out the 
first sentence and start the second sentence one with some 
instead of these.
MS. SULTON:  Some labeling and traceability 
requirements are uncertain and are --
MR. OLSON:  It's whatever term Michael used for 
uncertain.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Does unclear, is unclear better than 
uncertain?  Does that, or do you want the longer explanation.

MR. JAFFE:  No, because it's, the impression I got 
from Michael and others is it's not the fact that they are 
unclear, it's that in practice they may not, it's how they're 
carried out in practice.  I mean there's a law in the EU, I 
mean, so, some people would argue that's not unclear or not 
uncertain, they do say you've got to label this, you've got to 
do that, but what I understand here is, when one goes to take 
those and put them into practice there are a lot of uncertain -
- a lot of questions that's going to arise, so whether we say 
some labeling and traceability requirements when implemented 
raise many questions or raise a lot of uncertainties or 
something, but just to say they're uncertain I think will be 
criticized and said no, there's a regulation there it's quite 
clear on its face what you're supposed to do.
MR. DYKES:  Maybe Greg as -- one suggestion is we 
take what Ron said is, some T and L requirements are often 
uncertain and are rapidly evolving.  Then you say, maybe the 
next sentence is the implementation of these raises additional 
uncertainties or something to get to your point for that second 
sentence.
MR. JAFFE:  Why make that uncertain or rapidly 
evolving because one doesn't know how they're going to be 
implemented or the implementation of them is, you know, 
something.
MS. SULTON:  Duane, did you want to make another 
point?
MR. GRANT:  I think they've, no, I think they've got 
it.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, what about the difficulties word?
MS. SULTON:  Create difficulties for production 
marketing and trade.  Is it difficulties or obstacles?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Do you like the word 
challenges better?

MS. LAYTON:  I like challenges but, or is it 
commercial risk?
MR. GIROUX:  Could be unclear signals.
MS. SULTON:  What, I think, you're getting to impacts 
now aren't you?
MR. GIROUX:  I think Pat's suggestion of commercial 
risk is probably the operable word there, that is what the 
difficulties are around.
MR. DYKES:  Challenges is fairly broad that may 
encompass all of those different things.
MR. MEDLEY:  So are we finding a word for difficulty?
MS. SULTON:  Yeah, are we just getting a synonym for 
difficulty?
MR. DYKES:  A synonym for difficulties.  By 
definition your point, Terry.
MR. MEDLEY:  It is.  It's not just a word change 
question.
MS. SULTON:  We want it explained.
MR. MEDLEY:  It's a more substantive of what are, 
what are the impacts that we're saying this is having.
MS. SULTON:  So example.
MR. MEDLEY:  Does it make compliance more difficult? 
 Does it make movements more difficult?  I mean, just specify.

MS. SULTON:  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  I guess I'm, I don't love the phrase plus 
the parallel ones associated with international treaties, I'm 
not sure what, what is the parallel there?  What are the 
parallel ones?  What are we talking about?  That's such a broad 
statement, international treaties, parallel what?  Are we 
trying --
MS. LAYTON:  You just said what it was, it was the 
implementation of the, how you do international treaties of 
what the parallel would be the first statement we make.
MR. JAFFE:  What international treaties?  Are we 
talking about Biotech Protocol?  Are we talking to -- I mean, 
there are lots of international treaties.
MS. LAYTON:  The ones that were described in here.
MR. JAFFE:  Well, now Codex is not an international 
treaty, that's described in here.  The IPPC is described in 
here but I'm not sure we're talking about that one.  So, I mean 
--
MS. DILLEY:  Who were you talking about then?
MR. JAFFE:  I didn't write this.  I thought they were 
talking about the Protocol.  It would be nice to have a factual 
statement here about -- not just say parallel ones in terms of 
treaties, but say what is the, I mean, --
MS. DILLEY:  What's the requirements associated with 
X, whatever --

MR. JAFFE:  I mean it would be, let's say the fact 
that the Protocol hasn't been implemented yet by countries or 
something, but say, I mean what's causing the uncertainty here? 
 Is it just the Protocol?  Is it the Protocol itself the 
uncertainty or is it the fact that the countries haven't, is it 
the fact that the Protocol's uncertain or is it the fact that 
the countries haven't implemented the Protocol?  It's how 
they're doing it, what's leading to the uncertainty.
MR. MEDLEY:  It's both of the above.  I mean the 
Protocols still have provisions and if not, then explain or 
clarify it.  It's clear.  There are things that are still quote 
"in brackets."
MR. DYKES:  Maybe it's as simple as saying what's the 
parallel ones associated with the Biosafety Protocol, however 
it's referred to in here.  Maybe just define international 
treaties in this text here.  Maybe just put in Biosafety 
Protocol.
MR. MEDLEY:  Because that's too broad.  The 
international treaties is too broad.  This context you talk 
about, the Biosafety Protocol and there are provisions in the 
Protocol that have not been established or --

MR. JAFFE:  I'd rather say something along the lines 
of that -- I guess I'm more concerned with the, well the 
parallel ones and the international treaties, so we just 
defined it by Protocol, that's better.  Instead of saying 
parallel, but saying something to the fact of that the Protocol 
has not yet well defined the labeling.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, what I wrote down as I was 
scribbling notes was, plus the requirements associated with the 
BSP and its implementation.
MR. JAFFE:  Well, it's not just, it's not the BSP, 
it's specifically the labeling.
MS. LAYTON:  So plus the requirements associated with 
the BSP -- plus the labeling requirements associated with the 
Biosafety Protocol.
MS. SLUTSKY:  I think you need to say documentation 
requirements.  There are no labeling requirements.
MS. LAYTON:  Plus the documentation requirements 
associated with the Biosafety Protocol and their 
implementation?
MR. DYKES:  I don't know if you need and 
implementation.  I just think once you know what the 
requirements are, the others will follow, I would think.  Maybe 
not, Greg, maybe it doesn't suit you, I don't know.
MR. JAFFE:  I'm sorry, I wasn't --
MR. DYKES:  The question is, is do you need to say, 
once you say the documentation requirements associated with the 
Biosafety Protocol and the implementation of Biosafety Protocol 
or is it sufficient to end it at Biosafety Protocol?

MR. JAFFE:  You can identify it --
MR. DYKES:  To me it's almost inherent once you kind 
of know what the documentation is, you're going to be closer 
toward what that is.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, create commercial risk for the 
production marketing and trade of grain and grain products.  
Create --
MR. DYKES:  Again, back to the comment Terry made 
this morning on risk, number 3 there as well, because you've 
got risk listed there.  I would say commercial challenges and 
not use the work risk.
MR. JAFFE:  I think that's good.
MS. SULTON:  Daryl.
MR. BUSS:  I think this is really a minor point, but 
I'm wondering about the advantages of substituting increase for 
create.  Create implies there would be zero otherwise, which 
didn't seem to be realistic.
MS. SULTON:  So the increased commercial challenges. 
 Do we have to explain challenges here?  All right, is that it 
for number 2?  Number 3 we've already done. Did we decide that 
we wanted to put it with number 1 and rewrite it or did we want 
to look at it separately as Randy suggested, I think.  Do we 
want to look at it separately or we can combine it?
MR. GRANT:  I didn't suggest that.

MS. SULTON:  Okay.  I misunderstood you.
MR. DYKES:  I'm fine with combine it.  I would like 
to delete the word "and risk" following cost.  Again, to be 
consistent because I think we use that, I don't think it 
detracts from the meaning of the sentence.
MS. SULTON:  Any objections?  All right.  Then we can 
move to number 4?  Industry grappling with the impacts of 
complying with biotechnology-specific regulations governing 
product characteristics that cannot be detected.
MS. LAYTON:  Are we talking product characteristics 
or are we talking about genes?
MS. CRAMER:  Characteristic, well.
MS. SULTON:  I couldn't hear you, Carole.
MS. CRAMER:  You have a corn oil that is from a BT 
corn, if you take that oil and try to test and detect it, you 
don't see it.
MR. DYKES:  I think its characteristics.
MS. SULTON:  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  In that first sentence I would change the 
word regulations to labeling, because that's really what we're 
talking about here.
MS. SULTON:  So labeling requirements complying with 
labeling, biotechnology specifically labeling.
MR. JAFFE:  Labeling.

MS. SULTON:  You should comply with labeling 
requirements?
MR. OLSON:  No, just labeling.
MS. SULTON:  Just labels, okay.
MS. CRAMER:  Isn't it all, well.
MS. SULTON:  Yes, Carole.
MS. CRAMER:  Isn't it also an issue with respect to 
traceability which is if you've got a testing system that is 
supposed to somehow measure the transgene product and you now 
have oil that doesn't measure it, but you're still required to 
meet certain traceability requirements, that does remain an 
issue, so it's not just a labeling.
MR. DYKES:  I'd agree with Carole.  I almost think 
we'd be better just to leave it as it is rather than, because 
if we do that then we have to do the word traceability and 
labeling biotech-specific, which is what the chapter is about. 
 I'm fine with doing that, but I almost think --
MS. SULTON:  Greg, go ahead.
MR. JAFFE:  I guess by biotechnology-specific 
regulations to me means safety and a whole bunch of other 
things, and I don't see industry having trouble with doing 
those and so, I mean.
MR. DYKES:  Well, like I say, if you want to put 
complying with traceability and labeling biotechnology specific 
regulations.  Because that's what the chapter is about.

MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so traceability and labeling 
biotechnology specific regulations governing product 
characteristics that cannot be detected.
MS. MELLON:  I think that biotechnology specific 
should go first.
MS. LAYTON:  So biotechnology specific tracing and 
labeling regulations governing product characteristics that 
cannot be detected.
MS. SULTON:  Terry.
MR. MEDLEY:  It just seems that then this should be 
one sentence.  I mean the issue basically is that the new 
challenges, the new challenges for the marketplace caused by 
what you just said.  I mean, isn't that what we're saying the 
issue is?  I'm trying to say why do we have two sentences?  I 
mean what is the issue?  The issue is that there are challenges 
that are created for, as we're calling, the marketplace because 
of these requirements which require certification on 
characteristics that cannot be detected.  And that's what the 
issue is, right or not.

MR. JAFFE:  That's my question also because when you 
look at the second sentence, I'm not sure the word new is 
really needed.  That goes as challenges, I'm not sure they're 
new challenges, but I guess for me the question here is, is it 
the fact that they're government-imposed, that's the concern 
here, because we have process certifications.  I mean, 
radiation and a lot of other things have process certifications 
that organic is process certification and things like that.  I 
mean, is the concern here that it's, I guess, is the emphasis 
is because it's government-imposed or is it the emphasis here 
because you can't detect it, you can't detect organic, you 
can't detect irradiation, things like that.  So what is, I'm 
grappling with what is the sort of the issue here, what's the 
pressure point?
MR. MEDLEY:  Well, I think that, and again, not being 
on the group but taking your examples, with organic if there 
are, there are certain things that you can detect such as 
pesticide residues, et cetera.  I mean there is, physically you 
can do it.  With radiation it does change the structure 
somewhat, but here they're saying, you know, processed oil.  
Currently now we do, with no detectable DNA, what are you 
supposed to do?  I mean, I thought that was really the issue.  
It's imposing a requirement where there's not a technology to 
comply with it.

