BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE



------------------------------x
IN RE:     				:
						:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON 		:
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND 21ST 		:
CENTURY AGRICULTURE (AC21)	:     			
						:
EIGHTH PLENARY MEETING		:
						:	
FEBRUARY 7-8, 2005			:
						:
------------------------------x



					Monday,
					February 7, 2005

					USDA South Building, Room 1623
					USDA/NFC Training Center
					Lincoln Rooms 1, 2 and 3
					1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
					Washington, D.C.  20036



BEFORE:  	DR. MICHAEL SCHECHTMAN
		 Designated Federal Official, USDA
	    	DR. PATRICIA LAYTON
		 Chairperson


A P P E A R A N C E S

		CYNTHIA SULTON, HW&W
		ABBY DILLEY, RESOLVE
		DARYL BUSS.
		ELIZABETH MILEWSKI
		MICHAEL D. DYKES
		JUAN ENRIQUEZ-CABOT
		RANDAL W. GIROUX
		DUANE R. GRANT
		DAVID HOISINGTON
		GREGORY JAFFE
		JAMES MARYANSKI
		MARGARET MELLON
		RONALD D. OLSON
		JERRY SLOCUM
		LISA W. ZANNONI
		BERNICE SLUTSKY
		CAROL TUCKER FOREMAN
		TERRY MEDLEY
		RICHARD CROWDER
		LEON CORZINE
		VINCENT VILKER
		




P R O C E E D I N G S
		(8:21 a.m.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Good morning.  This is the 
eighth meeting of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century 
Agriculture or AC21.  My name is Michael Schechtman, and 
I'm the Executive Secretary and Designated Federal Official 
for the AC21.  
		I'd like to welcome our Committee members, a 
good number of whom are here now, but I think all or nearly 
all should be here by within a couple of hours.  I know 
we're -- a couple of people are a little under the weather, 
and most of the people are -- perhaps everyone is -- will 
be here.  We're not entirely sure.  We're hopeful that 
everyone will be here.  We know a couple of members will be 
arriving a little bit late today.  We will -- we expect to 
welcome a new ex officio member to the Committee today, 
Madelyn Spirnak from the Department of State, who replaces 
Peter Chase as special negotiator for Biotech for the State 
Department.
		I'd like to thank you all for making it here to 
our meeting today down in this maze.  We apologize for 
having a new meeting room that's a little hard to find.  We 
got bumped from our original location by the new Secretary 
of Agriculture's first press conference on the occasion of 
the President's -- release of the President's budget.  This 
room gives us more space and better acoustics than 
otherwise we would have had.
		Can you hear me well enough back there?  That's 
good, because I don't have more voice than I'm putting out 
right now.  I'll also note we dont have microphones.  Our 
transcriber -- for amplification, our transcriber will be 
able to pick up the sound from the microphones on the 
center tables that we didn't have room to move out of the 
room when we were organizing it earlier yesterday.  
Everyone will need to speak up.
		To my left is our AC21 Chairman, Dr. Patricia 
Layton from Clemson University.  To my left and right are 
our facilitators, Ms. Abby Dilley and Ms. Angela Agosto 
from the organization RESOLVE.  And two seats over is 
Cynthia Sulton from the organization HW&W, who are our 
partners in helping us make the Advisory Committee process 
work.  Also joining us today will be USDA Special Assistant 
Secretary for Biotechnology, Dr. Bernice Slutsky, who will 
be helping us out as well and should be providing us a few 
remarks shortly. 
		As usual, we'll have a very full agenda, so we 
ask that when the meeting is in session, conversations will 
need to be limited to those between members.
		The public will be invited to provide -- to 
participate by providing comments to the Committee and USDA 
this afternoon between 2:30 and 4.  We'll be preparing the 
minutes of this meeting, and a computer transcript of the 
meeting also will be available within a few weeks.  The 
Website address for this Committee is 
www.usda.gov/agencies/biotech/ac21.html.  For any members 
of the Press, if they should manage to tear themselves away 
from the Secretary's press conference, you're welcome to 
speak to whomever you wish during 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.  Ms. 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.  We may actually have a 
few phone calls coming in as we try to shuffle in the last 
few members into the room.  Bathrooms are located just 
outside and to the right.  In the back of the room there 
are tables with meeting documents and background documents 
on them.  For members -- for the information of -- the 
public, let me indicate that the AC21 is charged by the 
Secretary of Agriculture with preparing two distinct 
reports.  First, a report on the impact of the 
proliferation of traceability and labeling regimes in other 
countries and how industry is addressing those 
requirements.  And, second, a larger report on the likely 
impacts of biotechnology on agriculture and on the work of 
USDA over the course of the next 5 to 10 years.   
		Now I'd like to turn to the official meeting 
documents and background documents.  First, the background 
documents are the following:  The official AC21 Charter; 
the AC21 Bylaws and Operating Procedures; a package of 
biographical sketches of all of the AC21 members; and the 
draft meeting summary prepared from the sixth AC21 meeting 
held on September -- excuse me, held on December 9th and 
10th of this past year.  Specific with this meeting we have 
the following official documents:  First, the provisional 
agenda for this meeting; second, a full draft of one of the 
reports this Committee is charged with preparing, entitled 
Global Traceability and Labeling Requirements for 
Agricultural Biotechnology-Derived Products: Impacts and 
Implications for the United States.  It is, we hope, near 
enough to final that we can iron out the kinks and get 
consensus on it by the end of today.  I'll say more about 
that in a few minutes.  The remainder of the documents, the 
3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th, that are on the table, are the same 
documents we distributed for the last plenary, which we 
plan to devote more time to at this plenary.  They are 
third, the most current draft version of the Issues to 
Consider, chapter, fourth a document containing the two 
draft introductory chapters to the report.  The document 
contains -- that package contains an outline from the first 
chapter and revised text for the second.  Third, the latest 
draft, must 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 outside the box about 
what the future might look like.  And, sixth, a draft 
definitions list based on the work -- definitions of work 
group.  
		Were any of the documents distributed by AC21 
members?  If there are any, please be sure and provide me 
or the facilitators copies of those documents.  
		For members of the public, you may speak during 
the public comment period.  If there are any public 
comments, I'll need hard copies of your remarks.
		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 in a few minutes, but please 
note that there are breaks scheduled in the morning and 
afternoon.  
		For members of the public who wish coffee, 
coffee is available in the cafeteria on the First Floor in 
the Third Wing of this building, if you can negotiate that 
little journey.
		Also on the agenda, let me note that we are 
again preparing for a period of up to one and a half hours 
for public comment from 2:30 to 4 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.  Any 
speakers will be allotted five minutes of time.  Members of 
the public, if you wish to make a comment and you have not 
done so already, please be sure to have signed at the door 
so we can plan that time period.
		Now from USDA's perspective, there are three 
main objectives for this meeting.  They are first, to 
finalize the submission by the Committee to the Secretary, 
the draft report on Other Countries' Traceability and 
Mandatory Labeling Regimes for Biotechnology-Derived 
Products.
		Jim, why dont you come up to the reporter here.  
I don't think we have a --
		Excuse me.  Traceability and Mandatory Labeling 
Regimes for Biotechnology-Derived Products, the 
implications of those regimes, and how U.S. industry is 
addressing the requirements for products shipped to those 
countries. 
		Second, to review and make progress towards 
finalization of the other report, examining the impacts of 
agricultural biotechnology on American agriculture and USDA 
over the next five to ten years.
		The Committee will review in further detail the 
progress made by work groups between the September and 
December plenary sessions, looking at documents that 
weren't changed since the December plenary sessions.  In 
essence doing some of the work that we were not able to get 
to at our December meeting, but which we will get to on 
schedule tomorrow.
		And, finally, determine any additional processes 
for finalizing the reports.  
		I'll have a few more words to say about the 
status of each of the documents as we turn to them on our 
schedule.  Let me first give you a couple of status 
updates.  First, and most -- and very importantly, the new 
Secretary of Agriculture, the Honorable Mike Johanns has 
been sworn in, and as I indicated, is today conducting his 
first press conference related to aspects of the 
President's budget being released today.  Second, with 
respect to this Committee, the charter for the AC21 has 
been renewed for another two years.  Third, the process of 
selecting members to serve on this Committee to fill the 
spots of the Committee members whose initial terms expired 
-- are expired, rather, is still underway.  We hope that 
the Secretary will have completed the processes fairly 
soon.  One general point.  We have been working since late 
spring in 2003 with the initial goal of producing a pair of 
reports by the end of 2004.  There's a great deal of work, 
difficult, collaborative work by Committee members in 
getting us to where we are now.  Obviously, we haven't met 
the initial time lines, but we are at the point of 
finishing up one very significant effort of the two that 
are underway.  Taking the last step on the first report is 
going to require the good will and the positive and 
constructive participation by all.  It will help set the 
tone that will enable us to succeed on the second report as 
well.
		Let me now turn the meeting over to our 
Chairman, Dr. Patricia Layton, for your words of welcome 
and --
		MS. LAYTON:  Thank you, and welcome everyone.  
It has not been quite two years since I was sitting in a 
hotel in a blizzard in Denver and got a call from David 
Hegwood saying I'd like you to be on this Committee.  And 
it was a complete surprise, certainly warmed my heart in 
that very, very cold day.  It's one of Denver's -- it's a 
memorable event.  It was one of Denver's worst blizzards in 
their history, and I really got tired of eating food at the 
hotel there because you couldn't even get out to a 
restaurant.  It was very memorable.  And since then, I've 
had the opportunity to work with each of you in this 
Committee, and I don't think there was a single one of you 
I knew beforehand, and I feel very proud and very honored 
to have been chosen to be on this Committee and to work 
with you for the last two years on this, almost two years.  
It's really a year and three-quarters almost that we've 
actually come to meetings.  In the, in the beginning, we 
were charged with one charge, and that was to prepare our 
major document, which is the one where we're not quite as 
far along at.  And David Hegwood asked us to do the second 
document on labeling and traceability.  And as I look over 
that, it has been -- that was, that was really an awesome 
charge to add that on top of our original charge, and to 
really see it sit here today and be as far along as we are 
on those documents, with one at point of final revisions 
and at the second one very, very far along in a difficult -
- and difficult topics in terms of looking out into the 
future.  It's always hard in taking on the concept of 
scenarios development, which was not normally done in 
advisory committees.  We're chartering new ground.  And I 
think we should at this eighth meeting consider and look at 
ourselves and feel very, very proud of how far we've come.  
It has been a, a considerable piece of work to get to this 
point, and I think we should all be very proud.  It's also 
going to be the last meeting for at least four of our 
members, who have decided not to renew, and I would like to 
have us begin our thanks to them this time at the meeting.  
And they are Terry, Keith, David Hoisington and Juan 
Enriquez-ENRIQUEZ.  And I believe that both Keith and Juan 
are both scheduled to be here.  So at some point in time as 
we go through the meeting today, I'd like us all to say a 
very, very hearty thank you to you who have been here and 
who are moving on to new challenging assignments, which 
Terry has already moved and David is about to move in two 
weeks, that prevent you from staying with the group.  And 
as we meet next time hopefully we're going to all -- most 
of us will be back and with new members in their place, and 
move forward in this.
		I think that Michael is outlining a process -- 
will be outlining a process for us to complete the work 
today that we need to complete, and I think to move forward 
tomorrow so that we can do as much as we can as a group.  
When we get new members, there is always a new dynamic and 
a new feeling out.  So I think it's very important for us 
to get our contributions at a point that all of the four 
members who are leaving us feel that they have -- they can 
recognize the document, the documents when they're out, and 
that we've really accomplished something that's a salute to 
the hard work of the last two years.  It is a significant 
achievement.  I -- while this is not the 9/11 commission, 
you know, with lots and tons and tons of staff and 
professional writers, there has been a lot of extremely 
hard work involved and a lot of writing by each of you.  
This is not a document of the staff.  This is a document -- 
these documents are documents of the committees, and it's 
something to be very proud of.  And so I hope that as we 
step through the next two days, we do so in a sense of what 
we've accomplished and also in a sense of we have a new 
Secretary of Agriculture, and we want -- or at least I want 
to be able to bring a document to him very shortly that 
shows the depth and the hard work of this Committee, and to 
promise him the second document as rapidly as we can so 
that he is up-to-speed on what we're doing and the state of 
biotechnology now and in the future, ag biotechnology, and 
I think, you know, for me the challenge was I still want to 
talk about natural resources and Daryl probably still wants 
to get -- really go to the animals before this is all over.  
And when we started this process, we planned that that 
would be another stage down the road, and so I'm hoping we 
can still get to that.  Because these issues are still in 
the forefront.  There is still much work to be done, and I 
would love to see this Committee work as a well-oiled 
machine when we move with new members forward as we have 
for the last two years the group has been here.
		So today I ask that we work hard with the idea 
of moving through this process, of listening to each other, 
of making sure that we understand each other and of 
arriving at consensus on this document so that we do have 
something in hand to hand to the new Secretary as soon as 
possible, and with the promise of completing the second 
report within the year.  I think that's a very admirable 
task and an overwhelming accomplishment really in terms of 
what we've had to do for the last two years. It's been an 
incredible ride.  I mean literally we are not in our second 
year meeting -- I mean our second -- the anniversary of our 
first meeting yet, and we've accomplished a tremendous 
amount.  And I feel like I have a whole group of new 
colleagues and friends that are one of the people who I 
respect, and I truly appreciate having worked with you in 
the last two years.  So again, thank you.  And let's just 
get busy and do our jobs today and tomorrow and see how far 
we can accomplish our task.
		Thank you.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Bernice.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  Just 30 seconds, because I think 
you have a lot of introductory remarks, and there's a lot 
of work to do.  But just to reiterate something that I 
think that Dale Moore said to you last time that you met in 
that both of these reports will be read by the Secretary, 
and both of these reports are extremely important to the 
Secretary's office and to USDA, and that we are looking 
forward to seeing the first report and the second report, 
and it will actually fit in very nicely with, you know, 
overall briefings that we'll be doing to the Secretary on 
biotechnology.
		And also just one other point that I wanted to 
raise.  Between now and next meeting, what we would like to 
do is think about ways that you can interact a little more 
with the coordinating group that we have in the Department 
on biotech, and we'll be thinking about a mechanism by 
which you can do that, and I think that would be useful for 
both this Committee and certainly for that group.  So 
that's something that we are going to exploring between now 
and our next meeting.
		And just have at it, I guess.
		MS. SULTON:  If we could just quickly review the 
minutes from the December meeting, and I will elicit any 
corrections or modifications to them; and if there are none, 
then we'll prepare it for release to the website.
		The Seventh Plenary Session of the AC21 was held 
December 9th through 10th of 2004.  It began with welcoming 
and opening comments from Mr. Schechtman and Ms. Layton.  
There was a review of the September 13th and 14th meeting 
minutes and the agenda for the December meeting.  Dale 
Moore, as Bernice has just said, Chief of Staff to the 
Secretary, gave remarks to the Committee expressing his and 
the Secretary's appreciation for the work that had been done 
on both reports, and cited them as cutting edge documents 
forming a foundation for the new secretary, at that time 
Secretary-Designate.  And he also expressed interest in 
examining the existing biotech framework at USDA.
		The meeting proceeded then to review the work of 
the Labeling and Traceability Work Group and specifically 
the draft report.  The general comments ranged quite widely 
with one member -- several members talking about 
reservations about sending only the Traceability and 
Labeling Report to the Secretary, and agreement made that we 
would work very strongly to get the second report in soon 
thereafter.  
		There was discussion of issues such as the role 
of the U.S. as an exporter of biotechnology versus the 
potential role in the future of the U.S. as an importer, and 
an agreement that we would focus on the export issue as was 
originally agreed for this particular report.  The issues 
that -- it was an agreement among the Committee that the 
issues identified in the report are equally relevant for 
major and minor crops and for grain and grain products.  