MS. MELLON:  No, but there are, I mean there 
detection technologies that are associated with radiation, 
people don't go around detecting whether products were 
irradiated.  I think the response is that because you can't 
detect it you put in place of a certification system.  One 
needs those certification systems the way, you know, rather 
than by testing products, by getting assurances, you know, 
through the chain that the product was treated in a certain 
way.  The question is are those uniquely challenging.
MR. MEDLEY:  But I think there was a new requirement, 
you currently right now can look at basically what's going on 
even though it's not perfect, you have places by which 
detection occurs and you're able to certify or not certify.  
The situation here, with these highly processed products and 
what's being required that lack the DNA, even if you wanted to, 
so what you're forced to do is to go to a goal system of IP 
which is a totally contained, which is a challenge.  I mean it 
definitely is.
MS. MELLON:  It is a challenge in this context.  I 
mean you would never say organic, you know, IP kind of goal 
standard IP as a challenge in the context of organic.  That's 
the whole point of organic.  So here, are we saying that it's 
difficult on top of other requirements?  It's difficult because 
it, why is it difficult here?
MR. MEDLEY:  Okay, I can, I mean, I spent a lot of 
time on this issue.  First of all, you have to go back, the 
perfect system would start with the grower, there would be 
certain training, there would be certain, you would track the 
seed, I mean it is a very different type of system if you want 
to comply with this particular standard.  It's a very different 
system.

MS. MELLON:  No, I know it's difficult, I just don't 
know why it's, what the issue is that it is.
MS. SULTON:  Randy.
MS. MELLON:  More difficult than an alternative.  
Difficult, it adds costs that aren't justified.
MR. MEDLEY:  Well, I think it's going to require new 
and different IP systems.
MS. SULTON:  Randy, do you want to respond?

MR. GIROUX:  Just a few comments.  So what Terry is 
saying is correct, and I think it provides new challenges 
particularly in the areas of oils or products that are 
nondetected and produced in commodity systems.  When we have 
products that are nondetectable, how do we develop identity 
preservations that pass the red face test around, that you 
actually did it.  You can get a piece of paper, but how do you 
verify, how does a country that its legal requirements have no 
rights outside of Europe, how do they verify that the oil that 
was sent to them was sourced from non-GM, through identify 
preservation programs, and how do they verify that in their 
domestic country?  And so the challenge then becomes an 
enforcement and compliance question or something, but then 
also, what are the requirements in documentation and this is a 
new challenge.  It's clearly a new challenge because there are 
things that are not clarified.  There are things that have not 
been interpreted in those regulations and so, it is, it is 
unclear and because of the nature of the products that this 
impacts, they do create new challenges.  Although detectability 
or not detectability.
MS. SULTON:  Mardi.
MS. MELLON:  I mean, I think I understand, you know 
half of, we might say well, the lack of detectability ought to 
make things easier.  People can't say whether they're there or 
not, and therefore, that uncertainty in some ways should, you 
know, in some ways sort of facilitates the commerce.  But what 
I'm hearing is that somehow you need to go, it's because of the 
commercial acceptability standards at the end of the chain that 
people won't, you know need to have something more than 
apparently what's even required in order for them to be assured 
that the products meet these standards.  Is that it or is it?  
I mean, are the third party certification systems in place?
MS. DILLEY:  Sounds like the whole system integrity 
issue and how do you establish it.

MR. MEDLEY:  There's some of them that have third 
party certification, but one of the questions that that raises 
is whether or not X country will accept a commercial 
independent third party, as opposed to a government 
certification which you don't have.  I mean, there are just a 
lot of issues that are raised when you don't have the 
capability to say this is how we've complied with this new 
requirement.  And your suggestion is right.  If that's the way 
it would work at the end that well, no, you have to prove that 
it is, unfortunately the standard is you have to prove that 
it's not.
MS. SULTON:  Ron.
MR. OLSON:  I would agree with what Terry's saying. I 
mean, if we buy a product, if we're making a product from an 
oil that we can't detect and we are declaring that that product 
is GMO-free, we are going to require the person selling us the 
oil to provide us total documentation how they derived that oil 
because we're not going to take the risk of some, a third party 
group going back and saying ah ha, General Mills, we've 
discovered you're using oil that really was derived and so 
therefore your products are out of compliance.  We will not 
take that risk.  So we will require, and I can use Randy as an 
example, we'll require Cargill to give us all the test results 
on the corn that they derived that oil from and all their 
processes and how they ensure that it was non-GMO.  Because we 
can't test and detect it.

MS. MELLON:  Right.  But that's what I was trying to 
kind of -- I'm trying to grapple with is that the problem is 
that you're, is that you're going to, it's not those 
requirements have been imposed on you to actually do that third 
party certification, it's that there is some more general 
requirement, whether it's commercial or legal for you to show 
that the stuff is GM-free and that you feel that the only you 
can do that is by kind of constructing this new third party 
certification system.
MR. OLSON:  And I think part of it is how the Europe, 
is going to define traceability.  They said they want trace 
back, but they don't say from where to where.  Do you want to 
trace it all the way back to the farm or just want to trace it, 
that this came from the United States period.  Is that good 
enough or do you have to trace it, which railcars, which 
trucks, which elevators, which farmers.  How far back do you 
have to go to prove that the system exists?  So that's unclear 
when you sell in Europe.  They say trace it, but trace back to 
what?  Where to where?
MS. MELLON:  Those were real uncertainties.
MS. SULTON:  David, did you have a comment?

MR. HOISINGTON:  Well, I was just going to say that 
it seems like this is, I mean this issue and the one on 
harmonization of testing and there's a few others that I see 
that relate to this whole issue of how do you test through the 
whole supply chain, is what you're talking about.  If you start 
out with well how do you actually test a sample of grain for 
the presence of a transgene or an event, but now we're all the 
way going to the end of the food chain and saying how do you 
test where you don't even have that transgene in the product.  
So it's all just a matter of, testing a plant in the field is 
pretty straightforward, although we know there are a lot of 
issues around that.  Testing grain that's been shipped around 
the world is another set of issues, and you got the final one 
which is you've got to test your product where that gene 
doesn't exist, or even the product of that gene.  So it seems 
like maybe we need to wrap these together because it's just, 
really it's more a matter of how you detect.
MS. SULTON:  How do you detect or how do you certify?
MR. HOISINGTON:  How do you detect and then how do 
you prove it?
MS. DILLEY:  Part of it is how do you prove a 
negative.
MR. HOISINGTON:  Yes.  Which you can't do usually.
MS. SULTON:  So that may be, is that the sum of it is 
how do you prove a negative and then explain from there?

MS. MELLON:  It seems to me that in some commercial 
context that the standard that's being demanded is basically 
the absence of something and you have to figure out a way in a 
commercial, it's really more in a commercial, but maybe in a, 
because you had commercial legal setting for proving that 
something doesn't exist and that in many cases that's the 
driving, the food chain to develop its own kind of 
certification systems because you can't, you know, because 
there's no available technology, detection technology that 
would enable you to assure someone that something doesn't 
exist.
MR. DYKES:  I think that's well said.
MS. SULTON:  Randy.
MR. GIROUX:  Right.  I would just second Mardi, you 
are correct.  This is a commercial issue because legally it's 
when it's placed on the market.  And the first time that it's 
placed on the market is in Europe, if we talk about European 
labeling and traceability.  And my obligations on sending 
something to Europe is to label it or not to label it, or to 
label it product X derived from genetically modified X and if 
there's not in part any legal requirement on me to provide 
documentation back to the farm.  I guess that's my 
interpretation of the law.
MS. SULTON:  It sounds like this is one that would go 
into the bucket of taking, requiring some significant work to 
rewrite.
MR. GRANT:  I don't' think so.
MS. SULTON:  Duane.

MR. GRANT:  I actually think this one is pretty 
clear.  From everything I heard, the industry is grappling with 
how to address the issue and we've heard a lot of different 
interpretations of how that might be done, different ideas 
kicked around about, even different systems that are being 
evolved to address that, but frankly, we don't know the right 
direction because nobody's going to know when we're in 
compliance and when we're not.
MS. SULTON:  Well, if we left it as it was with the 
changes that were suggested, it would be industry's grappling 
with the impacts of complying with biotechnology specific 
tracing and labeling regulations governing product 
characteristics that cannot be detected and government imposed 
process certification requirements pose challenges, not new 
challenges for the market place.
MR. GRANT:  And I would just leave it just like that 
and then deal with number 6 when we get to it because that is a 
little bit different issue.
MS. SULTON:  Are we having all nodding heads here, 
okay.  Number 5.  It's one about acceptable zero versus 
absolute zero.
MR. OLSON:  I would say number 5, it's approved and 
unapproved, but that's both.
MS. SULTON:  Approved and unapproved?
MR. OLSON:  Because you're going to market a product 
non-GMO it might be an approved event but you still want to 
market label it non-GMO, you're dealing with how do you have an 
adventitious presence or tolerance or something on that 
product.

MR. GRANT:  Ron, I would just, we get into that a 
little bit in number 7.  I wonder if they are two different 
issues.
MS. SULTON:  5 and 7.
MR. GRANT:  Yeah. In 7 you get into the effect of 
zero tolerance to avoid exceeding guidelines.  You want to make 
zero claim.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so is the real issue in number 5 
that there is no way to define that absolute zero can exist? 
I'm just asking because I don't know.
MS. SULTON:  As I recall --
MR. GRANT:  From my perspective, the issue in number 
5 is that absolute zero is, and frankly doesn't exist, and if 
you have an unapproved event, that event is illegal in any 
market.  Whereas in number 7 you can have an event that 
doesn't, that can't meet the absolute zero claim and can be 
marketed in certain markets.
MS. SULTON:  Greg.

MR. JAFFE:  I agree.  I mean I was going to raise the 
same thing Ron raised which is the way at least 5 is written, I 
think you need to include unapproved events if you're getting 
rid of the second sentence which I think is what Terry had 
recommended earlier today, then you could have a different -- 5 
could just address unapproved events and 7 could address 
approved events, but when you put, link that second sentence of 
having this presence policy, from my perspective that includes 
both of those scenarios and so, then it looked like the first 
sentence was missing something. The other thing I just would 
get rid of such issues as, I mean, if 5 is going to talk about 
unapproved events, we don't need that qualifier.
MS. MELLON:  I think we should, I mean, I think a 
statement like industry's grappling with how to deal with 
acceptable zero versus an absolute zero doesn't, you know, kind 
of have much context.  We really need what Duane just said, you 
know, unapproved biotech events are illegal in all markets, and 
it's in that context that, I mean then I think it makes sense 
to say industry's grappling with how to address, you know, the 
differences between an acceptable zero and an absolute zero in 
this context.
MR. OLSON:  I'm going to add that, using StarLink as 
an example, the milling industry is saying how much longer do 
we have to keep testing corn for StarLink.  Because Canada has 
announced we're not going to test anymore.  But in the U.S. we 
don't have that option.  We have to test every load of corn yet 
for StarLink, and the question is, do we ever reach a point, I 
don't think we'll ever reach a point that StarLink is gone.  So 
the question is, is there an acceptable level of StarLink that 
is allowed in the food chain before it's illegal or whatever 
the right term is.  That's what I would call acceptable zero.

MS. MELLON:  It is a perfect example and I mean, all 
I'm trying to say is that that kind of general notion of what's 
an acceptable zero has to have a context and you know, the 
StarLink example is a perfect context, the kind of general 
notion of dealing with unapproved products that are unapproved 
in all markets, everywhere, that becomes an issue when you know 
it's very hard to reduce these things to absolute zero, but I 
just know all I want is some statement of context and both of 
those are perfect.
MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  I agree with Mardi and Duane and 
everybody about rewriting this a little more of context, I 
would just say, Mardi just raised one thing that I think is not 
correct which is that, there are countries that do allow 
certain levels of unapproved events.  Europe did things, there 
were things that went through their food safety, but they had 
a, clearance was assigned to a committee but didn't get 
approval, so I just want to be careful that we accurately 
portray what, if we're talking about multiple markets or are we 
just talking about the U.S. that's one thing, but if we're 
going to make a statement, and it's unclear whether this one 
is, I thought this was only talking about what's happening in 
the U.S., but we should make clear whether this is only, 
because other countries do have different policies about what 
might be, what would happen with an unapproved event.

MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So let me get to the bottom on 
here, we still need to rewrite.
MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Can we move on?
MS. SULTON:  Are we rewriting it alone or in 
combination with 7?
MR. JAFFE:  We haven't got to 7 yet.
MS. SULTON:  Haven't gotten to 7 yet.  Number 6.  
Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  I'll start.  I guess the only thing that 
struck me in this one was the words "downstream parties," like 
I said I would like those to be defined.  I'm not sure what 
they mean by members of the food and feed chain here, are they 
talking about governments, because we are talking about 
harmonization and testing results.  I wasn't sure, I wouldn't 
consider government a "downstream party," but I didn't know if 
we were talking about governments here or who we're talking 
about when we say "downstream parties." It would help with that 
being clarified.
MR. OLSON:  I would say downstream parties because 
you check at the farm, you check at the, I mean, you've checked 
about six or seven different times throughout the chain.
MR. JAFFE:  Can we say "downstream members of the 
food and feed chain?"

MR. OLSON:  Sure.  You could define it that way, but 
the problem you run into and I think it can be tested, you 
know, complying, complying, complying, complying then when the 
boat arrives or the unit arrives or the truck arrives it's not 
in compliance and we reject it.  Because our test shows that it 
doesn't comply.
MR. JAFFE:  I understand the concept, I'm just, the 
word "parties" to me, we haven't used that anywhere else and we 
always talk about members of the food and feed chain.
MR. OLSON:  The various members of or the various 
levels of or something.
MR. JAFFE:  I didn't know here whether we're also 
talking about governments, because if you want to talk about 
governments, I wouldn't consider them a downstream party 
necessarily.
MR. OLSON:  Then we need to say or governments, or 
and/or governments.
MR. GRANT:  So I would be fine with the food and feed 
supply chain but I do think it's important that we also include 
compliance and enforcement testing because that really is the 
last place where these things can and may be tested for 
compliance.  So maybe we have to include food and feed chain 
and enforcement and compliance activities.  That something 
that'll work for you, Greg?  Because that is a significant 
risk.

MS. SULTON:  So members of the food chain and 
enforcement of compliance agencies officials.  Anything else on 
number 6?  Randy, is your card still up?
MR. GIROUX:  I'm not sure where we are on 6.
MS. SULTON:  Well, we've spent a lot of time, we 
talked about downstream, we added the concept of enforcement 
and compliance which gets to government.
MS. LAYTON:  And is it predictability or accuracy on 
the second sentence?  Industry is facing difficulties because 
the predictability of testing along the supply chain is poor or 
the accuracy of testing is?
MR. GIROUX:  The correct word is predictability.
MS. LAYTON:  It is predictability.
MS. SULTON:  Is this where it varies from, one place 
you get one result and you test the next place you get another?
MR. OLSON:  That's correct, because a lot of times 
you destroy the sample when you test it, so you can't test the 
same sample.
MR. GIROUX:  Clearly the issue is that if I tested 
here I want predictability that if they tested there and they 
will get the same answer.  Whether or not that's an accurate 
answer can be important, but it's from an industry perspective 
the issue is more can I predict this number here will mean that 
number there.

MS. SULTON:  Isn't that in sampling theory, would 
that be like reliability?
MS. MELLON:  I think it's more like reliability.  You 
want reliable tests so that every time you do them you get the 
same answers.
MS. LAYTON:  It's accuracy and precision.
MR. OLSON:  If it's right it's predictability.
MS. MELLON:  Well, then I think it's important just 
to say that, you need methods that used one place will achieve 
some other results used elsewhere or further down the supply 
chain.
MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Carole and then --
MR. BUSS:  I think there are two different issues, 
one of which is reproducibility of the method of the test and 
what I was thinking from Ron is that's probably less the issue 
than the fact that you're testing different samples.  And so 
it's more a sampling issue probably than is aspect GC 
reproducible it is.  That you're doing the different sample at 
any point in time.

MR. GIROUX:  I would agree that the total 
predictability, the total variability in the methods is going 
to be your analytical method of variability plus your sampling 
variability, plus other variabilities.  If those are all added 
up and all, when you put them all together in a bucket and you 
shake them up, it's based on how much variability is there, can 
I predict that this number here will give you this number.  And 
that's the essence of the need is testing grain or testing corn 
chips at the end of the chain, they may not be the same number. 
 But at least I can predict what the number will be.  I may 
have to modify what I do here to make sure I can do this, but I 
can predict this number is going to give me this number.
MS. SULTON:  Terry then Carole.

MR. MEDLEY:  I'm struggling just a little bit because 
I'm hearing a lot of different things.  When I read number 6, 
and I tried to see what I thought were the issues, I saw two 
very distinct things.  One was the fact that even if you had a 
validated sampling and testing protocols that those difference, 
so there should be some harmonization on, you know, kind on a 
more global basis of what those are.  That's very different 
than what you talk about in number 8.  The second thing I saw 
in terms of number 6 was a question that, you know, which 
results take precedence and there I think it's going back to 
where it happens in the chain.  I mean, ideally what you would 
like is testing at origination and so you would say it's been 
tested, that one controls, however, that's not what's happening 
in a lot of places.  It's like, well, you test fine here, you 
get there they do another sample or someone throws something in 
and now test is positive, so I mean, I see, those are very 
different issues and to me, I don't think we have just carved 
out just what are the specific issues that are raised here.  So 
one is lack of harmonization and two is the whole issue 
concerning, you know, which test takes precedence, origination, 
destination or whatever.  And we should probably kind of say 
those.
MS. MELLON:  You mean the test at which point in the 
food chain, because I thought you meant whether it would be a 
DNA test.
MR. MEDLEY:  No, no.  I saw that that was when we get 
down to 8.  You're right, I first I thought what they were 
talking about is it genetic based or --
MS. MELLON:  Right.
MR. MEDLEY:  But then I read and I realized no, it's 
point in the chain of testing.
MS. SULTON:  Carole, did you want to make a point?
MS. CRAMER:  No, that's okay.
MS. SULTON:  Randy.
MR. GIROUX:  No.
MS. SULTON:  So we need to rewrite this to focus more 
on the point in the food chain or testing at different points 
in the food chain.  Predictability with all the variables is an 
issue when you test at various points in the food chain.

MR. MEDLEY:  This is not particular or unique to 
biotechnology.  If you look in agriculture, there are a number 
of countries that pay significantly for the U.S. to have 
inspectors in their country and do certification at origination 
simply so you don't have these issues upon arrival.
MS. SULTON:  Greg, are you?
MR. JAFFE:  It's not about this one.  Before we move 
on to the next one, I just want to make one general comment 
that's on my mind before I forget it.
MS. SULTON:  All right.
MR. JAFFE:  In carrying on the discussion, I mean, I 
think we said it before, but I think it's only, and I want to 
make sure it's captured in the introduction when the group goes 
to write that.  Which is that this report is for a current 
snapshot in time and so, I think we do need to put somewhere in 
the introduction that this an evolving area and this report is 
really a snapshot in time and is talking about the current 
state of these testings and things like that.  Things may 
change tremendously as we move forward.  And so, just a concept 
that I think needs to be captured in the intro to set the stage 
for all of this so we don't say it in each one of these 
recommendations, but they are what is the current situation now 
in December of 2004 or January 2005 whenever this comes out.
MS. SULTON:  So another note for the intro?
MR. JAFFE:  Yes.

MS. SULTON:  Carole, your card is up and then Lisa.
MS. CRAMER:  This is sort of still on 6.  The word I 
was thinking of before is validation from the point of view of 
testing protocols which is a pretty extensive concept say in 
pharmaceuticals, but would we capture some of sort of the 
issues if we just say harmonization and validation of sampling 
and testing because part of it is that you would like there to 
be a standard that's acceptable.  That if you get this test 
done at this place and that carries through the chain.
MS. MELLON:  I think that's number 8.
MR. GIROUX:  That's what I thought.  Cindy, I'd like 
to make a recommendation.
MS. SULTON:  Yes, Randy.
MR. GIROUX:  We park this one and take this one and 
do a rewrite on it.  I understand and I have some thoughts on 
how we can make it very clear that addresses what Terry wants, 
what Carole wants, so why don't we park this one and we'll work 
out alternate language?
MS. SULTON:  Is everybody okay with that?  All right. 
 Then we'll go to 7.
MR. JAFFE:  I was just going to pick up on the word 
guidelines.  I don't know what's being referred to there.  I 
mean, I'm not sure that is the correct word we're talking 
about.