Distinctions were made -- it was asked that careful 
distinctions be made within the report between issue 
statements and recommendations.
		Then there was discussion of the countries' 
differential traceability and labeling requirements impact 
on consumers, and a small group was established to draft a 
section on the various labeling regimes and their impact on 
consumers.  Discussions ranged on the use of various terms 
in the report such as transgenic-free versus GM-free, the 
word risk, grain, grain products, et cetera.  It was agreed 
that the introduction be revised to include descriptions of 
the scope of the report, the process of developing it, and 
key definition therein.  Small groups then drafted the text 
of subsections of the introduction to include process, 
scope, and definitions; but time did not allow for the full 
AC21 to review all the text.  
		Discussion of Section 3 of the report, the 
policies and issues raised, included minor revisions on 
three issues, the combination of other issues, the deletion 
of text on three issues; and remaining issues were assigned 
again to small groups that broke out in the meeting to 
revise the text.  However, again, insufficient time was 
there to consider all the new text that was developed during 
the plenary.  And there was a question as to addressing the 
role of international organizations within the text.  A new 
issue was added on labeling requirements and public 
attitudes, and it went on to Sections 2 and 4 -- 2 and -- 
I'm sorry, 1 and 2 on the national and international 
requirements with respect to traceability and labeling, the 
labeling commercial impacts realities, and basically this 
was editorial and language changes.  However, unresolved is 
how to characterize the factors influencing tolerance levels 
of the various countries set for AP, and it was agreed that 
the Executive Secretary would provide some options in the 
text.
		In the discussion of new consumer impact section, 
which was prepared by the small group for the Committee 
consideration, it was agreed to add this section to the 
report with the final designation of its placement still 
pending.		
		There was also discussion, but not complete 
agreement on text for new issues within Section 3 to address 
the consumer implications of different labeling regimes.  
The Committee went on to discuss the progress of the work 
group on issues to be considered, focusing on three issues; 
adventitious presence, asynchronous, and coexistence.  The 
issue of the proliferation -- easy for you to say -- of 
staff events, including definitions, compliance, and 
enforcement was discussed.  There was an ongoing effort to 
frame an issue around consumer acceptance, and that was 
noted.  There was support for structuring the section as a 
neutral issue statement and a collective articulation of 
issues.  The work group was to continue to develop issues 
after the next plenary session.
		Went on to discussion of the work group's 
progress on the scenarios development.  A summary was given 
of the current section, current structure of that chapter, 
entitled, Preparing for the Future, and it had basically 
five framing implication questions for each scenario 
relating to economic impact, natural environment, various 
issues regarding USDA, public acceptance, food sufficiency 
and security.  The discussion ranged fairly widely but 
mostly on terms, definitions for such things as food 
sufficiency and food security, asking that they be defined 
in more detail.  It was also prioritizing of the 
implications for the different scenarios, but no objections 
were made to the drafting of the implications
section as outlined.
		There were on members of the public there to 
offer comment during the public comments period.  		
		The meeting ended, drew to a close with a 
discussion of a work plan and next steps, and there was 
agreement that we would advance our first meeting this year 
from our usual March date to sometime prior to the 
expiration of the charter for the Committee and the 
expiration of several of the members' terms, and thus we are 
meeting today. 
		The next steps for the traceability of labeling 
report were for Mr. Schechtman to revise the report based on 
the comments provided at the December meeting, and for 
members to review the new draft that Mr. Schechtman would 
then provide prior to the meeting, focusing on the sections 
of old or new text not discussed during the plenary.  And 
then those comments would be incorporated and a new draft 
sent out prior to this meeting.
		The next steps for Chapters 1 and 2 were to 
review them, the outline and the revised text, since we had 
not gotten to them in the meeting; and the next step for 
issues to consider again was to discuss the three issue 
statements and associated text.  The next steps for 
preparing for the future was for the scenarios work group to 
continue reviewing the three draft scenarios and completing 
drafts of implications for the three scenarios.  
		As regard to the final reports, it was agreed 
that when finalized by the Committee, the reports would be 
submitted by the AC21 Chair to the Secretary, posted on the 
AC21 website, and that a small representative group of the 
members of the AC21 would meet with the Secretary to 
formally present the reports.
		With the closing remarks from the Chair, the 
meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
		Are there any amendments or corrections to the 
minutes?
		(No response.)
		MS. SULTON:   With no corrections or amendments, 
then the minutes will be ready to be posted on the website.
		Abby.
		MS. DILLEY:   Okay, just briefly, because we're 
running a little bit behind schedule.  
		Basically the agenda builds up off what Michael 
and Cindy have identified as the objectives for this meeting 
as well as building on the last conversation we had December 
9 and 10, and that's namely to move both reports forward as 
much as possible.   Today being dedicated traceability and 
labeling report and tomorrow being dedicated to the other 
report.  There has been some interest expressed in terms of 
focusing more of tomorrow on the scenario discussion given 
that the four members that Pat identified as rotating off 
are -- happen to all be members of the Scenarios Group.  So 
potentially taking a portion of tomorrow to really look at 
that particular portion of the second document to have the 
benefit of those Committee members still being at this 
meeting.  So just briefly for today, the way we've organized 
today is to look at the introduction first.  As Cindy 
mentioned, that section was reworked during the December 9 
and 10 meeting, but we didn't have an opportunity to come 
back and look at those edits and modifications that were 
made during the last meeting.  I we thought we'd start 
there, and then move into a discussion of some of the new 
text, which includes Adventitious Presence, which is on 
Section 3A that was redrafted by Randy and Greg, as well as 
Market Segmentation, which the Committee requested some 
additional language to help clarify some of the definition 
issues and provide a little bit more information on that.  
That's the -- that's Section 3G.  And then also, which is 
not on your agenda, but had conversation about it, Section 
3H, Consumer Implications of Various Labeling Regimes.  So 
we know we need to get to those three sections as part of 
the discussion today.  And then the policy issues, concerns 
issues raised by the analysis of the current situation.  
That again was re-worked at the last session, but we didn't 
have time during the plenary session to look over the edits 
and changes or modifications to that.  So we anticipate 
spending the bulk of the conversation.  Hopefully the other 
changes that have been made in the document, Mike will go 
through those in terms of just introduction to the text.  
We're more editorial in nature, and we've highlighted those 
changes to make sure that our assessment of what's editorial 
is also consistent with what your assessment of editorial 
changes were.  So if there are comments, we'll provide an 
opportunity to talk about that, if there are any.
		And then, lastly, which we have not discussed 
before is the Executive Summary, which we didn't go over at 
all during the December 9 and 10 session, and it just made 
sense to us to tackle that last because usually you write 
the Executive Summary when you have the rest of the report 
finalized.  So that is the last portion of the report that 
we propose for discussion in terms of just laying this out 
as to what we take first.  We do have public comment period 
scheduled for 2:30 to 4.  If in the event that we don't have 
public comment or we don't take all of that time for public 
comment, then we'll use that portion to come back and finish 
up details of that discussion, if there are remaining issues 
to be addressed., and then we'll adjourn.  We're scheduled 
to adjourn by four.  Originally, we were scheduled to start 
early and end early because the room we had before we had to 
be out of there by four, as I recall.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right. So for tomorrow, we are 
scheduled to again start early because we -- I think it's 
become routine as we -- and try to end early so those of you 
who travel, have to go other places, can catch your 
airplanes on time.  And the way we had originally thought of 
the agenda or addressing the second report was to come back.  
As Cindy had mentioned, we had talked about the other 
document.  Really the schedule is predominantly focused on 
the Traceability and Labeling Report, and the Committee made 
that decision to do that, to move that forward and try to 
finalize it.  What we did talk about was basically the 
appropriate to the other sections, just to make sure that we 
were tracking with the full Committee how each of the 
working groups were making progress on their respective 
sections, and so it as hoped that tomorrow potentially we 
would get to a little bit more in-depth discussion and 
actual substantive discussion of these sessions.  As I've 
mentioned, people have expressed an interest in maybe 
focusing more of the discussion tomorrow on scenarios 
portion given that the members who are taken off are from 
that working group.  So we need to figure out exactly the 
agenda for tomorrow, but that is the overall approach to the 
agenda.  I just wanted to see if there were questions or 
comments, and,  yes, we do. 
		Greg and then Michael.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah, Abby, I'd like to at least make 
a proposal that we spent some time today on the Scenarios 
Chapter, at least introduce what we mean by finalize matters 
or what we mean by moving that along further, for people to 
at least think about it.  You may know that Abby and I had a 
discussion on Friday afternoon, and I thought up the 
possibility of potentially actually finalizing that chapter 
as well as the Traceability and Labeling Report at the same 
time during this meeting.  My reading of that was that it  
was near final.  And so I'd at least -- I don't want to wait 
until tomorrow to have at least a discussion about that 
because I -- people want to think about it overnight, maybe 
review the chapter in a -- review that in a different way.
		
		MS. DILLEY:  Different way.
		MR. JAFFE:  So whether we do that during the 
public comment period, if there's no public comment period 
or something; but I would like to propose that we have some 
period of time, half hour, an hour, something to discuss the 
Scenarios Chapter, because --
		MS. DILLEY:  And what that means.
		MR. JAFFE:  And what that means.  Otherwise, I 
think we, we would get in tomorrow morning and people would 
be -- it would be a shock.  There might -- people might have 
some ideas, I have some ideas, but some people might have 
other ideas.
		MS. DILLEY:  Sure.
		MR. JAFFE:  And we wouldn't be able to complete 
it because we wouldn't have the time to think about it.
		MS. DILLEY:  I would imagine that we could 
hopefully at least spend some time talking about how we want 
to move through the discussion tomorrow so that people do 
have an opportunity to look at the document tonight and 
prepare for that.
		Michael.
		MR. DYKES:  Yeah, I won't be here tomorrow, but I 
just wanted to make sure I understood where we were on 
scenarios.  I have sent in comments on scenarios, and at the 
last meeting my recollection was that the Scenario Committee 
had evaluated my comments on two of the three sections 
within scenarios.  And I just wonder -- I've not seen 
anything new.  Has there --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me indicate.  There were 
comments from several people on scenarios that were not yet 
-- that have not yet been incorporated, and there were 
indeed sections of the chapter that were not yet fully gone 
over by the Scenarios Work Group.  They only went through 
two of the three scenarios, and only discussed implications 
for one of them.  So there's been a huge amount of progress 
made on the chapter, and I think it's perhaps fairly close, 
but there are -- certainly the work group didnt feel that 
their work was yet done on it.
		MR. DYKES:  I guess that's my question.  We have 
nothing new from the work group since the last time we met?
		MS. DILLEY:  No.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's correct.  The work group 
has not met.
		MR. DYKES:  Okay.  So --
		MS. DILLEY:  So a part of the discussion may be 
to bring some of the comments that you had to offer to that 
discussion.  Is that what I'm hearing?  That you, they've 
gone through some of your comments, but not all of them, and 
so --	
		MR. DYKES:  Well, I mean I guess --
		MS. DILLEY:  Along with everybody else's comments 
as well.
		MR. DYKES:  -- scenarios, I sent those in several 
months ago, whenever that was.  So I won't be here tomorrow.  
I'd like to have at least a chance to make sure that those 
aren't just gone.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Michael, I think in terms 
of the comments that were sent in, there is more which needs 
to be done on the scenario, but I think it's fair to say 
that the scenarios working group did in fact look through 
all of your comments, and they were discussed, and there 
were some changes made and some not.  So it's not like there 
wasn't -- so the draft you will see does respond to some of 
the issues that were raised and the comments that were sent 
in.  There were others that were not changed accordingly, 
and then as Michael said, the section on implications, I 
think what's really key is we agreed on the format of the 
question we would want each of the scenarios to address to 
bring some symmetry to them in that way.  So there's a lot 
of work, but it's not to say that your comments that were 
extensive that were sent in were not passed on or looked at 
by the group, because we did.
		MR. DYKES:  I guess to that point, not into 
semantics, but my sense was the one I thought we heard at 
the last meeting, two of those sections they were reviewed 
and decisions by the work group they were either in or out.  
The third one was not done.- 	
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  One scenario, there was not time 
to finish --
		MR. DYKES:  Yes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- going over that at the final 
meeting of that work group prior to the, the last plenary 
session.
		MR. DYKES:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  And back to Greg's suggestion.  If 
we decide to move in that direction towards finalization of 
that particular section, we need to talk about exactly what 
does that mean and how do we gather -- is there any 
additional information than what we've already provided to 
the Committee that we need to have and how we want to set up 
that conversation.  So I think doing that later this 
afternoon if we could do that, depending on public comment 
or making sure that we spend time talking about how we want 
to have that conversation and what that might look like 
before we adjourn for the day.  If no one has objection to 
that, I would propose we do that this afternoon.
		Carol. 
		MS. FOREMAN:  Thank you.  I have a specific 
comment, and then in a minute or so, I will make a more 
general one.  Since Michael can't be here tomorrow, and 
since we are losing the key members -- virtually all the 
members of the Scenarios Working Group, I would propose -- 
not Margaret.  She said --
		(Laughter)
		MS. FOREMAN:  It seems to me that we might change 
the agenda and deal with that first and then come back and 
finish labeling and traceability.  The scenarios chapter is 
shorter. We could find out pretty quickly if we're going to 
be able to get agreement on it; and then we could move 
forward in doing the traceability and labeling.  I wasn't a 
part of the Committee during its first year, but it has 
seemed strange to me that the one -- that we are not putting 
out the material that the charter asked us to produce, and 
we are finishing something that wasn't in the charter.	
		MS. DILLEY:  Actually just background, because it 
was actually the Committee that asked -- requested by the 
Secretary if there were some pending issues given that the 
original charge was for future -- if there were some things 
more immediate that the Secretary wanted the Committee to 
address that we would do that in parallel with the other 
report.  And so I think it was always anticipated that the 
second report in fact would probably be produced first 
because it  was a more immediate issue.  Just for -- that  
was not during your initial tenure.
		MS. FOREMAN:  It remains that that was an add-on.
		MS. DILLEY:  It was, that's correct.
		MS. FOREMAN:  And it, as you know, I'm 
uncomfortable about going forward with pieces of this. It 
just seems certain that with the kind of turnover we've had 
on -- committee that we are going to have a major period of 
adjustment while new members get up-to-date, while we go 
back through and repeat all of the discussion that we've had 
before.  I'm concerned, as I've said before, that we're not 
dealing with the Issues Chapter at all. But because the 
scenarios people are going off the Committee to a larger 
extent, it just seems absolutely essential to get that piece 
done or for all practical purposes acknowledge that it's not 
going to go forward.  If that's going to be the case, let's 
just find out if that's the case.  And by dealing with that 
first, I think we could get a pretty good idea of whether or 
not there is support for going forward with it.
		MS. FOREMAN:  Michael and then Randy and then 
Dick.
		MR. GIROUX:  Yeah, just one thought.  I certainly 
take the point about the large number of members who were on 
the Scenarios Group who will not -- will certainly not be 
continuing on the Committee.  At the same time, I think we 
can do a fair amount.  Everyone on this group has paid close 
attention to what's in the scenarios, and we can do a 
certain amount of rearranging of composition of membership 
on the work groups, so that while we won't have the same 
people there who were involved in the drafting, we can at 
least have people who have been experienced in discussion of 
the process and who have familiarity with the documents to 
sort of back-stop some of that.  So I think while the point 
is -- your point is clearly well taken that there's going to 
be some transitional pains, I think we can do some things to 
try to soften them as much as possible.
		MS. DILLEY:  Randy and then --
		MS. FOREMAN:  Let me -- just let me -- one last 
thing on this.  It just seems to me based on more years of 
sitting in advisory committees that I would like to 
acknowledge, that anybody who thinks that we're going to get 
that document out if it doesn't go out before the close of 
this meeting thinks that the Eagles won the Super Bowl.