MS. SULTON:  Thresholds.
MR. JAFFE:  Are we talking about regulations?  Are we 
talking about commercial expectations, I don't know what, but 
guidelines to me is always, is a government, usually in this 
kind of context and this kind of report one would think of 
guidelines as government guidelines or guidance or something 
like that, but I'm not sure that's what we're referring to 
here, so I don't know what we're referring to when we talk 
about guidelines.
MS. SULTON:  In the context could it be thresholds?
MR. JAFFE:  Are we talking about commercial 
tolerances?  Are we talking about government-imposed 
tolerances?  What are we talking about here?
MS. LAYTON:  I didn't understand the first sentence. 
 I mean, I don't understand how the commercial market place is 
struggling with varying concepts of what constitutes 
genetically engineered versus non-engineered.
MR. JAFFE:  I'll let Ron answer that.
MR. OLSON:  I didn't write this one, so -- I'm not 
sure what that answer is.
MS. SULTON:  Duane, did you want to say --

MR. GRANT:  Add to the confusion I think.  And I 
didn't write it either, so -- actually I wasn't on this work 
group so -- in my mind we're really talking about two different 
issues in number 7.  I think that first sentence is a separate 
issue, what constitutes genetically engineered or non-
engineered, and I'm not really sure what was meant either, so I 
guess I'll, I'm sure open to clarification.  It could be are we 
talking about true transgenics versus mutagenesis?  I mean, 
that's been an issue in the industry.  Is that what we're 
talking about?  Are we talking about GM products for which all 
of the protein has been removed and there's actually debate 
within the industry, whether they actually are GM or not.  So 
we need some clarification there. Then I think a second issue, 
which is the author took a stab in the second sentence, is 
really the issue of the imposition of market tolerances 
superimposed over regulatory tolerances.
MS. SULTON:  Did you want to say something?
MS. SLUTSKY:  No, all I was going to say is, I'm 
presuming that this means, they're referring to tolerances, I 
mean if you're, the product is considered, like if a buyer 
wants to buy a non-biotech product, what does that mean.  Does 
that mean, you know, you can have 3 percent, 1 percent 
tolerance for, you know biotech and put it in that product.  
When I read that, that's what I thought about.

MS. ZANNONI:  Yeah, and I think we talked about this 
in the committee one time, I didn't write it either, but, I 
think, it should have been, what's genetically modified and 
what's not genetically modified because of the tolerance.  
Because he can have, if it's over .1 percent, if it's less than 
.1 percent in Europe, then it's not genetically modified, you 
don't have a genetically modified product because it's not 
labeled under the detection.
MR. MEDLEY:  Well, I mean, obviously I'm not in the 
work group so I didn't write it.  When I read this and I too 
struggled with the first sentence.  I thought that there were 
two issues that were being raised by 7.  The first issue had to 
do with, you know, where tolerances are set such that something 
in essence if it's below that it's considered non-genetically 
engineered, and then the second question was even if you do 
that, the issue we're facing is that others in the supply chain 
to protect themselves are raising the level higher such that in 
essence what ends up happening is you added zero either way you 
go whether it's imposed by a competent authority or imposed 
under contract, and then how do you deal with that.  But, I 
mean, that's just one interpretation.

MS. MELLON:  Well, I do think there's a, I mean, it 
seems to me that overarching and really important part of this 
whole chapter, the overall arching kind of point is that in 
today's world commercial realities coexist with and interact 
with legal realities in a way that really is unlike a lot of 
other U.S., you know ag trade issues, and so it's not just a 
matter of meeting bewildering trade requirements or regulatory 
requirements because the answer to that is harmonize the 
requirements.  You know the, I think the message to the 
Department is that just harmonizing the requirements probably 
isn't going to, you know, solve the problem from the point of 
view of the views of trade and this is, you know, there are 
lots of kind of, or several, not lots, there are several 
examples of that point here and this, you know, is a good one. 
 But I think, you know, I think the second half of 7 is more, 
you know, seems to be easier to grasp than the first.  Unless 
some more context is out there, you know, is the definition of 
genetically engineered a quantitative one or does it determine, 
does it hang in some way on the methodology for the production 
of the crop?
MS. SULTON:  Leon.

MR. CORZINE:  Keeping up the record of deniability, I 
didn't write it either.  But when I read this, I thought this 
addressed the issue that the Europeans have as they try to 
differentiate, like if you heard them try to define what they 
mean by "derived from" rather than "derived with."  I mean 
that's a serious thing and that's all clear outside of 
tolerances and thresholds, fits the definition.  And it's a 
real one where they try to differentiate their products derived 
with, derived from.  I think it's back to the labeling, you're 
supposed to clarify for consumers which adds confusion to the 
whole labeling process, but that is what they are trying to do. 
 So that's what this really addresses because in a commercial 
world, which this says, how in the heck do you address that?
MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, but you're talking about the 
process aids issue, the enzymes or --
MR. CORZINE:  That's what they get to so that, and 
the whole key is, so that in the marketplace they think they 
have to derive things from overseas and not from within the EU, 
but that is what the point that they use.  And that's what I 
thought this was trying to address was more a definition than 
the whole threshold thing.
MS. SULTON:  Greg.
MR. JAFFE:  I mean I don't think it is trying to 
address that.  That issue is not addressed at all in the 
chapter, so I don't think, if we don't address it in the 
chapter I don't think we would discuss that issue in the policy 
issues.  I don't think that that was what was meant here.
MR. CORZINE:  But it sure looks like it could.
MS. SULTON:  If we dealt with process aids which we 
didn't in the chapter.  Are we going to rewrite this one?
MS. LAYTON:  And nobody wants to defend it so maybe 
it, we could even just --
MS. SULTON:  Carole.

MS. CRAMER:  Actually, I didn't speak up but I didn't 
write it either.  Is part of the concept here that only, we 
have a situation where a single product would be labeled as 
biotech in one country and not biotech in another, is that just 
the simple reality of it?
MR. CORZINE:  One part, yes.
MS. CRAMER:  So it's the same product, so the 
commercial uncertainties around the fact that you can have the 
exact same product prepared in the exact same way and in one 
country it's labeled biotech and in another country it's non-
biotech.
MR. GRANT:  It depends which is the EU, I think is a 
good example of that.
MS. CRAMER:  I mean does that capture the concept any 
simpler?

MR. JAFFE:  I thought the concept wasn't so much 
differences but the fact that, I mean, one might have a 3 
percent tolerance and one might have a 1 percent tolerance and 
so one would be your label differently, but I thought this was, 
I mean getting back to what we talked about in number 5, number 
5 dealt with adventitious presence when you're dealing with 
unapproved events, I thought number 7 here was dealing with 
really adventitious presence with approved events, which is how 
much of an approved event can you have in something and still 
call it, somebody who wants to call it non-biotech be able to 
call it non-biotech.  And so, and the fact, so I thought that's 
what this one.  I thought this was the companion to number 5 
that completed sort of the adventitious presence which we spend 
time about in the chapter.
MS. SULTON:  Michael.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me just add to that.  And I 
think that I also heard that the issue was that in addition to 
the differing requirements, on top of that was the concern that 
the marketplace, notwithstanding what the definition is because 
of the concerns in the marketplace, companies in responding to 
what they perceive as commercial demands are feeling compelled 
to go beyond what that definition is to, whether it's protect 
their brands or to comply with what they perceive as what's 
really being required of them by other forces.  Is that correct 
in?
MR. GIROUX:  I think that's in there as well.  If I 
can speak, Cindy.  I think that's in there as well.  I really 
think there's three issues in here, and it needs to be 
rewritten to accommodate those three or we may want to, as some 
wanted to earlier, move the AP issue up and combine it with the 
earlier, I'm going to back away from that actually. I don't 
think we want to muddle the earlier one.  So we do have those 
three issues though.
MS. SULTON: Yes, Michael.

MR. DYKES:  As I read this one, I thought this one 
was all to do with a confidence interval.  I thought that was 
just no more --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The what?
MR. DYKES:  The confidence interval.  In other words, 
if you got a .3 percent tolerance, where are you going to 
operate at relative to .3?  I mean you can't operate at .3 all 
the time because of all of the complexities we just talked 
about here later.  So, as you try to get lower and lower to 
make sure that you're going to be in compliance, that's what I 
took number 7 to be addressing.  Am I being confusing?
MR. MEDLEY:  No, no, you're not, we were just 
commenting that, you know as we've read this, we've had several 
different people say this is how I interpreted it, and if we're 
interpreting that way then clearly this has to be rewritten 
because there's so many different interpretations on what it 
says.
MS. SULTON:  We're going back to number 8 since we 
know this one needs to be rewritten.  Significant 
methodological issues with commercial and regulatory 
requirements for testing grain to low tolerance levels for 
genetically engineered content.
MR. MEDLEY:  I thought this was Carole's validation 
issue, that's what I thought they were trying to do here.

MR. DYKES:  This is reproducibility, validation, 
accuracy, all that kind of stuff.  This is if you test 10 
different times do we have validated testing methods, 
predictability such that you get the same answer 10 different 
times.
MS. LAYTON:  So is this just a restatement of the one 
we had last?
MS. MELLON:  This is a fairly technical issue.  There 
aren't techniques available that are truly precise, but are 
reproducible and that does lead to you know something the USDA 
could do something about.
MS. SULTON:  Randy.
MR. GIROUX:  I would suggest we park this one and 
rewrite it.  Unless everybody agrees, but I don't want to go 
through this again.
MS. SULTON:  Number 8 then, precision and 
reproducibility where 6 is predictability, those are the 
distinctions, Randy?

MR. GIROUX:  This one addresses specifically that the 
lower you go, the greater the variability.  So as you have 
tolerances at high levels, the same test that could work on a 
five percent sample can't work on a sample at .1 percent.  The 
lower you go the increased variability, so this ties directly 
between establishing tolerances that can be predictably 
enforced and complied against, this is all around 
predictability of testing and ties it directly to what is the 
threshold for enforcement.  So I can rewrite it to make it more 
clear, or we'll just leave it the way it is.
MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, is it clear to everyone?  Are we 
comfortable with this one?  I see a lot of nods.
MR. BUSS:  I was having problems with the second 
sentence because when I reconstruct it seems to say at high 
precision and testing makes it difficult to practically and 
reproducibly determine.  And I'm struggling with why would high 
precision --
MS. LAYTON:  It's the absence of high precision.
MS. MELLON:  Because there are no standard 
methodologies and the available methodologies are not highly 
precise.
MR. BUSS:  I read it differently.  I read the two as 
two separate, in other words absence of standards plus high 
precision as opposed to --
MS. LAYTON:  Absence of standards and of, the second 
of.  Vincent has a question.
MR. VILKER:  This is again, reminding people I work 
at NIST.  One element that hasn't been captured yet here and it 
does involve testing, is not only does there, would 
harmonization of regulations and bottom line levels be 
important worldwide, but the testing methodology needs to be 
harmonized.  I agree, testing protocols is explicitly 
mentioned.  Sorry.