		(Laughter.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Randy, Dick, Mardi, Greg and then 
Terry.
		MR. GIROUX:  Thank, Abby.  Just to follow-up on 
your comment, Carol.  I think that's probably true to say of 
the traceability and labeling document today, that when we 
met last, I believe that we moved this meeting to this 
period of time specifically for this group to deal with the 
traceability and labeling document for the fact that it was 
so close to being completed that we wanted to have this 
meeting before the charter of the Committee ended.  And I 
think we would be remiss as a committee to now change the 
agenda at risk of not finishing the traceability and 
labeling document.  It's the main reason that I'm here 
today.  Not that I'm not interested in finishing the other 
documents, of course, and I can tell you that I commit to 
finishing the second report.  No interest in not finishing 
that second report.  I think we have a fair amount of work 
in front of us to deal with the traceability and labeling 
document.  I think we have some people here that cannot be 
with us tomorrow.  And so if we do not finish this document 
today, I have a feeling that it won't get finished.  So I 
don't agree to changing the agenda to fit the traceability 
and labeling document most likely in tomorrow's session and 
replace it with talking about the scenarios document.  Can't 
support that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Dick.
		MR. CROWDER:  Well, a couple of thoughts.  (a), I 
wasn't here last time, and I'm like Michael -- I'm not like 
Michael -- I'm going to be in Kansas.  But -- I've got -- 
well, two thoughts.  First of all, we don't know when the 
new group is going to work.  I mean the tracing and labeling 
people going to be back or not be back because we can't 
presume what's going to be there.  So we've got some 
uncertainty around what's going to be in the tracing and 
labeling also.   
		Number two, with respect to the scenarios.  Even 
if we were fortunate enough to finish the scenarios, we 
still couldn't do anything with it.  It's part of another 
document, and we have no chance of getting any of them 
completed if we focus on the scenarios and not tracing and 
labeling.  And while we've got a document that we're as 
close to on agreement as possible, I think we ought to focus 
on getting one thing off the table and coming back in the 
next time rather then with a newly constituted body having 
two things to look at, to have one thing to look at, I think 
the transition would be much better.  And I would suggest 
that we keep the agenda -- work for the day as we have heard 
earlier this morning.
		MS. DILLEY:  Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  I think the Scenarios Chapter is 
really quite far along, especially if we were to make some 
decisions perhaps about -- could abbreviate some of the 
components of it.  And it does seem to me that the, that the 
constitution of that group was -- worked very well, was 
unique, and it's not going to be that easy to replicate.  So 
I would like to see us move ahead to get that done.  I think 
of the, of all of the parts of the big chapter that are, 
that are on our plate, that's the one that we ought to focus 
on, and leave all the others until the next meeting with the 
new, with the new folks. I think we could, you know, we 
could get quite far along on that, and I agree with Carol 
that it's -- this is going to be a hard thing to duplicate 
if we don't, if we don't come to some agreement and sign 
off.
		MS. DILLEY:  Greg, Terry and then Carol.  I know 
you want to comment.  
		MR. JAFFE:  First the realist in me, and I want 
to comment on what Michael said.  And I just have to 
disagree with you.  I think that the, the one reason we've 
gotten the scenarios has been the uniqueness of that 
Committee and some of the people on it, Juan and Keith and 
Mardi and others who have done a tremendous job.  And as a 
full member of the Committee, I have deferred to them a lot, 
and I've reviewed the chapter, yes, but I think that that 
committee can't be duplicated with the people around the 
room and people who come in, and I don't think that we don't 
move further along with that.  I don't think it's as easy 
for us to pick it up as you said.  That's my own personal 
view.  I would find it hard to -- I've worked on the other 
committees and deferred a lot to that committee as to what 
they've done.  I think they've done a great job, and I think 
that chapter is near complete, and I think it could be a 
stand-alone -- that goes to the Secretary or as finalized 
that's left in abeyance for the rest of the report that 
isn't -- negotiated with new people coming on.  So I think 
there are creative ways to complete that.  Now the optimist 
in me says that I think we can get both done in the next two 
days, both the scenarios, given the fact that I think it's 
near complete, and the traceability and labeling, because I 
think that is near complete.  And maybe I'm too much of an 
optimist but I think they both can get done.  I do have some 
worry about doing only one today and not the other one -- 
the other one tomorrow because Michael is not going to be 
here tomorrow, and I think Michael has some issues or things 
with scenarios, and since I think it can get done, I'd want 
to see somehow split, somehow split the baby.  Maybe spend 
this morning on labeling and traceability, but leave an hour 
or two this afternoon to do on the scenarios, come back the 
next morning to whatever needs to be done with labeling and 
traceability and then go back to scenarios.  But I think 
given the makeup of the Committee after this two-day 
meeting, I think that those both can get done.  I have -- I 
don't have a lot of comments on either one, major comments 
on either one of them.  So I'd like to try to figure out a 
way to compromise and do them both.
		MS. DILLEY:  I was thinking in terms of just -- 
turn to Michael and say can you have us here until five, and 
maybe again depending on public comment we just extend the 
meeting longer today, and to the degree that we can get to 
scenarios as much as we can, at least a couple of hours, 
maybe even -- I don't know, do as much as we can on that, 
and maybe that's the way to try and get both pushed along 
today, given that some folks are not going to be here 
tomorrow.  I didn't realize how many people are not going to 
be here tomorrow.
		Terry and then Carol.
		MR. MEDLEY:  I want to say add my name to the 
list of not being here tomorrow.  I have to go to Chicago.  
But I was thinking along the lines that you had just talked 
about in terms of since we -- based upon past precedents, we 
haven't had a long line of public commenters seeking to talk 
in those periods.  I think if we can just go through our 
agenda and then look at that time as being able to have a 
discussion about the scenarios, and then, I'm pretty 
optimistic also in terms of what we might be able to 
accomplish.  The other thing I think about the scenarios, 
this is an area where I believe that we're doing the report 
that science and things are changing so rapidly that some of 
the things are going to be almost out-of-date by the time 
the report is issued.  The whole idea about the scenario 
piece is how does the Department get beyond that box in 
terms of looking at things that might happen, and not 
predicting, but how do you then deal with those?  So I think 
it is a way of trying to keep current in an area that there 
are some unknowns and there's a value in that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Carol.
		MS. FOREMAN:  Yeah, just a final thing.  You know 
at our last meeting scenarios was on the agenda first, and 
then we changed it to be labeling and traceability, and then 
didnt get around to doing scenarios.  So it, you know, 
everything else keeps getting moved back and moved back and 
moved back to deal with this one issue, and I'd be perfectly 
happy if we decided to spend maybe up to 1:30 or 2 o'clock 
on labeling and traceability, and then go over to scenarios.  
Scenarios chapter is pretty short.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.  I mean in terms of I think 
just chronologically we need to do it that way, because I 
dont think -- I know I didn't come prepared to talk about 
scenarios this morning.  So I would anticipate that probably 
other people are in the same boat.  So maybe having that 
lunch break or some time to at least review it and then come 
back and commit to a couple hours on scenarios, and us 
reassess when we come back from lunch where we are on the 
traceability and labeling document.  And then if we can push 
that towards finalization and then see where we are after 
lunch break --
		MS. FOREMAN:  Might also push us to finish 
labeling and traceability.
		MS. DILLEY:   Yeah, yeah, I think that's right.  
I mean I think they go hand-in-hand.
		So can we commit to that?  And for those of you, 
if you did not bring your papers for today -- I mean for the 
scenarios piece that remember there are copies in the back, 
and when you pick those up, there are a couple of pieces.  
There's a meeting summary and there's the preparing for the 
future draft chapter, and you need both because that 
continues the discussion that's not currently in the 
preparing for the future draft.  So, please, if you haven't 
read it in preparation for today, be sure and do that at the 
lunch break, and then we'll turn now to the traceability and 
labeling document and work on that, and assess where we are 
after lunch. 
		Leon, did you have a question before we get 
going?
		MR. CORZINE:  Yes, I -- this agenda that was sent 
out previous, I think we should stick to it.  If we -- I 
don't -- I wouldn't be in favor of saying at 1:30 we're 
going to switch.  I understand it would be good to talk 
about scenarios later in the day, and maybe you can check 
and see if we can run later today.
		MS. DILLEY:  We can run later today.
		MR. CORZINE:  So I think that would be good.  So 
let's get rolling.  I just don't -- I wouldn't agree at 
1:30, we're going to switch.
		MS. DILLEY:  At 1:30, I said we will reassess 
where we are.		
		MR. CORZINE:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  But we are going to commit to at 
least a couple of hours on scenarios.  After we get this 
done.  I think we've just got to make that decision to take 
advantage -- particularly I didn't realize so many people 
were not going to be here tomorrow.  So that, I think that 
makes it even more imperative that we get to that discussion 
today.  
		Whose -- who can stay late today?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Who cannot?
		MS. DILLEY:  Who cannot stay late today.  I'm 
sorry:
		Terry has a train.
		MR. MEDLEY:  A plane.
		MS. DILLEY:  A plane.  How late can you stay, 
Terry?
		MR. MEDLEY:  I'm going to leave -- I have to 
leave about 3:30.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  And but Keith should be here 
by then and Juan should be here by then, right?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Juan is supposed to be 
here at 10 this morning.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.		
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I don't know what --
		MS. FOREMAN:  Have you heard Keith is definitely 
coming?  I dont think he is?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I'm not sure.
		MS. DILLEY:  We'd better -- if he's not, if he 
doesn't show up by the morning break, we'll call his office.
		MS. LAYTON:  And who is not going to be here 
tomorrow
		MS. LAYTON:  Terry, Leon and Michael.
		MS. DILLEY:  Potentially three.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And Juan for maybe part of 
the day, not --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, Juan will be here part of 
the day tomorrow.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Turn to Michael to just 
provide some of the preliminaries before we actually dive 
into the chapter and turn it over to Cindy for facilitating 
a discussion of the introduction.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  The aim of today's 
efforts on the traceability and labeling of the document has 
on the document, as you heard, is to complete work on the 
report and finalize it for transmittal to the new Secretary 
of Agriculture and -- something to the just outgoing 
Secretary of Agriculture.
		Before I talk about the draft, its status, and 
how it was developed, let me for the benefit of the pubic, 
spend a moment or two going over its general structure.  The 
document, as you've heard in bits from the summary, has -- 
from Cindy's summary-- has an executive summary followed by 
the bulk of the report.  The report as a whole starts with a 
brief introduction describing what happened, why of the 
report, then dives into descriptions of different approaches 
that countries have adopted in setting out biotech labeling 
and traceability policies, which are described fairly 
generically, and associated with each one is some 
description of how industry is attempting to address the 
stated requirements.
		Then there's a description of different 
international agreements, treaties that bear on the use of 
labeling and traceability rules of trade.  Following that, 
there's a large section entitled, Commercial Impacts and 
Realities.  This section addresses more specifically 
particular concerns, market tools and trends.  There are a 
series of pieces in there.  They are adventitious presence, 
identity preservation systems, traceability systems, 
contracting and liability, testing associated risks, 
discrepancy between regulatory and true commercial 
requirements, impact and market segmentation, and a new 
section on consumer impacts.  Following this, there's a 
policy section -- a final section, rather, which -- in which 
is highlighted certain policy concerns and issues raised in 
the report for the Secretary or for both Secretaries to 
consider.
		The report was originally developed by a work 
group composed of Randy Giroux, Ron Olson, Leon Corzine, 
Lisa Zannoni, Greg Jaffe and Dick Crowder.  There's been 
extensive discussion of the document by the work group, and 
as you've heard, in plenary as well.  We spent the bulk of 
our last two-day meeting in December going over the 
document.  We made a lot of progress at that time.  We went 
over at that point nearly the entire document, except that 
work was not completed on the first section, the Executive 
Summary, and the last, the Policy Concerns and Issues 
Raised.  As I mentioned, one whole new section was added on 
Consumer Impacts, and discussed fairly quickly last time.
		Additionally, there were new pieces of text 
developed to go into various places in the document, notably 
in the introduction, including text on process and scope as 
well as definitions, and also some on policy concerns and 
issues raised that were not discussed at the meeting -- 
written but not discussed.  And there was a call for a 
couple of pieces to be written, to be rewritten, rather, an 
adventitious presence portion of the text in Section 3 was 
worked on by Greg Jaffe and Randy Giroux, and also a small 
section of the impact of market segmentation also in Part 3.  
After the last plenary, just before the Christmas holiday, a 
revised version incorporating agreed-upon text, plus new 
text developed at the meeting, was circulated for the full 
Committee for comment.  After that, the facilitators and I 
worked to prepare a new very annotated draft based o the 
comments received.  It was sent out to members on January 
28th.  It was developed based on the following approach:
		For the entire text, suggested changes that were 
deemed by the facilitators and me as being strictly 
editorial and that clearly improved the readability of the 
document were included.  If any of those proves to be the 
subject of discussion and at all controversial, in sections 
that were agreed to at the last plenary, well revert to the 
original text without any delay.  
		For sections of the text that were not discussed 
at the plenary or for which revised text as drafted by small 
groups at the plenary but not reviewed during the meeting, 
all suggested changes were provided.  If those change 
altered the meaning rather than merely clarifying the text, 
they are provided as bracketed options.  Sometimes there are 
nested options, so there are a whole bunch of forms of 
alternative brackets, squares, squiggly, greater than, 
lesser than signs.
		For portions of the text on which agreement was 
reached at the last plenary, only editorial changes were 
included, with apologies to those who provided more 
substantive changes to those portions of the text.  This 
approach was taken to reinforce the process adopted by those 
present at the last meeting.  We recognize that some 
portions of the text still engendered comments of substance, 
some of which will come up undoubtedly here today.  
Nonetheless, we would ask all Committee members to strive to 
adhere to this approach as much as possible in these 
discussions in order to be able to move forward.  However, 
please note two exceptions to how we've approached this 
draft and would like to move forward, and the reason why -- 
and the reasons why.  
		First, note that in Section IIA(3)a3, page 9, 
lines 40 to 41, in the second paragraph under labeling 
requirements triggered when modifications result in 
compositional novelty, a change is noted in the text where a 
question of fact has been raised about whether a particular 
example fits the case described.	
		Second, we need to remember that one member of 
our Committee, Dick Crowder, was unable to attend the last 
session.  While the new text does not include any of the 
substantive changes he proposed and comments for sections 
discussed at the December plenary, it is appropriate and 
necessary that he is offered the opportunity at the plenary 
session to raise issues of importance to him.  
		The text also includes, as I mentioned, the new, 
redrafted Adventitious Presence Section prepared by Randy 
Giroux and Greg Jaffe.  They at this point have mostly, but 
not completely, agreed on the text put before you, so there 
are a few extra brackets in what's provided.  Additionally, 
please note that I provided some suggested text in the 
section on Impact of Market Segmentation, my attempt to 
address deficiencies and concerns noted in the last 
discussions.
		First, the definition for market segmentation was 
requested; and, after looking at a number of them on the 
Web, one was provided.
		Second, I took a stab at redrafting the text 
describing the range of attitudes towards transgenic 
products among different groups.  I hope these are seen by 
Committee members as improvements.
		Finally, please note that I very occasionally 
made a word change or two on my own, generally to fix 
grammar or to fix clarity; never with the intent of making 
substantive change.  I tried to italicize all those changes 
for transparency, and I hope I remembered to get them all, 
but I might not have.  And also the ability of the tracking 
system on the computer to track things and things that were 
already changed is limited, as are my skills.
		Were at the point now where there needs to be a 
final push to review the document.  First, the pieces that 
have been not looked at yet, which we need to look at in 
greater depth, and then in going over for the rest of 
everyone's -- of the rest for everyone's comfort and to get 
input from Dick Crowder to round out our perspectives in 
order to move to get the final blessing for the report.