MS. SULTON:  But it does seem that, was it 8, there 
are several that relate to this.
MS. LAYTON:  So we can leave 8, yes and go to 9.
MR. GIROUX:  Just there are two words to clarify 
that, okay, so in the second sentence that's beginning with 
absence, the absence of standards and high precision at low 
levels makes it difficult to practically and reproducibly 
determine.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I don't think you need the "of."
MR. GIROUX:  You don't need high precision, just 
precision at low levels.
MS. LAYTON:  It doesn't need to be the absence of 
precision at low levels.  So do you need the word "of" after 
the word "and."
MR. GIROUX:  Yes.  The absence of standards and 
precision at low levels in testing makes it difficult to 
practically and reproducibly determine if grain and grain 
products are above or below.
MR. DYKES:  So you don't have absence of high 
precision or you don't have absence of precision.  You have 
precision.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  We don't have precision.  Okay, 
so the absence of standards and precision at low levels of 
testing and testing makes, okay, got it.

MS. MELLON:  Daryl, maybe it's the absence of 
standard and highly precise methods at low level.  I mean what 
you want are standard methodologies where everybody uses the 
same methodology for testing for the presence of DNA.  There 
are no standard methodologies that say here's the way you do 
it.  Here are the 14 steps in the standard methodology.  So we 
don't have a standard methodology and the methodologies we do 
have are not precise.  You do them --
MR. BUSS:  At low levels.
MS. MELLON:  Well, at high levels.  They're not that 
precise, but certainly, you know especially at low levels.
MS. LAYTON:  The absence of standards and highly 
precise --
MS. MELLON:  I would say standard methods.
MS. LAYTON:  Standard methods.
MS. CRAMER:  I think we actually really talking 
standards.
MR. HOISINGTON:  Mostly standards.  That's what makes 
the method precise.
MS. CRAMER:  Which is that you validate based on the 
fact that your test detects this in a test sample and then test 
this in your, in a control sample and this in a test sample was 
part of the validation, so it actually is acceptable standards 
that your system can detect it in this one and then it can 
detect so it's a validation system that creates, you know, 
standards, controls like we do in science.

MS. MELLON:  Those are control standards.
MR. BUSS:  Just all depending on the wording.  When 
it talks about, if we use precision at low levels implies to me 
then that the precision is dependent on the level of the 
unknown.  So the precision of the test is less if the content 
is low and the precision is higher if the content is high.  
That's what I want to make sure we were saying what we meant.
MS. SULTON:  Vince.
MR. VILKER:  To reinforce the point Carole made, 
control, there are no controls.  The lack of controls will 
inhibit the issue of accuracy at low levels and the standard 
protocols are required to be validated against controls, and 
you don't have either at this point.  You don't have the 
standardized protocols nor do you have the controls to 
establish if those protocols are truly worth anything.
MS. SULTON:  All right, I think we know how to fix 
number 9.  Number 10.  I'm sorry, that was 8.  Yes, one more on 
8.

MR. MEDLEY:  As we are rewriting that and that is, 
clearly there's a major difference if we're talking about grain 
and then material from a highly processed medium.  I mean it 
gets even more difficult when you start talking about the, you 
know, let's say the product that contains this as an ingredient 
and it's a highly processed food product, it's even more 
difficult.
MS. SULTON:  Grits.
MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. SULTON:  Michael.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, I just want to check where we 
are on this one.  I heard a number of different comments, but 
I'm not quite sure whether we say this needs to be rewritten or 
whether just the changes that we have to the second sentence, 
something like the absence of standards, I think it was, rather 
than standard methods, and precision at low tolerance levels.
MS. LAYTON:  No.  It's low actual presence of the 
gene products.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  End testing makes it, et cetera.  
Does that leave everyone at the point that says that we don't 
need to rewrite this one?
MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
MS. SULTON:  So we don't need to say anything about 
the validation standards.  Okay.
MR. GRANT:  How about Terry's last comment that this 
issue is amplified in processed products.  Does that need to 
be, I mean, I think it's a good point, but does that need to be 
in this?
MS. LAYTON:  I think you say that in 6.

MR. HOISINGTON:  But you took out the word standard 
methods, and I think that's the key to it.  That's part of the 
combination, you have to have standards and you have to have 
standardized methods to have an accurate protocol.  And neither 
one of those exist.  We have methods to detect in almost 
everything we want to detect, but they're not standardized at 
all, and we have no standard references to judge by.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So you're saying standards and 
standard methods.
MR. HOISINGTON:  Then it doesn't matter which product 
you're talking about.  If you don't have a method for detecting 
it in oil, you can't --
MS. LAYTON:  Standards and standardized --
MS. CRAMER:  Actually, I would suggest one more word 
which is the way I'd written it is, the absence of validated 
standards and protocols.  Because then it gets the process 
that, I mean, the concept that you've got oversight of that.
MS. LAYTON:  Validated standards and protocols.
MS. SULTON:  Okay everybody?  Number 9.  Ron.

MR. OLSON:  I don't know who wrote it specifically, 
but that basically is just a summary of the market implication 
section.  It's a lot of assumptions.  I mean the issue, that's 
really not the issue itself.  The issue is the impacts of 
traceability are unknown as far as whos going to bear the 
liability and is it going to segregate farmers as price 
transfers are going to disappear.  Nobody knows.  The issue is 
we don't know what the impacts are, and this one is kind of 
written like we say what the impacts are going to be. We don't 
know for sure, that's our assumption that that could lead to 
do.  I don't know if that whole thing, it needs a major rewrite 
if we were going to keep it.
MS. SULTON:  The minimum we need a lead-in saying 
that impacts are unknown in the areas where they have the 
potential for impact are.
MR. OLSON:  I guess the question I put in, all this 
is covered in the implications section of the report, so I 
don't even know if it needs to be listed here.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so you would suggest deleting it.
MR. OLSON:  I would suggest deleting it.
MS. SULTON:  Mardi and Michael Dykes agree.  Daryl?
MR. BUSS:  I agree.
MS. SULTON:  Nobody arguing for it, we move to number 
10.  Terry.
MR. MEDLEY:  I just would like for whoever drafted 
number 10 to tell me whether the issue we're addressing.
MS. SULTON:  You'd like us to tell you if --

MR. MEDLEY:  I would like for whoever drafted number 
10 just to state for me what the issue is we're addressing.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I can't do that, but I can actually 
tell you who did draft it, since I can safely do this and this 
was Dick Crowder.
MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.  Because we've stated quite 
frequently in the document the fact that, you know, we're going 
to see food manufacturers source the ingredients from non-GM.  
I was just wondering what was the issue.  Is the issue how the 
product spectrum will evolve for these markets uncertain?
MR. OLSON:  That's the only issue I see.
MR. DYKES:  That's the only issue and I think that's 
akin to the one Ron just talked about.  It's throughout the 
document.
MS. LAYTON:  Suggest we delete it?
MR. DYKES:  Yeah, I'd delete it.
MS. LAYTON:  Any nodding heads around the table?
MS. SULTON:  Number 11.  Liability insurance 
frameworks.  Number 11.
MS. MELLON:  What's an insurance framework?
MS. SULTON:  Ron:

MR. OLSON:  I don't think this is worded properly. 
Everybody's laughing a little bit, so it's probably not.  
Insurance framework, there are insurance agencies now that are 
putting out because the liability is unclear who bears it and 
especially at the grain handling level, insurance companies are 
now writing biotech exclusion policies in the insurance agency 
in case a recall drives it back.  If you have traceability, and 
you can trace it back further, you can say you caused my 
problem, the insurance company's not going to cover that.  So a 
lot of the insurance companies, especially for contra elevators 
are writing insurance exclusions in their insurance policies 
for country elevators. That's a big issue.
MR. MEDLEY:  What does the exclusion say?  I mean, I 
know --
MR. OLSON:  They will not pay any claims related to 
biotechnology.
MR. MEDLEY:  So maybe that would be the certain issue 
that --
MR. OLSON:  That's the issue.  It's a question of how 
we word that.
MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, that would be, yeah.
MR. OLSON:  Another liability issue is totally 
undefined at this point is where does liability land because in 
today's world without biotech, liability transfers with the 
testing at the contract level and biotech may allow that 
contract level to be violated.  That's a big concern in the 
grain industry.

MS. LAYTON:  So what are we saying here?
MS. SULTON:  Mike.
MR. DYKES:  Just the liability and the insurance 
protection issues are yet to be resolved in this area.
MR. MEDLEY:  That's true, but I thought, why aren't 
we saying something different, and that is, we know right now, 
I mean, Swiss Re and others they have put phrases which talk 
about, you know, really there's language which is talking we 
will not pay for, and so that is today.  And that does raise an 
issue when you look at the marketplace.  So if there's a way we 
could just phrase that, I think --
MS. MELLON:  We could just state that.
MS. LAYTON:  Is that not in page 21?
MR. MEDLEY:  No, I read it in the text of the 
document.  I don't know if it was 21 or --
MS. LAYTON:  Twenty-one and 22 are contracting and 
liability.
MR. MEDLEY:  No, there was, I remember reading it.  
There was actually a parens in here that there was going to be 
specific language.  Yeah, it was the bottom of page 20.  There 
some insurance exclusions and the work group suggests that we 
find the literal text from one of the exclusions and insert 
here.
MR. OLSON:  Now whether that's Swiss Re or any of 
those, we can just insert that.

MR. MEDLEY:  And you can just take from that very 
specifically, it's this type of exclusion issue raises, 
whatever.  It'll be very specific and it's current state.
MR. DYKES:  Well, maybe then what we need to do is to 
add the text that's suggested here for the text of the document 
and then how do we fix the text of the document we pick it up 
over in the other one.
MR. MEDLEY:  That's what I was suggesting.
MS. LAYTON:  Does anyone have text of the insurance 
policy with them today?
MR. OLSON:  No, I mean, the national random sheet has 
a whole paper on it, and Leon, I think your group has done a 
lot of work on it too.
MR. CORZINE:  Yes.
MR. OLSON:  So I mean, there's groups that are 
working on this right here in Washington have it.
MS. LAYTON:  So maybe we could get a fax of some 
language.
MR. OLSON:  Leon, does your group have the specific 
clauses?
MR. CORZINE:  We were more producer oriented, but it 
also flowed over into the grain handlers.

MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I ask whether we actually need, 
whether you really think what you need to get that specific 
language as opposed to just referring to the two points that 
Ron mentioned for the issues, for this one issue raised, 
uncertainties as to liability transfer and, you know, current 
insurance exclusions for biotechnology products.  Does that 
just capture all that you need to capture here?
MR. MEDLEY:  No.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No?
MR. MEDLEY:  I mean, I think you have to, the second 
point if you phrase it in terms of an issue might be 
appropriate over on the policies and issues that we're talking 
about.  But I think that in the text of what's here --
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes, yes.  No.  In the text put 
that, but I'm talking about whether for this number 11, whether 
we can just take number 11 with those two things and then be 
sure we come back and get the exact language for the text.
MR. MEDLEY:  Well, if we don't get it, but if we can 
get it, it would be better.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so reiterate what you thought we 
could use as number 11.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Uncertainties as to liability 
transfer and insurance exclusions for biotechnology.

MR. OLSON:  Certain pieces of the marketing chain or 
supply chain, whatever we're calling it, are getting, can't get 
insurance to cover the risk anymore.  That's why the liability 
issue is becoming more important because you can pass it to 
somebody, but they'll file bankruptcy because they don't have 
the ability to pay for it and they don't have the insurance to 
pay for it.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So uncertainty as to liability 
transfer and exclusions for biotech products.
MR. OLSON:  Insurance companies are writing 
exclusions for biotech related claims at certain levels in the 
supply chain for various handlers, and that starts all the way 
with the farmer.  The farmer and the country elevator are the 
primary levels where that's occurring, so it's basically at the 
farmer and the country elevator level.
MS. SULTON:  Randy.
MR. GIROUX:   I'd just like to make sure we qualify 
that a little bit, that some insurance companies are --
MR. CORZINE:  Primarily one.
MR. OLSON:  A large one.
MR. MEDLEY:  In fact, it will be interesting when 
that's placed in there and I understand the Department also 
does business with that, so it'll be curious to see how it 
evolves.
MS. MELLON:  So who ends up bearing -- who's going to 
end up bearing the risk?
MR. OLSON:  Ask can I hold the hot potato.

MS. MELLON:  Yeah, who holds the hot potato if you've 
got --
MR. OLSON:  If General Mills has a recall and we 
bought it from Cargill we probably can claim it from Cargill. 
If Cargill bought it from Jerry, and Jerry's insurance says I 
won't pay, he can file bankruptcy and Cargill bears the brunt. 
 So it's whoever in the chain can't get insurance, it's the 
first big guy in the chain pays.  Because the little guys in 
the chain are not going to be able to buy the insurance.
MS. LAYTON:  Big guys pay, little guys go bankrupt.
MR. MEDLEY:  And you're not concerned if it was based 
upon risk.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, now we're not putting that in.
MS. MELLON:  But it never goes back to the tech 
company?
(Discussion off the record)
MS. SULTON:  Now, we're making real progress.  You 
all are lighting up.  Number 12.  The role for international 
organizations in addressing some of the impacts and 
implications.
MS. LAYTON:  Are we talking about international 
standard organizations?

MR. JAFFE:  I have no idea what we're talking about. 
 That was my question.  What are we talking about, 
international organization?  I mean, they're trade 
associations, I mean, Crop Life International is an 
international organization, what are we talking about here?
MR. GRANT:  It says it's unclear, Greg.
MS. SULTON:  It must have come from a treaty.
MR. OLSON:  I think this got into the section on the 
Biosafety Protocol.  Codex was working on some things and then 
the U.S., Canada, Mexico, you know, bilateral treaties, stuff 
like this.  I mean, there's just different groups and different 
cities that are evolving to try to move forward.  I mean, I 
think that's what was intended to be captured here, but it may 
be too broad to write.
MR. DYKES:  I don't know.  I wonder if this one 
isn't, I agree with you.  This may be one of those that we've 
got covered sufficiently in the document.  I don't know if 
there's an issue there in that one.  So maybe it could be 
deleted as well.  I don't see an issue.  I think it's a summary 
statement of what points been made in this doc.
MR. OLSON:  I think so too.

MS. MELLON:  I don't know though.  I don't know 
enough about this issue, but, I think it's interesting to, you 
know, to ask the question whether the only international venue 
within which to address these issues is the kind of 
multilateral negotiations or international organizations.  I 
mean, it seems to me that, you know, if, and I'm not clear at 
all on whether this is the case, but that if it's possible to 
address issues on a bilateral basis, that that's something that 
we might want to say.  It isn't obvious to me.
MR. MEDLEY:  No, but that's what's happening.  You 
have a national, bilateral and you have regionals.
MS. MELLON:  Well I know that a lot of trade things 
are being done that way, but I just didn't know that these 
kinds of issues were being addressed on a bilateral basis.  So 
you say to Mexico we won't test your stuff if you won't test 
ours?
MR. OLSON:  Well, they also established a 5 percent 
tolerance.
MS. MELLON:  All right, so then you say --
MR. OLSON:  I mean, Mexico and Canada, you have to 
establish a 5 percent tolerance before you have to call it GMO.
MS. MELLON:  And that is discussed in the text.
MR. OLSON:  Right, as an example.
MS. MELLON:  As an example.  So basically those two, 
those two countries to whom the U.S. exports are saying to you 
all, to all of you in the chain, if it doesn't hit about 5 
percent you're not going to hear from us.
MR. OLSON:  It's non-GMO.
MS. MELLON:  And the governments are saying that and 
I guess there are not private entities that are saying 
otherwise.

MR. OLSON:  I don't know.  Private entities have 
commented on the disagreement that I've seen.
MS. SLUTSKY:  I mean, it might be helpful to clarify 
a bit.  It's not a formal government-to-government agreement.  
It's an arrangement and it was done, it's an arrangement that's 
implemented by the industry, but it was an arrangement that the 
governments discussed together, you know, in conjunction with 
the industry, but it's implemented by, contractually by the 
industry.  So it hasn't been put into, for example, U.S. 
regulations, government regulations.
MS. MELLON:  To me that's an important thing to say 
is that industry to industry, governments negotiated in, I 
don't know, you know, with government participation or 
something like that, have led to informal agreements that have 
accomplished, whatever you would like to say has been 
accomplished.
MR. MEDLEY:  But that's in the text, I thought.
MS. MELLON:  All right, okay.  Well then, I mean, is 
there, so there is no issue --
MR. MEDLEY:  Right.
MS. MELLON:  -- that these should be, you know, the 
availability of these might be pursued or maybe it's just 
obvious because it's there.
MS. SULTON:  Duane.

MR. GRANT:  So, is the issue here that there's kind 
of competition between different entities as far as which 
entity will emerge as the predominant setter of standards, if 
you will, that's a poor way to describe it, but is there a 
competition between, you know, bilateral, multilateral 
agreements or going to Codex or, you know, is that what the 
issue is?  It's unclear where these issues will be resolved at?
MS. SULTON:  Randy.
MR. GIROUX:  So, if I look at the, a lot of the text 
says that we don't have consistency, we don't have agreements 
between countries, we have different interpretations of the 
regulations, all of that outcome being that we want some level 
of harmonization, standard setting between individual 
countries, between regions, it doesn't matter.  How do we 
accomplish that goal?  That, and I believe that this statement 
says there is a role for international organizations to address 
these issues and help us solve these problems.  That's what I 
see the essence is here.  The essence is calling it out clearly 
in this, and perhaps it's worded incorrectly, but there is a 
role for these organizations to help lead us there.

MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think if I can try to paraphrase 
what I remembered from the discussions with Dick on this 
particular issue.  I think the point was that there are, you 
know, lots of different organizations and they're all starting 
to get involved and talking about this, some fora may be more 
productive than others for the U.S., some of these things may 
best be done in multilateral contexts, some may best be done on 
bilateral contexts, and the point, the implication that was 
raised was that the U.S. needs to think creatively about how 
best to solve each of the particular problems.  Whether that is 
enough of a policy issue raised, you know, I think that was the 
general intent of the item.
MS. MELLON:  But maybe it's that in being creative 
and pursuing bilateral agreements, that the agency does need to 
consider a kind of impending collision between standards and 
agreements arrived in multilateral context and those arrived at 
in bilateral context.  I mean, that seems to be an issue that a 
whole bunch of side agreements could just be a whole other 
layer of unharmonized standards and requirements. And that they 
could be superseded, or that they could tie the U.S.' hands 
when two years from now somebody actually gets around in an 
international context to setting standards, the U.S. is already 
committed to all these agreements.  It just seems to me to be, 
that the potential conflicts and inconsistencies between the 
provisions of agreements set in these different ways is an 
issue that the USDA might want to address or be prepared to 
address.
MS. SULTON:  Terry, do you want to add to that and 
then Greg.

MR. MEDLEY:  No, Greg was first.
MS. SULTON:  Greg and then Terry.
MR. JAFFE:  I would just say two things.  I mean, I 
guess one is this reads like a recommendation to me, and we've 
been eliminating recommendations from the other ones and I 
guess we still haven't come to the question are we trying, I 
mean, I know Terry had a view about recommendations, Michael 
had a view about recommendations, but this reads to me as a 
recommendation, and so the question, and still open in my mind 
is are we making recommendations.  The second part of this one 
is it's just way too broad for me.  I mean, international 
organizations I still haven't qualified what that is, and we 
just have issues generally, I mean, all traceability and 
labeling issues, what are we trying to deal with here?  It's 
just, it's very broad, very all-encompassing.  Before I would 
feel comfortable with it, I would need a lot more definition 
about which organizations, what kind of organizations, what 
kinds of issues we're trying to talk about here be it bilateral 
or multilateral.  I don't disagree with those concepts, but 
they're just too broad at this point.
MS. SULTON:  Terry, since you brought the issue of 
recommendations.

MR. MEDLEY:  No, I was just going to, my comment on 
this one was that I think we should just either phrase an issue 
or delete it.
MS. SULTON:  Pat.
MS. LAYTON:  I could see where, for example, yeah, I 
could see for example where if this statement followed 
something about standard methodologies that international 
organizations could step up to the table and define testing 
standards or methodologies or protocols, that it might be less 
obtrusive to you, so I want, and so that made me start thinking 
about as we look at this, you know, we talked about a couple of 
these, maybe are more linked, and so what I wanted to think 
about was is there an organizational aspect to this to where, I 
think somebody said 1 and 3 were linked, so therefore, as the 
groups go out, should them kind of come back and say, these are 
linked to this area and then there were several that I think 
had to do with standards and testing, the one about 
predictability and then the one about absence of validated 
standards and protocols.  Should we sort of look at a grouping 
of regulations and then sampling and testing, and then 
something else, and I don't know what that something else is, 
the insurance is one maybe all by itself, so, I was just 
thinking about organizationally is there a way to group some of 
these to where they flow together and make more sense.
MS. SULTON:  Daryl.