		What will the final report look like?  This is to 
be -- we certainly want it to be a consensus report.  That 
means everyone needs to sign off on it.  That means further 
that it's not going to look like anyone's individual idea of 
what the report should look like.   It probably also implies 
that there will be different things in it that each member 
won't like.  It's going to be a consensus that is a 
compromise.  Something that may be individually difficult in 
spots for each of you, but I think it's important for each 
of you to reflect on the big picture, and the value of this 
report as a whole in order to decide on your bottom-line 
messages and your overall bottom lines as we attempt to 
polish this effort off.  As you all jump in now, I would 
encourage each of you in these discussions never to say such 
and such text is unacceptable, but rather provide an 
explanation of a concern that you have that's raised by a 
particular statement and actively seek a solution that 
everyone can agree upon.
		So with that, I will turn it over to Cindy.  
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  With the goal of getting 
through this report and coming up with a consensus agreement 
that we have talked about, I propose that first of all we 
take a rolling break and not stop for a formal break.  And 
also to reiterate what Michael said, we want to focus on the 
parts of the text that were not discussed in the December 
meeting, parts that were drafted by small working groups at 
the plenary but not reviewed in the December meeting, and 
those bracketed changes that in fact altered the meaning 
rather than merely clarifying the text.
		And with that, I'd like -- Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  I guess given the importance of all 
of us being in the room for all the discussions, I would 
request we don't have a rolling break, but a defined 15-
minute break, because I really don't want to miss the 
discussion. I do -- check into my voice mail and so forth.  
So I guess I would request -- see whether the other 
Committee members see about that, but do the break as 
scheduled in the agenda.
		MS. SULTON:  I see pained looks that people want 
a break.  All right.
		MR. JAFFE:  What?
		MR. SULTON:  I see that people seem to want a 
break, is that right?  To have a formal break?  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- 15 minutes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER -- 10-minute break.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Say 10 it will be 15 
minutes.
		MS. SULTON:  -- have a 5-minute 
break --
		Okay. We would like to start with the 
introduction and that section is relatively short and has a 
statement of the charge, a description of the process.  
		MS. LAYTON:  working off January 28th --
		MS. SULTON:  we're working off the January 28th 
version of the text that Michael referred to, that gives you 
all the --
		MR. CROWDER:  So we'll come back to the Executive 
Summary?
		MS. SULTON:  We'll come back to the Executive 
Summary after we've been through everything else.
		At any rate, the introduction has the charge -- 
by which the report was prepared, the scope of the report, 
and the terms.  It runs on my copy from about page 3 to page 
6.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- we have comments -- 
page-by-page?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Coming back to the 
Executive Summary.
		MS. SULTON:  Yeah, but -- no, we're not -- we're 
going to do the Executive Summary last.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  After we have agreement on the body 
of the report, and then make sure that the Executive Summary 
does in fact reflect the body.
		MS. LAYTON:  And in some places we -- to make a 
decision, because there are three suggested alternatives or 
--
		MS. SULTON:  That's correct.  I don't know if you 
were able to print it out in color, but I have it in color 
so I can see where there were alternatives suggested.
		Michael.
		MR. DYKES:  Just -- what's the difference in 
mine?  I don't have it -- in color.  I have blue and I have 
red for those.  Could you just refresh my memory?  Is blue 
what you put in is editorial and red content?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Red were things put in in the 
previous draft.
		MR. DYKES:  By discussion of the Committee?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.
		MR. DYKES:  Okay.  And blue was?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Blue are subsequent changes.
		MR. DYKES:  Either that you put in as editorial 
or comments from other Committee members?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.  Most of mine, yes, most 
of mine should be italicized.  A couple may not have shown 
up that way.
		MR. DYKES:  Okay.  Yeah, I do see some italics.  
Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  So red are the changes immediately 
after the December meeting, and the blue are the changes 
after we got comments and --
		MR. DYKES:  The red should reflect the 
conversations from the last meeting.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  That's correct.
		MR. DYKES:  Okay.  Now I'm with you.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  In the general sense of the 
introduction,  do you think that we -- what was agreed to?
		MR. CROWDER:  I've got questions and comments, if 
I might.
		MS. SULTON:  All right, Dick.
		MR. CROWDER:  Just a quick one underneath charge, 
should that be the United States food and feed Supply Chain?  
It says food and feed Supply Chain?  I don't recall what the 
charge was, but I think it might have been U.S.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes, it is.		
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  So insert U.S. in between the and 
food.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  And as you turn to what is 
page 4, we do have a lot of bracketed items in that first 
paragraph, so there are choices to be made.  In the last 
meeting we used the term snapshot, some people. Description, 
report were also mentioned.  So the bracketed items in that 
paragraph that begins to draft the snapshot description 
report.
		Michael.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I would think, I would suggest 
report -- referred to.
		MS. SULTON:  The next bracket is a little 
bracketed item on that same sentence.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me just say I think at least 
in my copy at least the colors are doing different things 
here.  The old text on my copy is the blue.
		MS. SULTON:  Yes, mine too.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Uh-huh.  And the new text is red 
on mine.  So I'm not -- they reflect different times, but 
I'm not sure that they do the same thing based on the 
computer --
		MS. SULTON:  But the -- and the brackets --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Are changes.
		MS. SULTON:  -- are changes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes, brackets are both printed 
and text.
		MS. SULTON:  So then there is an alternative text 
there but in brackets?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.  If I can, the suggestion 
was made in comments that it really wasn't necessary to talk 
in great detail about who was on the work group as much as 
talk about the time, what kind of information they got, what 
the mandate was.  So that the red version --
		MS. DILLEY:  Is more detailed.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So that the suggestion had been 
to eliminate starting half of line 2, going through the line 
6 and removing that section, and then continuing the rest, 
the rest of the text, except perhaps the other comment  was 
to change what was in lines 8 and 9.  That was the, that was 
the suggestion from a -- comment -- more information in 
that, so I did.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  You're going to have to 
put the language because everybody's computer I think 
printed out the lines differently.
		MR. JAFFE:  I have them on different pages.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Unless you have drafts 
back there that we all should get.
		MS. SULTON:  There are copies back there.  It's 
just not in color.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's not in color, I'm 
afraid.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Mine is not in color 
anyway, so --
		MS. DILLEY:  But then we'd all be on the same 
line on the same page.
		MS. SULTON:  Should we take a moment to get -- 
just pass them out and make sure we're all on the same line?
		Michael.
		MR. DYKES:  I would suggest that we stop after 
December 4th, 5th, 2003.  I believe the next two bracketed 
text would take -- the next sentence the traceability and 
labeling -- bracketed text.  So I think everybody here knows 
what AC21 Committee was.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  Everyone fine with that?
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  No objections.
		MS. LAYTON:  So deleting consisting of -- 
including representatives --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.
		MS. DILLEY:  Terry.
		MR. MEDLEY:  I guess I'm just struggling a little 
bit with what we're trying to do.
		MS. DILLEY:  Who needs a draft?
		MR. MEDLEY:  In this process.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I do.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Section here.  Looks like we're just 
restating how the group worked, the number of calls we had.  
I mean I'm just not sure of what adds to value of what we're 
trying to do in the very beginning.  I mean you had a charge 
which is very specific, and the fact that in response to 
that charge, you know, a group was set up to do the report.  
Then we kind of get into all these -- I'm just not sure of 
why this is necessary and what we're trying to achieve.
		MR. DYKES:  I guess my sense was, Terry, I can 
agree where you're coming from, because I was just trying to 
follow this process, that's why I was deleting more rather 
than adding.  I don't think you need much here other than --
		MR. MEDLEY:  In an introduction --
		MR. DYKES:  -- very succinctly --
		MR. MEDLEY:  on this report to have, you know, 
first thing you read is kind of -- it just doesn't go to 
substance.
		MS. FOREMAN:  -- stop breathing.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay, yeah, I mean -- 
		MS. SULTON:  Greg and then Pat.  Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  I mean I guess I think it's helpful 
to talk -- I don't know how much process we need. I thought 
that the process that was written wasn't very well written.  
Some of the comments that Michael is suggesting were 
comments that I made in the draft.  So I would kind of clean 
it up and make it more substantive in terms of talking about 
-- but I guess the point I wanted to get across somewhere in 
this document, and whether it's here or somewhere else, that 
I do think it's important that this report is based on the 
experiences of people around the table.  And that doesnt -- 
it means that is primarily where it came from.  We got -- we 
had a couple of experts, outside people make some 
presentations, but it is the thoughts and experiences of the 
people around the table.  And so that to me is the one 
sentence or something that's got to be put in here.  Because 
it isn't -- we didn't -- this isn't a report where we took 
lots of other evidence or we did an extensive literature 
search.  It is what the people around the table, the 
experiences they've had with the traceability and labeling 
things.  And so it isn't -- I don't want somebody to come 
back and say, we got Greece wrong or we got some country 
wrong in here.  It's based on what we knew around here.  And 
so that's what I wanted to get into the report for this 
paragraph.
		MR. DYKES:  So the next two sentences go -- Greg, 
which one is yours, the blue one?
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't have blue.
		MR. DYKES:  Okay, number three on both are own 
experience.
		MR. JAFFE:  Experience and expertise as well as 
information provided by outside experts, ex-officio members 
-- and experience.  
		MR. DYKES:  I'm fine with that.
		MS. SULTON:  So we're suggesting the direct 
sentences before that be deleted in their entirety?
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MS. SULTON:  Is everybody all right with that?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Uh-huh.
		MS. SULTON:  Great.  So we get down to the spirit 
of it rather than the step-by-step.  Okay.
		MR. DYKES:  So --
		MS. SULTON:  -- the same copy that you gave him.
		MR. DYKES:  I would suggest we delete the next 
sentence, presentations.
		MR. JAFFE:  Fine.
		MR. DYKES:  And that -- work group met eight 
times.
		MS. SULTON:  So delete everything down to the 
work group met eight times?
		MR. JAFFE:  That's my suggestion.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Are you saying from 
beginning of Line 9 to the middle of line --		
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Line --
		MS. SULTON:  Wait a minute.  We've got -- we're 
going to have official lines, and I'll read -- 
		MR. DYKES:  Delete the bracketed presentations 
and ending with -- grain exporter.
		MR. JAFFE:  That's why I suggested everybody have 
the same draft.
		MS. SULTON:  It really would help.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  I'll work with my black 
and white instead of my color one.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  All right, could I interrupt?  Can I 
just -- I just want to remind everybody that this whole 
section was added in December, if I remember correctly, by a 
small work group that was charged --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- to go out and write the process, 
so --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- it has only been seen really this 
one time, so I think it is appropriate to do this.  I think 
that there was a feeling that we did need a process piece in 
here. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  So I just want to reiterate --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- we do need the --
		MS. SULTON:  And I think Greg was a member of 
that group.  I'm not -- and the purpose was -- okay, well 
somehow it was expressed at that meeting we just needed to 
say how this was done, much as Greg said previously.
		So, Greg, I do now have the document that you're 
using which is -- we're going to use as the official 
document.  So what line are you -- was that last change?
		MR. JAFFE:  Michael was suggesting, Michael Dykes 
was suggesting that we -- Lines 9, 10 and the beginning, 
first four words of Line 11 be deleted.  
		MS. SULTON:  So beginning with presentations?
		MR. JAFFE:  That's right.
		MS. SULTON:  To the Committee, that whole 
sentence is gone.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right, and everybody had agreed to 
keeping in the bracketed text that started the end of Line 6 
and moved to the end of Line 8.
		MS. SULTON:  So the text that begins members 
drew?
		MR. JAFFE:  Essentially the work group members.  
It would delete the first bracket from the third word on 
Line  through the -- near the end of Line 6.
		MS. SULTON:  So it would then read beginning with 
Line 5, Work Group members drew on -- is that correct?
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's correct.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.
		MR. DYKES:  And then the next section starts with 
the Work Group met -- eight times.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Line 11.
		MS. SULTON:  Which is Line 11 on the official 
text?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  So nine is gone?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.
		MR. DYKES:  And I would suggest we keep the last 
-- well that's not bracketed, so we have finished the 
process.
		MS. SULTON:  This was on the text though that we 
had not previously reviewed.  So it's okay to look at all of 
this.
		MR. DYKES:  Got one more sentence or one more --
three more sentences.
		MS. SULTON:  Right, two more sentences.
		MR. DYKES:  I thought they were bracketed, but 
they're not bracketed.  So I'm fine with the way they are.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Then move to scope. 
		MR. MEDLEY:  So are you going to read that or?
		MS. SULTON:  You want me to read that?  Okay. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Reading from two different 
-- 
		MS. SULTON:  To draft this report, a Work Group 
was formed after the AC21's third plenary session on 
December 4, 5, 2003.  The Traceability and Labeling Work 
Group also benefited from the participation by ex-officio 
members of the AC21 and USDA staff.  The --
		MS. DILLEY:  I think you have to take out the 
word also.  That okay?  
		MR. DYKES:  Fine.
		MS. DILLEY:  
		MS. DILLEY:  No also.
		MR. DYKES:  That's fine.
		MS. SULTON:  So the Work Group --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Members.
		MS. SULTON:  -- members	drew on both their own 
experience and expertise as well as information provided by 
outside experts, ex-officio members of the AC21 and 
employees of USDA with relevant expertise.  That's a little 
bit redundant, isn't it?  We said that before.  The Work 
Group met via conference call eight times to discuss the 
mandate of the Committee and draft the report that would 
address the Secretary's charge.  Okay.  And then the last 
paragraph is accepted, is that correct?
		So moving to Scope.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Comments on Scope.
		MS. SULTON:  Any comments on Scope?
		MR. MEDLEY:  I think just the comment that Dick 
raised earlier when you say they -- putting it to the U.S.  
The report focused on the impact and implication on U.S. 
agriculture -- isn't that what we had said, we wanted to be 
very specific?  Because it doesn't just fall to the U.S. 
agriculture.
		MR. OLSON:  That's kind of covered there at Line 
32, 33.
		MS. SULTON:  Yeah.
		MR. OLSON:  Impacts on U.S. agriculture and -- 
earlier 
		MR. MEDLEY:  I don't --
		MR. OLSON:  The next paragraph.
		MS. SULTON:  It's the second paragraph.  The 
paragraph right below.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Below that?
		MS. SULTON:  In the second line, Line 32 on the 
official copy.
		MR. DYKES:  I think, Terry, I'm with you, but I 
think if we put that up as we did in the very first line of 
the -- wherever we put it -- charge, introduction -- charge.  
I don't know if we have to go through and put U.S. --
		MS. SULTON:  -- very --
		MR. DYKES:  -- every single time when we refer to 
it.
		MS. SULTON:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  Should that second paragraph just 
move to the top?
		MS. SULTON:  No.  We've already said it in the, 
in the --
		MS. LAYTON:  Oh, okay, you're right, in the 
charge.  
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Any other --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We have a bracketed word 
in the first word in the first paragraph --
		MS. SULTON:  Michael --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- want that or not.	
	
		MS. LAYTON:  That's correct.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It's just -- strike it.
		MS. SULTON:  Strike likely?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Strike likely?
		MS. DILLEY:  Everyone okay with striking likely?
		MS. SULTON:  So -- 37.
		Anything else on Scope?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  A minor step.
		MS. SULTON:  David.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  In that second paragraph we say 
Advisory Committee and every place else we just say AC21, 
infer that those are the same.  Wouldn't it be better to 
continue to use AC21?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes, okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Either that or wherever we 
say AC21 the first time we put Advisory Committee --
		MS. FOREMAN:  That --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. FOREMAN:  -- gives us a little more 
flexibility of language.
		MS. SULTON:  So going back to beginning of the 
text, the first time we mention it, we'll fix that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Go back, and if no one will have 
objections, we'll try to make all that work.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  All the same.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That will be, that will be a 
non-substantive change.  