MR. BUSS:  I guess I was thinking about taking it one 
step further back.  We had suggested that we were going to add 
an introductory sentence at the beginning of this section under 
policy issues raised.  Could this not be part of that sentence 
that would lead into these various issues?  In other words, as 
a follow on whatever the introductory sentence is, could we 
then just say there may be a role for international 
organizations in addressing some of the impacts and 
implications raised below or something to that effect?
MS. SULTON:  Terry.
MS. MEDLEY:  I mean, just picking on something Greg 
said, it's just so broad, I mean.  I mean, what's the issue? Is 
this supposed to be -- or what's the policy concern?  I mean, 
just give it to me very directly.
MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so drop number 12, okay.  Drop 
number 12 for now unless somebody comes up with a way to put it 
into something about some specific thing into one of these.  
Drop number 12?  It's gone.
MS. SULTON:  Yes, Leon.

MR. CORZINE:  I just wanted to respond to one thing 
that Mardi said that I think we've got to be careful of here, 
that offering an opinion of pros or cons, of bilateral or 
multilateral agreements on trade, which are necessary for trade 
to continue, with the concern that a standard that may never 
come, it'll be unlikely if it does, I don't think we want to go 
there and offer that as any kind of recommendation or thought.
MS. MELLON:  I couldn't agree with you more.  I don't 
think we want to offer a recommendation.  I was just trying to 
surface that there's an issue here of potential inconsistency 
that I don't even think that's a big issue and it would be more 
than comfortable just letting it go as something we haven't 
discussed.  It may be obvious from reading the report.  But it 
means that there's really only one other recommendation left, 
right, and that's the adventitious presence policy 
recommendation, and so, I think we could -- it's in number 5?  
But it seems to me that we could just decide to take that out 
and not have recommendations.  We would just have surfaced some 
issues.
MS. LAYTON:  I had deleted that.
MS. MELLON:  All right, then that issue is now moot.
MS. LAYTON:  I think we were going to still say 
something about grappling with issues of absolute zero versus, 
I thought we dealt with the first sentence in that section and 
deleted the second one, so that was my notes there.
MS. MELLON:  Right, that's just stating an issue but 
-- but that's the only recommendation that I think --
MS. LAYTON:  And we had deleted it.
MS. SULTON:  Greg and then Leon.

MR. JAFFE:  We've deleted a bunch of things which I 
have no problem with.  I think when we introduce this section, 
I think it's important to state that, sometimes we deleted 
things because they're in the text somewhere else.  And I 
guess, and I don't know if we've done a sort of comprehensive, 
I wasn't with, I'm in the subcommittee but I was not there when 
we brainstormed over this list to begin with, and I would hate 
to give the impression in this report that these now 7 or 8 
things are the only policy issues or concerns to come out of 
this whole 25-page report.  So I'd like to have something in 
the beginning of the section that sort of says that, you know, 
we've highlighted a few, these are some but not all.  We 
decided to keep some of these key ones.  Otherwise I think we 
need to go back and figure out if we've missed other key ones.
MS. SULTON:  Leon.
MR. CORZINE:  Well, I have a little concern with 
number 5 if we're going to drop that second sentence.  We 
really should say something about adventitious presence.  Now 
if we don't want, we want to reword it where it doesn't sound 
like a recommendation that's fine, but that is an issue that is 
there.
MS. SULTON:  It doesn't come up with the testing?

MR. CORZINE:  If it does, that's fine.  It needs to 
be somewhere.  It's a little bit like Greg said, a little 
comprehensive look to make sure that that's still there and 
maybe we don't drop it here until we make sure that it is 
somewhere.
MR. MEDLEY:  As I stated earlier when I made that 
suggestion, I mean, it's a vital, it's an important 
deliverable, and I just thought on pages 14 and 15 on top of 
16, that's all on adventitious presence.  We talk about OSTP 
policy, we talk about FDA, we also say that EPA and USDA should 
get there's in line, it's all there.  I mean, that's why I felt 
comfortable because there's over two pages on just AP and that 
we need this.
MS. SULTON:  Ron.
MR. OLSON:  I kind of agree with Leon saying, what we 
could say on number 5, you could say industry is grappling, 
excuse me, industry is grappling with how to address 
adventitious presence to achieve an acceptable zero versus an 
absolute zero.  That way you could get the words in there, 
because I think it is a big issue in the report, so I don't 
think it's wrong to re-highlight that as an issue because it is 
one of the primary issues that we've spent time on, not only in 
here, but in the next report it's a big issue as well.  So, I 
think it's good to state it as an issue.  Do it that way rather 
than a recommendation.
MS. SULTON:  Mardi.

MS. MELLON:  I mean, actually I would agree with it 
as a recommendation.  I would just, if we were going to make it 
as a recommendation, I would want to be clear about what the 
term "adventitious presence" means.  To me it's a catch-all 
for, you know, for a number of related, for a cluster of 
related issues and it's very, one of the reasons it never goes 
anywhere is we're never quite sure which of the cluster you're 
talking about when you're just talking about an AP policy, but 
I actually think it's one of the big, you know, issues ahead of 
us.  It's dealing with that cluster of issues, but if that's 
true, then I think we do need to look very carefully at the 
discussion of the issue on 14 and 15 which, you know, I think 
hasn't been massaged as much as some of the rest of it.
MS. LAYTON:  And Mardi, if I can interrupt, I think 
that's an excellent idea, but it's 3:20.
MS. MELLON:  I just want to point out that we do have 
another nearly, I mean, it's another take on the issue that 
might be, you know, that we produced as whatever it is, but 
issues, and that it might be better, a solution to the problem 
might be to use that text for this.
MS. SULTON:  As relates to labeling and traceability?
MS. MELLON:  I mean, we can either rewrite this or we 
could read the two together.

MS. LAYTON:  Okay, but it's going out to a group, so 
let's, because we need to take a 10-minute break before we have 
public comment at 3:30.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. DYKES:  When we come back, are we going to, so 
we've gone through these and we've kind of got them, then find 
out which ones are rewrites and which ones are related. The 
only thing we got left to do here is to come back and clearly 
articulate what are we going to rewrite.
MS. LAYTON:  That's correct.  And the introduction 
summary.  Okay, so we'll come back and make assignments.  
Because as I understand it, if you are, if I can just say this, 
if there's anyone in the audience that intends to make public 
comment, please sign up with Diane now and make sure that we 
have a copy of your comments, and that as soon as we reconvene 
at 3:30, we will begin public comment period.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

MS. LAYTON:  Ladies and gentlemen, if you can take 
your seats, please.  We need to begin again.  Ladies and 
gentlemen, it is time for public comments.  If there are any 
public comments, please come forward to make your comments, but 
we need to get your name and your comments.  Going once. Going 
twice.  We have no public comments at this time.  We will check 
later on in the meeting just to make sure no public commenters 
have come into the meeting.  Therefore, we have set up several 
tasks during the previous two hours, and I would ask Abby or 
Michael, and Cindy.  We've made some tentative assignments.
MS. SULTON:  We're going to redo the introduction. We 
were going to write a section on the impact on consumers that 
Greg and Carol Tucker Foreman volunteered to help with. We were 
going to add a section on the charge that perhaps Michael and 
the facilitators could write.  The scope of the report, what's 
in and what's not.  We're wondering if maybe Carole Cramer and 
Duane might consider doing that.  We can come back after we go 
all through and see how you feel about this.  Then the process, 
how we went about putting the report together.  Lisa and Leon 
maybe.  Useful terms.  Basically the commercial risk issue that 
we wanted to put in the introduction.  And Terry, you raised 
it, and we were wondering if maybe you and Michael Dykes, I 
think we talked about you possibly doing that.  Then as far as 
the issues are concerned, we've kind of grouped them.  1 and 3, 
thinking maybe Ron, Duane and Daryl might be a group that might 
be able to address that.  And then we grouped 5, 6 and 7, and 
wondering if Mardi and perhaps Randy could address that.  Now, 
we stand ready to get correction on anything we may have left 
out and whether someone else might be appropriate to do it.

MS. LAYTON:  I just want to clarify.  Carol brought 
up a point about how to write up a sentence in there about that 
this is the first report of the committee and does not cover 
all of the issues that the committee feels are important and 
that these will be further covered in our next version, and I 
want to find out exactly who is writing that sentence so we 
know.
MS. SULTON:  If you could put that in with the scope.
MS. LAYTON:  I can do it, I can help that group, but 
I want to know where it goes in so it goes in the appropriate 
part of the introduction.
MS. SULTON:  In the introduction probably as regards 
to scope maybe.
MS. FOREMAN:  But, you know the most dismissive 
phrase in all the English language is "we know there are other 
important issues."
MS. LAYTON:  Yes, we'll be sensitive.
MS. FOREMAN:  We are going to have another report 
that covers the very, the -- you know what I mean.
MS. SULTON:  The specific issue.
MS. FOREMAN:  Too late in the afternoon.
MS. LAYTON:  I'll get the right words.
MS. SULTON:  Are these the things we talked about 
rewriting?  Have I left anything out?  Carole?
MS. CRAMER:  Consumer.

MS. SULTON:  Carol Tucker Foreman and Greg are going 
to write something on the consumer issue.
MS. FOREMAN:  We were going to at least make a 
proposal on that which we're going to do I assume when we go 
off to do our assignments.
MS. SULTON:  That was not part of the introduction 
either, was it.  It was to be part of the substantive text.  So 
I stand corrected on that.  Section two.
MR. MEDLEY:  Why doesn't that be the language and 
then I think there were a couple of suggestions as to where 
it'd be most appropriately fit.
MR. JAFFE:  In the commercial realities, part 2 is 
one of the issues.
MS. SULTON:  Yes, commercial realities I think is 
where we talked about it being.  So not here, but in commercial 
realities.  Ron?
MR. OLSON:  I have a question, Cindy.  Somebody, I 
don't know if anybody is taking notes, but you guys are writing 
a lot up there.  Does somebody have the notes on these specific 
issues that were discussed that will be shared with the people? 
 Thank you.
MS. LAYTON:  I did some.
MS. SULTON:  Yes, we all have notes and Angela's been 
taking notes, I've been taking notes.  Yes.  We'll float around 
to give you what we have in our notes.
MR. OLSON:  Okay.

MS. SULTON:  Okay.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Probably we all have a part of them, 
since the comments were going fast and furious.
MS. SULTON:  What we have is several laptops.  Abby, 
you have yours, right.  Angela has one and Pat has one. Carole, 
you have your own, is that correct?  Randy, do you have yours? 
 And if anybody needs the documents we can possibly copy it.  
So what I suggest that maybe we recess the session to go into 
these little work groups, right, and maybe just gather in 
various places where we can find a plug.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I would suggest that we plan on 
reconvening in an hour, quarter to five, so we can see where we 
are and give us a chance to check again if anyone has some in 
for public comment.
MS. SULTON:  We have Duane on two.  Is there someone 
else that might join Carole Cramer to work on the scope?
MS. LAYTON:  I was named to do that.
MS. SULTON:  Pat.  
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. SULTON:  All right.  So we need captains of these 
teams so they make sure everybody has a machine.  Leon.  Pat 
has a machine to work with Carole, and Lisa and Leon, you need 
a machine?