		MR. DYKES:  We'd like to calculate it that way. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I'm sure you would.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  Page 40 -- Line 41 on page 4, where 
underlined is this section.  I think it should be changed to 
that section.  On Line 43, I think it should say Section 3, 
comma, of the report delves into.  I'd would delete the 
following section --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  It's not the following.  Section two 
is the following.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay, that's --
		MS. SULTON:  Thank you.
		MR. OLSON:  Do we need to -- Section 2, 3, and 4 
-- say the next section, do we need those descriptions?  
Can't we just say Section 2, Section 3, Section 4 --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. OLSON:  And just eliminate the --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  I like that too.  Thank you.
		MR. JAFFE:  And then on Page 5, Line 6, says the 
final segment.  It's not a segment.  Final section.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, we're going to get rid of 
that entirely.  
		MR. CROWDER:  Section 4.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  So we've cut that down, made 
it a little clearer.  Any other comments on Scope before we 
move to Terms Used?
		Moving to Terms Used.  The first one being 
approved products.  It's red in mine.  It means that wasn't 
in the December.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah, it was not in the December, 
no.
		MS. SULTON:  Was not in December.  It was put in 
after the meeting, correct?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Correct.
		MR. CROWDER:  I guess I, I guess I'm not 
comfortable with this definition, the second clause of the 
definitions.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And have been?
		MR. CROWDER:  And have been granted authorization 
for food and/or feed use in a particular country or region.  
My memory, and I could be wrong, and if I'm wrong, then I 
wouldn't have an objection, but my memory this definition is 
used for not just products approved in other countries but 
also approved products would be considered something in the 
U.S., and the U.S. does not grant authorization for feed or 
feed use in an approved way.  And so I'm comfortable with 
the first part we talked about having passed the necessary 
regulatory requirements, but I guess if we're just going to 
say just doesn't include the U.S. system, the I'm 
comfortable with it, but if it does include the U.S. system, 
I'm not comfortable with using the word approved products 
and the current definition that's been proposed.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Greg, could you just put a slash 
and/or have been granted?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  In a particular country.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Are allowed? 
		MR. JAFFE:  They're allowed -- the point is n the 
U.S., they're allowed without having to go through the 
federal -- at least part of the regulatory system for food 
and feed.  They can go without anything.  So they don't need 
to -- this suggests if approved, it suggests that they went 
through something.  I'm comfortable with it for all other 
countries.  I'm saying but I think that we've used this term 
approved products especially in the adventitious presence 
and other sections as saying it's approved in the U.S., but 
not approved somewhere else.  I'm comfortable with saying 
they passed the necessary regulatory requirements.  To me 
that's ambiguous enough to say that some of those are 
mandatory requirements, some of them aren't mandatory 
requirements.
		MS. DILLEY:  How about --
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm not comfortable with saying 
granted.  The word granted to me authorization for food 
and/or feed suggests -- with the approval would suggest 
that.
		MR. DYKES:  Why dont we change and to or.  Does 
that take care?  Does that fix you?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  What does that add?  What's the 
difference with saying -- passed let's say regulatory 
requirements or granted authorization?
		MS. DILLEY:  So just stop the --
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm suggesting just stop it after 
requirement.
		MR. DYKES:  Oh, okay.  I was just trying to find 
some solution to your -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  No, I'm just suggesting to stop it.
		MS. DILLEY:  Dick do you have a --
		MR. CROWDER:  I was going to ask Greg about 
stopping there but going back and add regulatory 
requirements for food and feed use.
		MR. OLSON:  Just cross out --
		MR. CROWDER:  Just cross out the approval.  They 
passed the necessary regulatory requirements for.
		MR. DYKES:  Food and feed --
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The whole -- clause and 
add --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. JAFFE:  Just those six words, just those five 
words, those five words.   That's fine.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's fine.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, got it.  
		MS. SULTON:  Moving on then.  Anything in the 
biotechnology definition?
		Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.  Well, my comments are the ones 
that were on the side here.  I'm -- I still dont understand 
this definition.  I wasn't in the group that came to it, but 
you -- it goes between -- biotechnology refers to the use of 
a range of tools, but then it says, we'll focus on a subset 
of these products.  Tools and products are two different 
things -- and so --
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Can we just change that 
second word to tools instead of products?
		MR. JAFFE  So is biotechnology the tools to make 
living organisms?  Because -- and I don't have a solution to 
this because I really dont -- it just doesn't seem 
consistent to me.  It says refer to range of tools, 
including -- to use -- tools to use living organisms.  To me 
it's not the living organisms that's biotechnology.  It's 
the tools.  So it would be the technique.  But 
then --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Would it do it to say the AC21 
will focus on products produced using the subset of these 
tools?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MR. DYKES:  I would suggest, I don't know that we 
need all that.  To me I thought we had three or four lines 
more than what we needed in there, of all the tools and all 
the different things in the first four lines.  I would 
suggest we change it.  Take -- put the word biotechnology in 
front of products and modern biotechnology and transgenic or 
genetically organism or their products are used 
interchangeably to refer to the use of genetic engineering 
or recombinant DNA processes, develop new varieties of 
plants or strains or microorganisms or animals.  And delete 
those first five lines.
		MS. DILLEY:  So you start on Line 20?
		MR. DYKES:  I need to look at this.  Where are 
we?  Okay, yeah.  Start on Line 20.
		MS. DILLEY:  Would be --
		MR. DYKES:  And insert the word biotechnology.  
Delete in this report the terms, insert the word 
biotechnology, pick up the rest of that, and then use 
interchange -- refer to and insert the words the use of 
genetic engineering or recombinant DNA processes to develop 
new varieties of plants or strains of microorganisms or 
animals.  And then keep that last sentence.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can you repeat that again?
		MR. DYKES:  On Line 20.  Delete in this report 
the terms.  Insert the word biotechnology.
		MS. DILLEY:  In other words, pick up 
biotechnology in bold.
		MR. DYKES:  Right.
		MS. DILLEY:  Delete everything down to the word 
in italics products of modern biotechnology.
		MR. DYKES:  Yeah.  This is my suggestion.  Of 
modern biotechnology and transgenic, parentheses, or 
genetically-engineered organisms, are used interchangeably 
to refer to, and then insert the words the use of genetic 
engineering or recombinant DNA processes to develop new 
varieties of plants or strains of microorganisms or animals, 
period.  Delete the word organisms and then keep the next 
sentence, the term -- except where they're part of specific 
label indication.
		MS. MELLON:  Well, I think, it seems to me that 
we couldn't write it like that, but we could, I think we 
could deal with Greg's problem by just, by just deleting the 
word these from Line 18.  For the purposes of this report, 
the AC21 will focus on the subset products, namely those 
produced through genetic engineering or recombinant DNA 
processes and the derivatives of those products.  I like 
including the notion that, that the focus is going to 
include the derivatives of the products.  I mean that is a 
big part of the international debate, that you're not just 
looking at the organisms themselves, you're looking at the 
products, at the derivatives of those products, what they 
produce.  And then it seems to me that we could, you know, 
we could go on. The rest of it seems, you know, useful to me 
to mention that there are several terms that are used 
interchangeably and that we're going to --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Would you be okay, Greg, with 
deleting the word these?
		MR. JAFFE:  No.  I guess my proposal would be to 
-- it's -- would be it's so much more that first sentence.  
It refers to a use of a range of tools.  I would say that 
alter, living organisms --
		MS. LAYTON:  It's the to use that's 
making --
		MR. JAFFE:  That's right.  It refers to the use 
of tools to use living organisms to make or modify products, 
improve plants.  I mean I like -- actually I like Michael's 
version of it, which  was I was fine with Michael's version 
of it.  The only thing Michael's doesn't capture is that 
biotechnology -- I mean I think his captures everything that 
needs to be captured.  He could add in the derivatives.  But 
I think what it doesn't capture is if you want to say that 
biotechnology includes traditional breeding.  He's just 
limiting it to modern biotechnology.  And that's what this 
report talks about.  We don't talk about traditional 
breeding.  So I'm comfortable with that.  So if -- 
comfortable with not including traditional breeding, I think 
Michael's is fine, but I would either, if we're going to 
keep it the way it is, I think the first sentence would 
either have to refer to the use of a range of tools, 
including traditional breeding that alter living organisms 
to make products.  Or I would just say -- or I would say is 
a range of tools including traditional breeding techniques 
that improve plants or animals or microorganisms, which is 
sort of what Michael was trying to get at.
		MR. DYKES:  I was just trying to shorten it and 
be succinct with what the reports deal with.
		MS. SULTON:  Terry.
		MR. MEDLEY:  I think the -- in this definition, I 
think it's important to look at the range of tools.  I mean 
obviously these terms genetically modified and how they are 
used normally.  I mean the last -- report was very clear 
that that included broad-range and not just recombinant.  I 
thought what we were trying to do in this definition was to 
give the readers that sense of the breadth of this, but that 
we were going to focus just on a subset with the specific 
modern biotechnology. And to me that sets a very helpful 
context for when you're looking at this.  If you now delete 
that, I think that context is gone in terms of that.  And 
for instance if we were looking at I guess Canada just an 
example, then Canada would say, yeah, I mean novelty is our 
trigger.  So where are we?  I think this context is 
important.  I think you can do it with the suggestion, Greg, 
that you made in terms of just the lead-in that refers to 
the use of and get it out and just say it, you know, 
biotechnology is -- and come up with I guess -- language 
just so we keep that in.  I mean I think the context is 
important.
		MR. JAFFE:  So if we said biotechnology is a 
range of tools including traditional breeding that, colon, 
one, alters living organisms to make or modify products, 
two, improves plants or animals, or three, develops -- you 
have to have a verb there.  You can't say develops 
microorganisms but some other -- to be parallel.  Uses 
microorganisms for -- I don't know what it would be, but 
something like that might work.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, I think it's in plants, 
animals are microorganisms.
		MR. JAFFE:  No.  I think what it does is includes 
plants --
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- or animals, and I think any -- if 
you want to say includes plants, animals or microorganisms, 
you could do that, but --
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- what it says here is develop 
microorganisms for specific uses.  That's -- it's not 
referring to plants and animals there at least as written.  
It  was --		
		MS. LAYTON:  All right. Why don't you think that 
-- see, I'm not sure that it doesn't mean that you can't 
improve plants for a specific use.  For example, Carol's 
work, I mean Carol's work was to put like things in tobacco, 
so that would be altering the specific use of that plant.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm not saying it doesn't.
		MS. LAYTON:  Oh, okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm just saying -- improving plants 
and animals is I think sufficient in and of itself.  You 
don't have to say for specific uses.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm saying the way it  was written, 
the sentence, it talks about develop microorganisms. I think 
that is referring only to the phrase specific uses of -- and 
the word developed there was put it.  I'm not sure why it 
was put in, but it's confusing to me develop.  What does it 
mean develop microorganisms?  
		MS. LAYTON:  So the alter living organisms or 
parts of organisms to make or modify products, improve 
plants or animals or microorganisms, period.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Plants, animals or 
microorganisms.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
		MS. FOREMAN:  Would you read the whole sentence, 
please?
		MS. SULTON:  Biotechnology refers to the use of a 
range of tools including traditional breeding techniques to 
use living --
		MS. DILLEY:  No, that alter.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That alter.
		MS. SULTON:  That alter.  You read it.
		MS. LAYTON:  Biotechnology refers --
		MR. JAFFE:  Is a range of --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Is a range, is a range.  
Biotechnology is a range of tools, including, including 
traditional breeding techniques that alter living organisms 
or parts of organisms to make or modify products, improve 
animals, plant -- improve plant -- it would be and improve 
plants, animals and -- or microorganisms.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  For specific uses?
		MS. LAYTON:  No.
		MR. CROWDER:  That changes the meaning of that.  
I mean I don't understand, not -- scientist to understand, 
but that does change the meaning of developing 
microorganisms for specific uses.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right, that's a --
		MR. CROWDER:  I don't object.  I'm just saying I 
just -- I'm pointing out something that will change the 
meaning of that sentence.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm having -- I have o problem having 
3, 1, 2 and 3.
		MR. CROWDER:  Yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. CROWDER:  But I think three was what  was -- 
someone intended three when they wrote it -- changing to 
two.
		MR. JAFFE:  I dont have a problem with that.
		MS. SULTON:  Terry, did you want to comment?
		MR. MEDLEY:  No.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay. So the question is are they 
two -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So you're -- let me go back.  
I think it would be then biotechnology is a range of tools, 
including traditional breeding techniques that --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Colon.
		MS. LAYTON:  Colon.
		MR. JAFFE:  One.
		MS. LAYTON:  One.
		MR. JAFFE:  Alters living organisms to make or 
modify products; two --
		MS. LAYTON:  Products.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Two.
		MS. LAYTON:  Comma, two.
		MR. JAFFE:  Improves plants or animals.
		MS. LAYTON:  Plants or animals.
		MR. JAFFE:  Or three --
		MS. LAYTON:  And or three, develop micro -- 
develops microorganisms for specific uses.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Everybody with that?  All 
right.  
		MS. SULTON:  Three points.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Then in the next sentence, 
delete the word these.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. BUSS:  Actually you could delete the -- you 
could just say this report will focus on the --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Sure.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So starting the word -- the 
sentence with this report?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  This report will -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Of the AC21 --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  This report will focus.
		MS. LAYTON:  Will focus.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  And the next one do we need in this 
report?
		MS. SULTON:  No.  We suggested that that just say 
biotechnology products, no just, just products, start with 
the word products.
		MS. LAYTON:  Products of modern biotechnology and 
transgenic or genetically engineered organisms or other 
products are used interchangeably to refer to these 
organisms.  The terms genetically modified or genetic 
modification, GMO are avoided except where they are part of 
a specific label indication.  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Moving on.
		MS. SULTON:  Any other -- oh, expansions, 
corrections, modification of terms.
		MR. DYKES:  There are some square brackets in 
commercial risks.
		MS. SULTON:  Commercial risk.  In commercial 
risk.  Okay.  
		Dick.
		MR. CROWDER:  My comments, the way it was 
originally written, the commercial risk was a, was a 
definite --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Thing.
		MR. CROWDER:  Term.  Risk is an indefinite term 
by definition, and so I think it referred -- my comments 
were, and I'll read it as -- commercial risk refers to the 
financial exposure undefined and all potential losses 
undefined associated with the sale, transport, shipment or 
use of the grain or grain products resulting from contracts 
or other mechanisms.  Which when you, when you enter into a 
contract, you accept certain risks, you pass certain risks 
on or whatever under mechanism --
		MS. LAYTON:  So you're suggesting to just release 
the first bracket, contractual liabilities and let it go 
from --
		MR. CROWDER:  No.  Contractual liabilities, if 
there's contractual liability basically you know what they 
are.  I mean --
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. CROWDER:  -- it's a specificity.
		MS. LAYTON:  So just eliminating the bracketed 
term --
		MS. SULTON:  The bracketed term liabilities.  And 
with that the definition is sufficient?  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Is everyone okay with 
that?
		MS. SULTON:  Everybody all right with that?  
Okay.  I dont' see any shaking --
		There's also bracketed text in the grain and 
grain products definition.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And there's a comment on that 
one too.
		MR. JAFFE:  These were my comments.
		MS. SULTON:  Yes, Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  One, I thought that this was too 
restrictive.  It doesn't seem to, it doesn't seem to include 
corn flakes, and seems like seems like on the labeling 
system we talked about permanently labeling of finished 
products, not of commodities.  We're not talking about 
commodity shipments.  We're talking about things that the EU 
and things like that that get on the consumer shelves, and 
this didn't seem to cover that.  Secondly, I didn't like the 
way it was defined where it said -- I mean grain and grain 
products, we talk about them relating to conventional grain 
and grain products throughout the report.  We're not talking 
about them in this definition.  Only talked about it as -- 
in terms of biotechnology products.  So it seems to me the 
definition should sort of say something along the lines of 
grain and grain products, referring to canola, corn, wheat, 
soybeans.  If there are any other commodity grains that I'm 
missing, we add them in, and the products or ingredients 
derived from them, including finished foods, and leave it at 
that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.  Those were the -- those 
words were the bracketed words that -- some of the bracketed 
words that are in there are things that I meant to italicize 
that I had added in response to your comment.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right, but I would delete any mention 
of biotechnology in this definition.  I dont think there's 
a need for biotechnology in this definition, and I wouldn't, 
I wouldn't limit the grain and grain products to canola, 
corn and soybeans, but there are others.  Wheat is I know a 
grain product, and I dont think cotton is, but, but if 
there's other ones that could be considered -- there are 
farmers around the room who know better than me what we 
would consider grain and grain products.
		MR. DYKES:  Why dont you reread that, Greg.  
What did you delete?
		MR. JAFFE:  I would, I would say grain and grain 
products would be first to I believe the majority of current 
biotech products.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  To products?
		MR. JAFFE:  To -- well, grains are -- refers to 
corn, canola, soybeans, wheat.
		MR. DYKES:  Why dont we just say et cetera?  Can 
we do that?
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine, but I would include 
wheat.  I mean if we know them, if we know --
		MR. DYKES:  So canola, corn, wheat and soybeans, 
et cetera?
		MR. JAFFE:  And products or ingredients derived 
from them, including finished foods.
		MR. DYKES:  Agree.
		MR. CROWDER:  Just a minute before you go to -- 
if you know the products, and you know we can list lots of 
grain in here, sorghum -- that goes on forever and ever.  I 
--
		MS. SULTON:  That's what we said --
		MR. CROWDER:  Well, but I think you wanted to, 
you wanted to specifically list --
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't care.  We can put an et 
cetera in there, but we know one, wheat.  I mean I don't 
think it should just be listing the biotech ones because 
they're -- we're not referring here.  The definition is not 
referring solely to biotech.  By only putting corn, canola 
and soybeans, you suggest that it's -- even if you don't -- 
the word biotechnology.
		MS. LAYTON:  Why don't you take out canola and 
just put corn, soy -- wheat, corn and soybeans.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Et cetera.
		MS. LAYTON:  Et cetera.  
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.
		MR. DYKES:  And then we're going to drop current 
biotechnology products.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  So it refers to products with food 
or feed uses on the market.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Plant-derived products?
		MR. JAFFE:  No, I just -- I wouldn't say that.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Wheat corn --
		MR. JAFFE:  -- refers to wheat, corn and soybeans 
and the products or ingredients derived from them, including 
finished foods.  We dont need food and feed uses.
		MS. LAYTON:  Refers to wheat, corn, soybeans, et 
cetera, and products or ingredients derived from them, 
including finished foods.
		MR. JAFFE:  Period.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Period.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Period.
		MS. SULTON:  Is everyone okay with that?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Let's see how it plays in 
the rest of the report.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And because it seems to me like 
we specifically had arrived to this grain and grain products 
definition and put brackets around it to define our 
discussion.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So let's see how it plays 
in the report.  I -- but I -- we may be coming back to this.
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, so moving -- if necessary.  
The next definition also has bracketed in it the word 
participants versus companies and individuals.  Beginning on 
Line 38 on the official copy.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Which was originally?
		MS. LAYTON:  It originally was -- first of all 
the players that are involved in bringing food and feed 
products to the consumer.
		MR. DYKES:  I think we changed the participants 
at the last meeting.
		MS. LAYTON:  Meeting, right.
		MR. JAFFE:  The December 28th draft -- 
individual.
		MS. SULTON:  The January 28th document.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, the December.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The December.
		MR. JAFFE:  22nd maybe it was.  But the -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- December 22nd draft that came out 
after the meeting.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.  And then there was a 
suggestion --
		MR. JAFFE:  I guess somebody else suggested 
changing that to participants.  Not me.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. SULTON:  So is companies and individuals fine 
or do we want to change it to participants?
		MR. BUSS:  The alternative of just reordering the 
sentence saying industry or the food, feed supply chain 
refer to all of the technology providers, seed breeders and 
producers -- wholesalers and retailers that are involved in 
bringing food and feed products to the consumer.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so move that phrase that 
are involved in bringing food and feed products to the end, 
and so industry or the food and feed supply chains refers --
		MR. BUSS:  Refers to all of the technology 
providers, seed breeders, and just continue on where it says 
retailers, and then bring down that are involved in bringing 
food and food products --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.  So I deleted 
participants, companies and individuals and the word 
including, and I moved that are involved in bringing food 
and feed products to the consumer to the end.  Much easier?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Fine.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, everybody all right with that?  
Yeah, Daryl.  Thank you, Daryl.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Traceability.
		MS. SULTON:  Do you have something on that one, 
Randy?
		MR. GIROUX:  Square brackets around -- given in 
the -- example.
		MS. SULTON:  Right.
		MR. CROWDER:  I've got a question on that. Are we 
mixing -- I ask the question because I wasn't part of the 
discussion last time.  Are we mixing apples and oranges when 
we make an analogy between the living requirements of 
bioterrorism for security purposes versus tracing and 
labeling required for something else?
		MR. DYKES:  I guess my -- I would kind of concur 
with Dick.  I think we should delete the example.  I don't 
think that the example --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I agree.
		MR. DYKES:  I don't think it's in context.
		MS. SULTON:  You concur with that, Randy?
		MS. MELLON:  -- but I think it's relevant that 
traceability requirements are not biotech-specific.  And we 
say that in a number of cases, and that in fact they are out 
there -- that the U.S. is imposing traceability requirements 
for other reasons, some on the grain, and that does offer 
some opportunities, I think, to the Department to think 
about how, you know, what tools it has available to it to 
think about how to address traceability challenges in the 
biotech context.  I wouldn't, you know, I don't know whether 
the concern is simply that you don't want bioterrorism in 
the same kind of report with biotechnology, but I think that 
in general the point is a very sound one, that there are 
other reasons out there that traceability requirements are 
being imposed on the very system we're talking about.
		MS. SULTON:  So is the issue that we put too much 
emphasis here as opposed to just listing a series of 
instances where traceability might kick in?  Randy?
		MR. GIROUX:  This is the definition section.  I 
think there is in the report a -- that there is a section in 
the report that talks about -- that addresses all of those 
things.  This is just supposed to be the general definition 
for traceability and not I dont believe --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So we --
		MR. GIROUX:  -- in the report.  So I would just 
reiterate we strike this example because if we're going to 
start talking about examples, we've got to list a whole 
bunch of examples.
		MS. SULTON:  Right
		Terry.
		MR. MEDLEY:  I had two comments on first 
sentence.  One, the word reconstruct; and, two, if required.  
I'm just wondering how that discussion came about, because 
it seems to me that everything that's here would be 
traceability refers to the ability to document a history of 
the origin of participant steps handling involved in the 
production of food or feed products.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's true.
		MS. LAYTON:  To document instead of to 
reconstruct it?
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, yeah.
		MR. CORZINE:  I concur.
		MR. MEDLEY:  You're going to reconstruct it, but 
you're going to use documentation to do that.
		MS. SULTON:  And you also objected to if 
required.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yes.  
		MR. OLSON:  It's traceability whether it's 
required or not.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Exactly.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, and then if this example is 
needed back there in that section, because I'm like Randy.  
I remember that section.  If we needed something like that, 
that would be a more appropriate place for putting this 
rather than in the definitions.
		MR. DYKES:  Yeah, or to Mardi's point going 
through several examples.
		MS. LAYTON:  Several examples.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  At that point.
		MS. LAYTON:  At that point.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Here you would just see a 
very short traceability --
		MS. SULTON:  Mardi, you okay with that?
		MS. MELLON:  Fine.
		MS. FOREMAN:  We're through with that section?
		MS. SULTON:  Yes, Carol.
		MS. FOREMAN:  I think because this is going 
forward as a separate report and because -- and then 
labeling, talked about information appears on products 
offered to consumers, I think we need a brief definition of 
consumers so there's a separation between the word customers 
and consumers, and we came up with one in the Issues Group, 
and I was just looking to see if I can find it with just a 
quick -- customers and consumers -- retail and -- I'll find 
it in a minute.
		MS. DILLEY:  So adding a new definition to
the --
		MS. LAYTON:  While you're looking for that and 
we're at that section change, it is 10:15 and we are late 
for our break.  I recommend that we take a five-minute break 
and hope that you will be back here in 10 minutes.
		Carol has a -- wait, Carol has a --
		MS. FOREMAN:   David says that in the definition 
section -- there is a definition for retail consumer which 
is --	
		MS. LAYTON:  So that's a definition document.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So is the person who 
personally uses or consumes a good or service from a retail 
establishment.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's a retail consumer.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's a retail consumer.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And then customers -- 
customers are individuals or groups who purchase, are 
provided with or use products and services.   So that would 
be those two definitions.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.  So moving the retail 
consumer -- 
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So is everyone okay with 
adding those two definitions?  Any objections?  
		Okay, 10 minutes.  
		(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
		MS. LAYTON: I have section on adventitious 
presence.  That section is on page 15, I think.  It's 
Section 3 beginning on 15 on one document.  I'm looking on 
the other document.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Its here, 15.
		MS. LAYTON:  15.  So if everybody can join us, 
get those -- page 15, Section 3, Adventitious Presence.
		MR. OLSON:  And we're coming back to the other 
one sometime too, right?
		MS. DILLEY:  We'll go back.  This is the new 
stuff so.
		MS. DILLEY:  Were taking a circuitous path.
		MS. LAYTON:   This is the stuff that has not been 
discussed totally.  It was new material that Randy, you and 
Greg, Greg and Randy.
		MR. JAFFE:  Primarily Randy.  I'll give him the 
credit.  He did a great job.  No, I don't mean that 
negatively.  I mean --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Raise your hand and salute 
to Randy.
		MR. JAFFE:  It's good.  
		(Simultaneous comments.)  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, Cindy.
		MS. SULTON:  Actually Abby.
		MS. LAYTON:  Abby's going to do it.  Sorry.
		MS. DILLEY:  So if you turn to page, what's page 
15 on at least the draft -- at the back table, 3A was 
adventitious presence.  And for those of you who were not in 
the room, yes, we will come back to Section 2, but we want 
to go to Section 3 first because this is new material, so 
per the -- the request was after discussion of this section 
during the December 9 and 10 meeting, there was an 
assignment requested to give to Greg and Randy to rewrite 
the section per the discussion.  So that's what you have 
before you.  And so if you'll turn to that and see what 
comments you have.  It goes from page -- page 14 through 19, 
and then what that section is replacing is 19 through 21, I 
think.  Yeah.
		MR. GRANT:  Can I ask one question?  What are we 
doing with the comments in between --
		MS. DILLEY:  We'll come back.
		MS. LAYTON:  We'll come back to it.
		MS. DILLEY:  Randy. 	
		MR. GIROUX:  Just one comment.  When Greg and I 
went to rewrite this section, we took the original material 
and all the ideas and suggestions that people had wanted to 
see in the section, and you'll see it's a complete rewrite.  
We took a lot of effort to make sure that none of this -- 
none of those notions or ideas are lost, and they are all in 
here somewhere as to the best of our ability.  Nothing was 
added.  It's just reorganizing what --
		MS. DILLEY:  Heavy editing exercise.
		MR. GIROUX:  Heavy editing.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay
	MS. DILLEY:  people have comments on that section?  
Terry, you want to start?
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah.  I think that under 
adventitious presence, the term adventitious presence in the 
context of plant biotechnology -- that last sentence, we say 
the key components of the definition are small and 
unintended.  Small is nowhere in the definition.  I would 
propose we say the key components of the definition are low 
levels and unintended.  Because small is a new term that we 
are introducing.
		MS. LAYTON:  Should those be in quotes?  I'm 
sorry.  Should the word low levels and unintended be in 
quotes as --
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- they are used in that key 
component sentence?
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Unintentional -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  And unintentional.  
		MR. CROWDER:  Well then, not to be jumping 
around, when we get back to executive session, the word 
small and so forth is in the definition -- executive 
session.
		MS. DILLEY:  You mean in the executive summary, 
which we haven't done yet.
		MS. SULTON:  But we'll make a note to make sure 
we're consistent.
		Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  I just had a question on page 16, 
lines 3 and 4, there are references made to how did they 
call -- allowances for adventitious presence in the current 
grain system.  Now the examples are for foreign material and 
grade number one corn and grade number five corn.  I don't 
think that that's the relevant --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Example.
		MS. MELLON:  Example.  I mean you want -- what 
are -- what -- I think you need to -- it would be better to 
know what are the tolerances for, you know, for soybean and 
corn or for other varieties of corn in some situation where 
you're making representations about variety.  I mean this -- 
what foreign materials, like grain --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Rat pellets.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.  Well, that doesn't seem to me 
to be what you're looking for here.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Material includes 
everything.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Corn includes everything. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Includes everything, 
soybeans, canola, rat turds, the whole --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  A non-variety, variety, 
anything.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Broken kernels.
		MR. GIROUX:  It includes everything.  It's the 
general term, includes everything that's not dust.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- not grade one corn or is it just 
any kind of corn?
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's never zero.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right, but I thought -- I 
understood -- and I'm not knowledgeable about this one, says 
number one grade corn.  It's not just the amount of foreign 
material, but also it's a certain kind of corn.  Or it's 
not?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Only difference is the 
amount of foreign material.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Correct.
		MS. MELLON:  Isn't there yellow corn number two?  
Isn't that a standard -- how much white corn can you have in 
yellow corn number two.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It doesn't break it out 
that way.
		MS. MELLON:  It doesn't?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  There's a certain amount 
of foreign material could be in yellow number two.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Which could be -- it could 
include soybeans.
		MS. DILLEY:  So is the terminology foreign 
material, it's not, it's not -- doesn't go into enough 
detail to make that a good example?
		MS. MELLON:  I just -- I don't know what it 
means.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What page is that on?
		MS. MELLON -- certainly isn't, you know, 7 
percent foreign material in yellow whatever it is in number 
five grain, I don't think that that's relevant to trying to 
decide, you know, what sort of tolerances might be 
appropriate in the situations that we are discussing.
		MS. DILLEY:  Are there other examples you wanted 
to --
		MS. MELLON:  Well, I don't know about --
		MS. DILLEY:  -- explaining foreign materials.
		MS. MELLON:  Maybe you need to explain foreign 
material.  Maybe I just misunderstood the kinds of 
tolerances that are out there.
		MR. DYKES:  That's what I was going to -- I think 
what Mardi's suggestion is incorporate in the definition the 
foreign material.  It's just not in this document.  So we 
need to describe, that's what I'm hearing, to describe the 
foreign matter, foreign material includes such things as 
soybeans, other grains, cracked kernels.
		MS. MELLON:  And I think the other thing we need 
is who sets those standards?  I mean are these GIPSA 
standards, are these conventional and agreed-upon standards?  
Who sets the standards for --
		MR. OLSON:  USDA --
		MS. MELLON:   Okay, these are US -- these are 
USDA established allowances for foreign material in grain 
commodity grain.
		MR. DYKES:  For example, USDA number one, yellow 
grade corn and USDA number five grade corn.
		MS. DILLEY:  So the, so the two things we need to 
add into this definition or example is to explain foreign 
material and what that may include, and then also that 
they're established by USDA --
		MR. OLSON:  I just wonder if it would be better 
to make a broader -- tolerances for insect fragments or 
tolerance for various -- rather than just corn.  Because 
corn you can make FM.
		MS. MELLON:  What's FM?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Handling it, to create -- 
just by handling -- without --
		MS. MELLON:  What does FM mean?
		MR. OLSON:  Foreign material.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I thought it was a radio 
station.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That too.  Actually -- 	
	MR. OLSON:  -- broken kernels, foreign material, so but 
when you handle corn, you create broken kernels every time 
you handle it, so your FM goes up and from a grading 
standard.  You can make number two corn into number three 
corn just by handling it.