MS. ZANNONI:  Yes and Michael also.  Michael 
Schechtman.
MS. SULTON:  You want a machine and Michael.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So we will take an adjournment of 
one hour and folks will be able to come back and report on, 
actually, let's see if we can make it 45 minutes.  Let's do 45 
minutes it'll give us a little more time to read over what 
we've got.  So at 4:30 we'll return.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
MS. SULTON:  What we want to do is see where we are 
on the introduction and Angela tried to collect on her memory 
stick some of this and some of it's on Abby's computer as well. 
 So if it's not on one of those two machines, please let us 
know.  The scope that Carole Cramer and Duane worked on.
MS. LAYTON:  It's actually Carol and Pat.
MS. SULTON:  Carol and Pat.  Do we have yours on one 
of the machines?
MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
MS. SULTON:  The process.  Lisa and Leon and Michael. 
 Do we have it on a machine?
MS. ZANNONI:  We got it.
MS. SULTON:  Useful terms.  Terry?
MR. MEDLEY:  It's actually terms used and it's 
Michael, Dave and Terry.

MS. SULTON:  Okay.  And we got it?
MS. LAYTON:  And they've got it.
MS. SULTON:  And then we had the people working on 
different issues.  Number 1 and 3 and I think you addressed 2 
as well, Ron, Duane and Daryl?
MG. GRANT:  Yes, and we also did 12.
MS. SULTON:  And 12.  Now where is it?  Does Angela 
have all of that?
MR. GRANT:  Yes.
MR. OLSON:  Three was combined into 1 and so there's 
no 3 and then 2 was just edited.  Three was combined into 1, 
and 2 was just reworked a little bit.
MS. SULTON:  And what happened to 12?
MR. OLSON:  It was deleted when it got to us, but it 
was circling around about possible reinsertion and we ran out 
of time, but there is some issues there that I think.
MS. SULTON:  Then Randy and Mardi you worked on 
issues 5, 6 and 7?
MS. MELLON:  And 8.
MS. SULTON:  And 8?
MS. MELLON:  That's our freebie.
MS. SULTON:  And do we have that?
MS. MELLON:  Yes, you do.

MS. SULTON:  Well, then we are just as happy as we 
can be.  So those were done and we thought they were done and 
now they are double done.  Okay, what we propose to do now that 
we have all this is to consolidate the changes that we've made 
and figure out how we can get them reproduced to you in the 
morning and so we can go over that for the beginning of the 
morning and then go very, hopefully fairly quickly through the 
document.  Yes, Michael.
MR. DYKES:  One suggestion.  I'm assuming you're 
going to try and put that in one document and then print it off 
for us, and just as another thing if it's easy, as long as it's 
easy, you email to us so perhaps if we get a chance to print it 
tonight we might could read it before we --
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. SULTON:  If we can, we will.
MR. DYKES:  No, don't worry about it.
MS. SULTON:  So if we spend a couple of hours in the 
morning on that then hopefully we can then turn to the long-
term document.  And Michael, do we have any focus that we want 
them to take on that, anticipate on that?

MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I would think that realizing still 
that some parts are going to get short-shrifted, I think there 
are two really key things that we need to be able to move 
forward on that document even realizing that we're not going to 
do all the things we need to do.  One of them is to see if this 
kind of formulation that we have for the issues, for the three 
issues that we presented, meets the test so that we can go home 
from this meeting and so for once, okay, this isn't all of them 
but you've got the approach right, which we haven't been able 
to say yet.  And second, that we can go back and talk about 
what's going to happen in the scenarios chapter in terms of 
implications and has the work group been able to focus, you 
know, approach that topic in the right way.  I think those are 
the key things we want to get out.  We would like to get the 
definitions, we'd love to get back to the introduction.  I 
think they're less likely that we're going to get to them.  Are 
people okay with that?
MR. DYKES:  It sounds good to me.  I think one thing 
too is we've got to be realistic about our time.  We only have 
one more day left and we've only talked about the last three 
pages of this document and the introduction and scope, so the 
whole intervening 25 pages we've never proofed yet.
MS. SULTON:  We did start off this morning by asking 
generally what people's general reaction was to the whole 
document and that's how we got off on the discussion with 
consumer and decided to put it in that commercial reality 
section.
MR. DYKES:  Well, I'll tell you, I'm not talking 
about the big issue, I'm just talking as we go through it 
there's two and three words and --

MS. SULTON:  Well, hopefully if we spend an hour on 
what you've written tomorrow because we know you've written it 
so well, it'll be great, and then we'll go back and do those 
sections.  We'll go through it section by section.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Although we may very well not finish 
that tomorrow.  But if those are mostly little word things, if 
we are going to have to come back and give it a final blessing, 
if it's little word things, those are things that could be done 
at the next meeting.
MS. SULTON:  What we could do is ask for significant 
points in each section and then we'll address those, and if we 
get to editing things we'll ask you to get them to us, 
subsequently.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Randy.
MR. GIROUX:  Just for my information five minutes or 
less.  What is the process for finishing this document?  How do 
we, when, you know, so we can edit this forever potentially.  
Little words, little words, how do we, what's the process for 
wrapping it up and really I just don't know. Does everybody on 
this committee agree that it, and sign off on it.  I mean, I 
believe people here probably want to take it back, show the 
final version to somebody before they bless it.  I just want to 
know what the process is.

MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Ideally what we would like to be 
able to do is at one of these meetings say are you, with 
whatever changes we have, you know, whatever small word changes 
we have agreed to at this meeting can you then give us a thumbs 
up for the document.  Is everyone willing to do this?  And I 
think that's what we need.
MR. DYKES:  To put a little finer point on that, just 
for expectation, that's tomorrow, sometime tomorrow are we 
planning to get to that point?
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I don't think that's possible.
MR. DYKES:  Well, if that's the case then, we're not 
going to finish this by the end of the year because we're not 
going to have another meeting to do this.
MS. SULTON:  We've agreed that.
MR. DYKES:  Well, I didn't know we -- I thought we 
were still going down the track to try to get this traceability 
and labeling piece.  I thought that's what we said at the 
outset of the discussions this morning, we wanted to try to get 
this piece completed and we were going to take the things off, 
we were going to put flexibility into the agenda so we could 
get this one done.  That's what I thought the conversation was 
about this morning.  What I'm hearing now is, this is an 
editing process, we're going to come back to another plenary, 
and we're going go, what, edit and comment and review and 
revise again?

MS. DILLEY:  I think the question is, even if we walk 
through and had all the edits done, don't some of you have to 
go back and show somebody at your respective organization at 
some point and have some time to do that or no?  Do people not 
have that requirement?
MR. DYKES:  We may, we may not.  I think that's 
different.  I don't --
MS. DILLEY:  Because part of it is just time to do 
whatever internal process you need to do.  If there is any.  If 
there isn't any, then I think a lot of it depends on where we 
are once we got the edited portions, we go through the other 
two sections that we haven't gone through and see where we are.
MR. MEDLEY:  I think it would better to see where we 
are rather than to predetermine that you can't.
MR. DYKES:  I'm fine with that, but what Im hearing 
is it's a foregone conclusion we're not going to make it.
MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, I mean I would say, I mean 
idealistically we could go through those sections, there may be 
some minor word edits, but at that point in time we could kind 
of say, substance is here, minor word edits may still have to 
be done but substance is here, I'm, you know, 50 percent 
comfortable or I'm 90 percent comfortable.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I'm completely fine with that.  I 
was actually sort of reacting to the comment that I had gotten 
I thought from you and from Terry about there being a lot of 
little things, and those just take time.

MR. DYKES:  I guess that's what I'm thinking.  I'm 
thinking, the one's I'm thinking about in my own text is 
they're just to clarify, again, the export of, or some of those 
kinds of things, but which we could give and you could send it 
out to us by email, we can get that tomorrow afternoon.  I 
guess I just didn't want us to shut down the possibility that 
we can't complete T and L by the end of this year.
MS. LAYTON:  Substantively.
MR. DYKES:  Well even complete it.  I would think if 
we could get a thumbs up tomorrow and if there's some more word 
edits, that could probably be done via email to all of us, and 
we could say we're in, we're out by 8, 10 days later.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Then you sort of get a provisional 
thumbs up, thumbs down.
MR. MEDLEY:  And if people are not in, then that's 
it, they're not in.
MR. DYKES:  Yeah, we need to know that though.  
Otherwise, we'll be back in March and another plenary and back 
to the same races.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think that's fine if we can get 
there.

MS. LAYTON:  A question that came up in our group 
was, if the charter would be done by the end of the year.  If 
we don't, if we're not having a meeting before February 13th, 
is there a committee that could still meet in March?  Are the 
current members held until replaced or is it just going to be 
half a committee.  That just was a question somebody asked me 
and I didn't know the answer, and I thought I'd better ask.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, I think the answer to that is 
we can't hold a half meeting.  Members terms expire and we 
would hold the next meeting when we have a full committee.
MR. MEDLEY:  See, and I think that's why we need to, 
as this committee, do whatever we can possibly do to try to 
complete the task.  If you can't, you can't.  I don't think we 
should just automatically say you can't.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  I mean, I think if there's a 
way to do it that incorporates the little changes that come in 
from folks and have it done via email once we're convinced that 
the big things are done, you know, that's okay if everyone is 
okay with it and it gives everyone ample opportunity to do what 
they need.
MR. MEDLEY:  We haven't set any dates but, what we do 
know is that the terms of charter for this particular committee 
were to expire, I guess is it February 13th?
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Eleven, 12, 13.

MR. MEDLEY:  Something like that.  I mean, that's, so 
we do know that particular day.  We can look at where we are, 
we can make some assessments, but I think our objective should 
be that as a committee, you know, we want to try to complete 
one of the two projects.
MR. JAFFE:  After we've taken off the option of also 
coming back for a one day meeting before February 13.
MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I'm not taking it off the table.  
Let's see where we are tomorrow and then see if we need it.
MR. CORZINE:  Good, Michael, that's what I'd ask.  
Let's see if the objective is tomorrow to be ready to sign off 
because we have this whole issue if we don't, we may have 
several new members around the table too, which will delay us 
even more.
MS. LAYTON:  Adjourned for today.
(Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.)














	C E R T I F I C A T E
DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC., hereby certifies that the 
attached pages represent an accurate transcript of the 
electronic sound recording of the USDA Committee Meeting.








By:


____________________________________
Keena Lukacinsky, Transcriber

178
kel