		MR. GRANT:  So I'm curious, Ron.  I think that 
maybe a better example to use that might be more relevant to 
the discussion would be the -- an example around contrasting 
classes versus foreign material.  Contrasting classes has a 
tighter parameter as defined -- at least in my experience.
		MS. LAYTON:  Doing what would that look like then 
-- 
		MR. GRANT:  If you're selling --
		MS. LAYTON:  -- example?
		MR. GRANT:  -- hard red wheat and you get white 
wheat mixed in, that's a contrasting class, and the 
tolerance is tighter, and it's defined.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Want to come up with a 
sentence for us, Duane?
		MR. GRANT:  No.
		MS. DILLEY:  Well, I mean I -- better example 
because I think it's trying to -- if it's the example that's 
confusing, it doesn't really help to explain 
what --
		MR. GRANT:  Well, to me it's a better example 
because it's wheat versus wheat.  You know, in my example 
it's wheat versus wheat, it's not wheat versus rat turds, 
somebody else's example.  I don't want to get that on
the --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Too late.
		MS. DILLEY:  So maybe change it to wheat, a wheat 
example where you're talking about red meat and some wheat 
meat --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  White wheat.  That will be 
chicken or pork.
		MS. DILLEY:  Gets mixed in.  Can you come up with 
a couple of sentences or --		
		MR. GRANT:  With Dick or somebody who is in the 
trade we could.  I'm actually not sure what those tolerances 
are.  I know that they're different than foreign material, 
and they're, they're defined.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think you need the number.  I 
think you just -- don't have to say it's 3 percent -- to say 
that in order that to market red wheat, there's a limit to 
how much -- the tolerance set as to how much white wheat can 
be in it or something like that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Wait a minute.  Let's get Juan and 
then -- Daryl --
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  You know, I don't think this is 
one size fits all.  One of the things that you don't want to 
happen is to set a tolerance and then have something that 
doesn't work, because then every system suddenly doesn't 
work.  Therefore, I'm jut thinking through -- we set a 
tolerance and then there's a horrible incident in canola or 
whatever and what you don't want is the next day to have 
everybody say we're going to put 00000.1 percent tolerance 
across the entire system.  I think what you want to do is 
you want to set a tolerance that reaches a general tolerance 
level and then a tolerance level for things that you're 
worried about. So it's almost -- so for in general for these 
things the tolerance level is this or these types of things.  
Call it StarLink.  Are you going to say that there will be 
absolutely no StarLink in the system for the next 10 years.  
Let's set that as your standard for all grains.  Are you 
going to set it won't be more than 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 
100,000.  And then for something that is different than 
that, even for -- chemical industries -- I think it's 
important not to say it's a 1 percent tolerance but for this 
type of stuff it's 1 percent, for this type of stuff it's 
1/10th of 1 percent, for this type of stuff it's 1/1000th of 
1 percent.  Because otherwise you're -- situation where 
something goes wrong one day and then the tolerance level 
for everything comes down overnight, if you set one 
tolerance level. 
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah, I think this is -- 
recommendation for a policy -- trying to give an example of, 
and it sounds like if we can come up with a red wheat, the 
red wheat example and just in terms of is that again GIPSA, 
the USDA sets a tolerance --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- for hard red wheat to allow how 
much -- is found in that.
		MR. GRANT:   We can come up with an example.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  The point that was taken, are 
the numbers really critical as much as --
		MR. GIROUX:  I'd like to make a recommendation.  
Just drop the numbers and perhaps use a sentence with 
respect to grain for example USDA grade standards -- respect 
to grain USDA has set grade standards for no more than -- 
grade standards for foreign material.  Foreign material 
includes things such as broken kernels, grains of other 
types.  I don't want us to spend too much time on
just --
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.		
		MR. GIROUX:  -- an example.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so where you're starting is 
with respect to grain the USDA has set grade standards for 
foreign material.  Foreign material includes such things as, 
and then give a few on the list and end that paragraph.
		MR. GIROUX:  With respect to grain, for example, 
the USDA has set --
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  And such things as broken 
kernels, grains of other types, et cetera.
		MR. GIROUX:  Grains of other types, et cetera.
		MR. DYKES:  Does grains of other type mean corn 
and soybeans or is that grains of other species?
		MR. GIROUX:  Grains of other types.
		MR. DYKES:  Other types?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Both.  
		MR. DYKES:  Why don't we use GIPSA's definition 
of foreign material.  Just use their definition.  It's 
there.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay, we'll get GIPSA's 
definition.  Everyone will be okay with just getting the 
text verbatim and sticking it in?  We can --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Can we figure out what we're doing 
on the first page though on 15?  There's a bracket on it 
also occurs due to the biology of plants.  Is that in or 
out?
		MR. JAFFE:  I think it should be in.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  In?  Nods.  Yes.  Okay.
		MR. BUSS:  Not on that point so --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I know.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, next.
		MR. BUSS:  Well after getting back to -- 
discussion, I -- play the devil's advocate and say how 
valuable is the example anyway, because if you look at page 
15 from lines let's say 39 to 43, I think it does a pretty 
good job in terms of talking about adventitious -- different 
products, allowances, et cetera, et cetera -- that establish 
allowances -- do we, do we really need the example at all?
		MS. DILLEY:  So question whether we need an 
example, and if we do have the example, then we go Randy's 
route of just taking out the numbers and going to foreign 
material?  So any reaction to --
		MR. DYKES:  I guess I'd just add one.  I think if 
we look at this Committee and the confusion here about the 
fact that soybeans can be in corn shipments and some of 
those kinds of things, I think it is important for the 
readers of this document to realize that even in our current 
system --
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.
		MR. DYKES:  -- it's okay to have 2 percent or 5 
percent something else in corn and still be corn or wheat 
and still -- red wheat and still be red wheat.
		MS. DILLEY:  So the example serves a purpose and 
let's go the route that Randy had suggested.
		MR. DYKES:  That would be my suggestion.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Dick, any further -- anything 
further on that point?
		MR. CROWDER:  Well --
		MS. DILLEY:  So that's what I would suggest we do 
at this point.
		MR. CROWDER:  If we're, if we're -- okay.  If 
we're going to use examples, I need to check some language 
because the seed example is not certified seed.  It's 
labeling consistent with the Federal Seed Act.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.
		MR. CROWDER:  Bottom of page 15, line 44.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. CROWDER:  There's, there's a --
		MS. DILLEY:  So can you take that -- is there a 
need for that example -- it's a different example on the 
bottom of page 15, which is 5 percent of corn seed is 
allowed, that --
		MR. CROWDER:  You can have all types and still 
label it as corn seed and don't have to label it as mix or 
anything else.  It's labeled as corn seed.  You can have 5 
percent off-types, but that seed is -- does not necessarily 
mean it's certified.  Certified is a specific process that 
we don't use in the U.S. as much as --
		MR. JAFFE:  -- label as corn seed then?
		MS. DILLEY:  So take the word certified?
		MR. GRANT:  Not only corn seed.  It's a specific 
variety of corn seed.
		MR. CROWDER:  Yes, it's a hybrid.  I mean 
it's -- 
		MR. DYKES:  Labeled as a specific corn variety.
		MR. GRANT:  3223 has to have 95.1 percent, 3223 
can have 4.9 percent -- or whoever.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Or soybeans or whatever.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Specific corn variety.
		MS. DILLEY:  Is still labeled as a specific corn 
variety seed.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Hybrid seed to start with.
		MR. GIROUX:  Seed corn variety.
		MS. DILLEY:  seed corn variety.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And that's required by the 
Federal Seed Act.
		MS. DILLEY:  Got it.  All right, got it.  
Okay, so I think we fixed that in both examples.  Greg, I 
think you were next, and then Dave.
		MR. JAFFE:  Just my -- this is sort of in that -- 
same paragraph.  I would -- I'm the one who -- the reason 
the language says adventitious commingling in some places 
and adventitious presence in other places.  And so I think 
that that allowance for -- on the top of page 16 in the 
first sentence, it should say allowances for adventitious 
commingling also exists in grain and food, and what comes 
behind this, and I've talked to Randy about it, is I mean I 
just -- we've defined AP as biotech, and so when we're 
talking in these introductory paragraphs more generally, I 
have to have a different term.  And so I came up with the 
term adventitious commingling.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  So by -- there plus in the next 
paragraph where it says some amount of AP, again it's got to 
be some amount of adventitious commingling.  we're talking 
about a generic statement not about biotech.  We're talking 
about --
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. DILLEY:  You're talking about commingling 
broadly.
		MR. JAFFE:  Broadly.  And then --
		MS. DILLEY:  And not --
		MR. JAFFE:  And then once we get into the 1, 2, 
3, 4's, I think we're fine to use AP because then we're 
talking specifically about biotech events.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right, got it.
		MR. JAFFE:  And that's what our definition is in 
the first -- 
		MR. CROWDER:  I've got some reservations about 
that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Why?
		MR. CROWDER:  Commingling to me is an active act.
		MS. DILLEY:  Can you come up with a different 
term?  You see what Greg is trying to --
		MR. CROWDER:  Well, I have a problem going back 
way back when adventitious presence is defined as biotech 
only.  Biological processes are -- is not commingling.  And 
we've defined that in here.
		MS. DILLEY:  Well, I think what we're trying to 
do though, Dick, as I -- is to define the term as it's used 
in this report and that this report only addresses 
adventitious presence, but adventitious presence or 
commingling is broader than just biotech.  So we need to 
sort through that so that we're clear we're talking about 
what we're talking about when we're talking about --
		MR. CROWDER:  Well, as long as we don't talk 
about commingling because that --
		MS. DILLEY:  Then what's a different term?  I 
think Greg, not -- to commingling, it just has to be --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Presence.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Presence.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Presence.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  But then you've got to redefine -- 
I'm fine with them.  Dick, I've never liked the definition 
being biotech specific either.
		MR. CROWDER:  I don't, I, I --
		MR. JAFFE:  But I agreed to it as long  as --
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I make a suggestion that 
instead of saying commingling, which is active, that we just 
say adventitious material?
		MR. CROWDER:  We're talking about adventitious 
presence.  Why don't we call it adventitious presence?  I 
mean we're trying to make something out of something
that --
		MS. DILLEY:  I think it's because we're -- 
adventitious presence, for my understanding is a much 
broader issue than not just biotech-related, and we're 
defining it specifically for when we're it to presence of 
biotech material in this report.  Is that right?
		MR. CROWDER:  I would like to make a -- I'd like 
to go back and define adventurous presence. in the broad 
sense like we had it in the original AP section.  In the 
case of biotech it refers to, is what it was said, and then 
you've got both of it covered.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, yeah.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, so --
		MR. JAFFE:  I hade no problem with it back then.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  We didn't like it back then because 
we used the word I think it was unwanted, and people didn't 
like the fact that we had to differentiate between 
adventitious presence for biotech and non-biotech.  And so 
that's how we got rid of --
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, so now --
		MR. JAFFE:  I was very comfortable with the 
original --
		MS. DILLEY:  If everybody is comfortable -- does 
anybody have an objection to going back to the broader 
definition then?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Unwanted for any reason?
		MR. CROWDER: My understanding of what we changed 
was -- and then we came back and we dropped the broader 
definition, is that some members of the group did not want 
to use the word unwanted, and I said from that -- and some 
other people also said, unwanted to drop it is okay.  But I 
didn't recall the discussion at that time being that we were 
going to drop the broader definition of adventitious 
presence.  That we were just going to drop the unwanted from 
the broader and the narrow, narrower definition, with the 
unwanted dropped out.  That was my understanding, and then 
we've gotten to the point now where we've dropped the 
unwanted and limited only to biotech, which I don't think is 
-- somebody may disagree with --	
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm not sure what you're proposing.
		MR. CROWDER:  To go back to the original 
definition of adventitious presence is small amount of 
unintended material in -- I don't recall the exact words.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Feed, grain or --
		MR. CROWDER:  Seed, grains, feed, what --
		MS. DILLEY:  So it would start --
		MR. CROWDER:  -- in the case of biotech it refers 
to.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So in this --
		MR. JAFFE:  I think you need that unwanted or 
something there in it, because it's --
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- unintended.  It is something that 
somebody doesn't want there.  So I'm comfortable with it.  
When we say it's transgenic, then that's the -- that, 
defining -- what it is in the case of biotech, it's --
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- not -- you need something else in 
here.  So I'm comfortable going back to that, but you need 
to put something in there for the general one that talks 
about it's more than just unintended.  It's something that 
isn't supposed to be there.  You have to have -- you have to 
somehow describe it that way.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, how would you go back to page 
31 and let's take a look at that, line 31 on page 15.
		MS. MELLON:  I would argue that you could use the 
word unwanted and it's not pejorative.  I mean you -- the 
fact that you don't want soybeans in your corn does not -- 
is not a slur on soybeans.  Some things are simply not 
wanted in certain places at certain times for all kinds of 
great reasons.
		MR. VILKER:  Are we confusing unwanted and 
unaccounted for?
		MS. DILLEY:  So if you go back to line 31, the 
term adventitious presence and then refers to unintentional 
low levels of material in seed, grain or food and feed 
products the --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  If it's --
		MS. DILLEY:  -- or low levels --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Wait a minute.  And then in the case 
of biotech, and then you need some qualifier in terms of 
biotechnology, is that what you're --
		MR. JAFFE:  No.  We need a qualifier for the 
general one.  The biotech one is automatically it's 
unintended low levels of transgenic materials.  You know 
what the defined thing is.  To say the general one is 
unintended low levels of material.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Foreign material.
		MS. DILLEY:  Foreign material.
		MR. JAFFE:  You have to have some -- but it's not 
just foreign.  It could be corn in corn.  It's unwanted.  
It's --
		MS. DILLEY:  That's -- but you've already -- you 
can define foreign.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Could we have a little group 
do this at lunch and come back with some language?
		MS. DILLEY:  -- no.
		MS. LAYTON:  No?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We're so close.
		MS. LAYTON:  We're so close.  Okay, so what do we 
suggest?
		MS. DILLEY:  So go with then the term 
adventitious presence refers to unintentional low levels of 
foreign material and define it up there what foreign means?
		MS. MELLON:  We dont really want -- do the 
biotech folks here really want their products considered as 
foreign material?
		MR. JAFFE:  The transgenic one is just foreign, 
but the specific kind of foreign just being transgenic.
want 
		MS. MELLON:  I mean I -- you know, if I were on 
your side of the fence, I would not want my product -- I'd 
much rather have it say unwanted for some reason than have 
it encompassed in the term foreign, along with the other 
things that we now know are in foreign --
		MR. DYKES:  Did we take the word transgenic out 
from the materials?
		MS. DILLEY:  What I'm trying to resolve is talk 
about adventitious presence or confining that particular to 
biotech, and then if we're not -- because commingling is not 
what people want.  So what we're trying to figure out is how 
are we defining it, and then what do we need throughout the 
documents to distinguish -- if we do need to distinguish it, 
to distinguish it.
		MR. CORZINE:  Isn't the term unintended is pretty 
universally used in definition of adventitious presence, I 
think.  
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Unintended is not the problem.  
It's the unwanted is the --
		MR. CORZINE:  And you know what, I have trouble 
with unwanted because I'm not -- it's kind of a given if you 
have some adventitious presence where there are tolerances 
or thresholds, it's, it's there.  It's not --
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Could we not just say low levels 
of unintended material?
		MS. DILLEY:  We do.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, but then not have 
foreign materials.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Define foreign materials 
as unintended materials.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Low levels of unintended 
materials.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  And then we were -- wait, 
wait, Greg.  And then you were suggesting using adventitious 
commingling, that's what we would use, low levels of 
unintended material?
		MR. JAFFE:  I dont want to use just commingling 
at all, so I'm --
		MS. DILLEY:  I know.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- problem with that. 
		MS. DILLEY:  I know, and so what I'm suggesting 
is an alternative to where you're talking more broadly, not 
just biotech.  So example page 16, line 6, some amount of, 
and this is where you would -- commingling, so some amount 
of low levels of unintended material is to a large extent 
unavoidable in grain and grain products based on realities 
of plant biology.  It's talking about it in a more broad 
context.  So we take Dave's suggestion and use that instead 
of the commingling piece, and then that seems to resolve the 
problem.
		MS. MELLON:  If you define adventitious presence 
broadly, when you don't need any other term for its use -- 
so then the, then the commingling just falls out.  The 
question was only how would you broadly define adventitious 
presence outside the context of biotech?  So you would 
either say it's low level -- unwanted for some purpose, I 
would say, and in the case of -- in case of biotechnology, 
it means transgenic varieties of grains -- you know, that's 
what it means.  But if you do that, then you don't need -- 
the commingling issue just falls out.  You don't need it as 
a separate term.  And it's -- the only sticking point is 
whether you want to simply -- as you want to be explicit 
about the fact that it's unwanted for some reason or that 
you want to just --
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So I heard the term 
adventitious presence refers to unintentional low levels of 
materials in seed, grain or food and -- feed and food 
products.
		MR. JAFFE:  Foreign materials.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  I thought it was low levels of 
unintended material.
		MR. JAFFE:  That was one proposal, but another 
proposal was low -- unintended low levels of foreign 
materials.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, but I heard somebody say -- 
Mardi say she didn't like the word foreign, so that's why it 
was --
		MR. GRANT:  I like unintended better, but --
		MS. LAYTON:  Low levels of unintended materials.
		MR. JAFFE:  You need, you need something else in 
there.  You're missing one of the key characteristics.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  The unwanted?
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah or foreign.  I mean it's not 
just --
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I just make one observation?  
I don't know if people will agree with this, but my sense is 
that AP is sometimes a problem and sometimes a fact of life.
	  And it's always a fact of life that it's sometimes a 
problem.  So that whether or not it's a problem depends on 
whether or not it's something that you can deal with or 
something that is unwanted.
		MR. JAFFE:  It's always unwanted, whether it's a 
-- I mean it's -- not only a problem because of certain 
levels.
		MR. GRANT:  It's always measurable, but not 
necessarily always unwanted.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think unwanted means you 
don't care, it just means -- you didn't, you didn't make the 
product to have it in there, but it got in there.  I mean 
nobody affirmatively makes the product to have it in there.  
It is unwanted.  I mean you want to grow 100 percent wheat.  
The fact that you grow 98 percent wheat because something 
else gets in there, you didn't want it in there.  It's not a 
problem because you're under a certain level, but nobody -- 
you didn't intend, you didn't want it.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Terry -- Terry.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, I think -- I'm really 
struggling with our discussion here, because I thought what 
we were going to do is we have a transgenic or biotech 
specific definition for AP that was there.  And now what 
we're talking about is having a general definition so we can 
eliminate the adventitious commingling.  And in this general 
definition, we've been
talking a lot about unintended or unwanted.  I guess the 
point is, if it's the unintended presence of that material, 
why doesn't that cover the definition?  Why does it have -- 
why does it have to be something more, but then the fact -- 
and we talk, we talk in this paper about the numerous ways 
that that can happen, but I don't understand with the 
definition why we have to go beyond that.
		MS. DILLEY:  What I'm stuck on, Dick, is whether 
we -- you're really uncomfortable with an adventitious 
presence specific to biotechnology definition for the 
report, because I thought that's why we were going 
through --
		MR. CROWDER:  No, no.  We're trying to solve the 
commingling.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Right.  It was the commingling.  So 
it's really a two-step process what I was listening to, and 
it seems that we are there on the biotech, and we had it, 
because we're being very specific about what's unintended.  
That's necessary for AP discussions here.  But in terms of 
AP in general, we give this introduction of how it occurs -- 
occurs, and so the important thing is you have, you know, 
the unintended low levels.
		MS. DILLEY:  So can -- so what I hear you saying 
is what I suggested before, which is to keep the definition 
from 31 through 35 as modified, it would be low levels and 
unintentional.
		MS. LAYTON:  No.  Refers to low levels of 
unintended material.
		MR. DYKES:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  In seed, grain or food and feed 
products.  And the next one would be the key components of 
the definition are low levels and unintended.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Period.
		MS. LAYTON:  No.  Unintended.  We changed it to 
unintended.  Okay, and then you can drop commingling and use 
the term adventitious presence in the next sentence on line 
36.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  No, but then you'd need the 
sentence that says in the context of plant biotechnology 
this refers to --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Transgenic material.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right, transgenic material.  And add 
that into that first paragraph.
		MR. MEDLEY:  That's -- yeah, so the first 
definition, and we already have that.  The term adventitious 
presence in the context of plant biotechnology refers to 
unintended low levels of transgenic material in seed, grain 
or feed, food products.  And that one's very specific.  I 
thought what we were talking about was coming up and having 
a general definition of adventitious presence, because the 
whole first examples after that really you're talking about 
general AP not biotech --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. DILLEY:  Correct.
		MR. MEDLEY:  And so that's what triggered the 
need to have a broader definition.
		MS. DILLEY:  Absolutely, correct.
		MR. MEDLEY:  So what you have to say is in a 
broader context adventitious presence is, and then you'd say 
adventitious commingling of material has always existed.  I 
mean isn't that what you were discussing?  Or do we need it?
		MS. DILLEY:  It's page 16, line 6, some amount of 
something is to a large extent unavoidable because you're 
talking about it in the larger context.  So what we're 
struggling with is that language right there.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  But in line 6 on 16 that 
is presence because all that stuff is biology.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Exactly, right, that's 
right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:   On line 36 on 15, that is 
-- where it says adventitious commingling, that is an active 
man, man does those things in that sense.
		MR. CROWDER:  So just leave everything like it is 
-- commingling on line 6.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. JAFFE:  General AP or something because it's 
not biotech AP we're talking about there.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- general AP then.
		MR. JAFFE:  That's what I'm -- I dont want,  I 
dont want the document to read -- says some amount of AP is 
unavoidable, and people are going to say, we're saying that 
biotech AP is unavoidable.  I'm not sure I'm comfortable 
with saying that. I am comfortable saying that generally AP 
is unavoidable.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So if we add general AP and 
we define that up front, is everybody okay with that?
		MR. MEDLEY:  Wait a minute.  I -- if we're 
talking here about what is a biological certainty or 
something you can't, then why would it be wrong to have it 
apply to biotech products?  I don't understand.  I mean I 
thought that was the whole point.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- or moves -- on bees or something, 
but it moves. 
		MR. MEDLEY:  Because otherwise we'll be saying 
for biotech we can do what we've said here is biologically 
impossible.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, this is -- this sentence 
is generic.  It's not specific to biotech.  It's just saying 
--
		MR. DYKES:  It still fits within the definition 
of AP.
		MR. JAFFE:  It should.  If you say the 
adventitious presence of materials in food and feed supply 
has always existed based upon different things, that to me 
seems that it's self-defining.  Adventitious presence of 
material has existed.  
		MR. DYKES:  I think all we need to do is delete 
the word commingling --
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, and the, and the parens.
		MR. DYKES:  And we're fine.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Do we need to change 31 
through 34, page 15?
		MS. MELLON:  I thought we were going to have a 
general definition.
		MS. LAYTON:  We agree to, I think, which was the 
term adventitious presence refers to low levels of 
unintended material in seed, grain, or food and food 
products.  The key components of the definition are low 
levels and unintended.  In the context of plant 
biotechnology, this refers to transgenic material or 
specific transgenic events.	
		MR. MEDLEY:  But it seems that we're really 
getting confusing here.  I mean the definition where we 
would have the letters AP should refer to our special 
definition for biotech.  In other contents where you see it 
written out adventitious presence small, it should be self-
explanatory.  Why would you need to definitions?
		MS. LAYTON:  We didn't.
		MR. MEDLEY:  No, but I thought you were just now 
rewriting.  If you're -- the one you just read out did not 
have in the context of plant biotechnology.
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually that was the last sentence 
in that paragraph.  I took in line 31 the term adventitious 
presence, delete from in the context of plant biotechnology, 
at that point, refers to low levels of unintentional 
materials in seed, grain, or food and feed products.  The 
key components of the definition are low levels and 
unintended.  Add new sentence.  In the context of plant 
biotechnology this refers to transgenic materials or 
specific transgenic events.  
		MR. BUSS:  In that context, I wonder if that 
second sentence or whatever it is, the last thing you just 
read wouldn't more logically fit on page 16 immediately 
before what is now line 17.  Because all of that -- all of 
that discussion being conventional AP, and then make the 
definition -- then it logically flows into line 17.  No, I 
think that makes it --
		MS. LAYTON:  Could be.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Good idea.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay?
		MR. DYKES:  That's what I had suggested in my own 
text as moving this specific reference to biotech down to in 
front of those -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		DR. BUSS:  in that context, 
logically flows into 
		MS. LAYTON:  could be.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- out?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Mardi?
		MS. MELLON:  I'm okay with that. 
		MS. LAYTON:  So in the context moves to line 17.
		MR. JAFFE:  But I would just leave it in.  I 
think in the context of plant biotech adventitious presence 
refers to unintended low levels of transgenic materials is -
-
		MS. LAYTON:  Repeat those sentence.
		MR. JAFFE:  Repeat --
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I would say seed, grain or 
feed.
		MR. DYKES:  Move those three or four lines -- 
move those three or four lines and move them down to just 
before adventitious presence can occur four different ways.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Got it.  Way to go, Daryl.  
Okay.
		MR. MEDLEY:  That then gets very specific to 
biotech AP.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  And then I heard remove the 
word leave commingling on 36 on 15 but use the term AP on 6, 
correct? 
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Not adventitious commingling.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, and somewhere we defined AP as 
-- we put in the initials AP.  
		MR. DYKES:  So some amount of AP is to a large 
extent unavoidable in grain and grain products.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  And somewhere on that page after the 
word adventitious presence, I think you put in parentheses 
AP.  
		MR. DYKES:  I think it's actually being done 
earlier in the document.
		MS. LAYTON:  Whatever it is.  Make sure it's 
done.
		MR. DYKES:  It's been done earlier.
		MS. LAYTON:  Good enough.
		MR. CROWDER:  Excuse me, Pat.  Where was the -- 
where was the word --
		MS. DILLEY:  Page 15, line 36.
		MS. LAYTON:  And that was the active piece that 
Ron I think suggested.  Was it Ron or somebody suggested 
that in the handling system that is active.
		MS. DILLEY:  So -- that's a correct term used as 
-- is that right?
		MR. SLOCUM:  The problem is the next sentence -- 
also occurs, it also occurs.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Can you say adventitious presence 
also occurs?
		MR. SLOCUM:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  But you know what you talk about 
that in the next paragraph about that part.  So take out 
that bracketed sentence, and it's covered in the paragraph 
on page 16.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  That whole paragraph is covered 
in the next paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  There is also a bracket at the 
bottom that allows -- that establish allowance for these 
materials on page 15.  Is that stay or go?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I have --
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, David.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I mean the second and the third 
paragraphs in terms of how mixtures occur are identical, far 
as I'm concerned.  The only thing that is different is the 
second part of that second paragraph, which refers to 
numbers and examples.  So I would rather have -- and think 
the third paragraph that goes into a great detail of how you 
can actually have commingling and adventitious presence is 
sufficient in my mind to explain the different ways, man-
made and natural, biological --
		MS. LAYTON:  So you would say delete the whole 
second paragraph.  Dick is shaking his head.
		MR. DYKES:  Where are you?
		MS. LAYTON:  On the bottom of page 15, line 36, 
David is suggesting and Dick has nodded --
		MR. CROWDER:  The question do you need the 
examples?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I have a different comment on 
the numbers.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Not numbers but --
		MS. LAYTON:  That you might delete that entire 
paragraph?
		MS. FOREMAN:  The second paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  The second paragraph that runs
from line 36 on 15 through line 4 on 16.
		MR. JAFFE: That does talk about that there are 
laws and regulations and standards on it.  I dont think 
they completely overlap.  I think it does set out -- that 
second half of that paragraph that you want to keep in, once 
you specifically make this distinction between material 
intentionally introduced and things that you can mix to get 
out of, changes -- versus things that you can whereas 
biotech you can't.  First discussion -- biotech, that's good 
to put in there, but I think you need the previous paragraph 
as it helps explain why it's there.
		MR. DYKES:  I dont see any problem.  To me I 
thought where we were going, we had taken care of this 
commingling issue and so we were just going to change 
adventitious commingling to AP and leave that paragraph in 
there as it is, and just refer to AP instead of adventitious 
commingling.  The AP of materials and food -- is always -- I 
mean I think it provides a context.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so --
		MR. CROWDER:  The intent was to leave commingling 
in that paragraph.  Only to change commingling in the next 
paragraph.  
		MR. JAFFE:  We can call it presence in that 
paragraph then.
		MR. DYKES:  I thought we could call it AP now 
that we changed the definition.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I dont have --
		MR. DYKES:  Why is it that on -- let me sure I've 
got the right place, page 15, line 36, the AP of materials 
and the food and feed and just change adventitious 
commingling to AP, because we fixed that when we fixed the 
definitions.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Do we leave the statement in 
there about biology plants?
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  That's in the third paragraph, so 
you don't need it in the second paragraph.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, I don't see why it hurts to 
have it there.
		MR. DYKES:  Yeah, I don't think it hurts 
anything.
		MR. JAFFE:  I mean if you're talking about 
structure, the reason is --
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  It was a problem when 
commingling was there and it's not a problem when 
commingling is out.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  So AP on line 36 and also on 39 were 
all adventitious presence can be minimized instead of 
adventitious commingling?
		MR. DYKES:  And on 41.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MR. DYKES:  And on 41.  So adventitious 
commingling is replaced with AP in all, in all that 
paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  And then you're set?  Then you're 
okay with this paragraph staying in?
		MR. DYKES:  And with the changes we made on a 
specific seed corn variety earlier -- Jerry Slocum.
		MS. LAYTON:  And did we also leave in USDA has 
set grade standards for foreign material at the back end or 
are we going to delete that?
		MR. DYKES:  I thought we left that in.  We're 
going to pick up the definition of --
		MS. LAYTON:  And we're going to use the GIPSA 
definition?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Correct.
		MS. MELLON:  The point that we ought to, to 
delete the reference to organic.  That has nothing to do 
with grain standards.  That's the -- requirement --
		MS. DILLEY:  The 5 percent --
		MS. MELLON:  -- on page 16.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- non-organic substances.
		MS. MELLON:  USDA's organic standards allow up to 
5 percent non-substances.
		MS. DILLEY:  So strike that sentence.
		MS. MELLON:  That's in processed food in order to 
label it as either organic or made with organic materials.
		MS. LAYTON:  I had deleted all of that in favor 
of the GIPSA definition.
		MS. MELLON:  That's fine.  Thank you.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Juan.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  The process suggestion.  You know, 
we go over these things, we ask for edits.  The edits come 
in.  The work groups go over the edits, then we get them 
again and have the other edits, and you know there are 
probably a series of things that are really important that 
we discuss as a Committee, but if we set a limit to the 
amount of issues that are really important to any one human 
in the Committee, and simply as a matter of process, if we 
suggested that people said over the course of two days, here 
are 15 issues I want to bring up.  That doesn't mean you can 
only comment 15 times in this Committee.  You can comment as 
many times as you want on issues that people bring up, but 
you know people could come in here with a 15-point agenda 
and say, here are 15 things I really want to change.  
Because otherwise we're going to try and get a perfect 
document that everybody agrees on, and I'm not sure if 
that's going to happen.  I don't know if the right number is 
15 or if it's 20.  I mean if you want 20 interventions per 
person per day to bring up issues that are important.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I make a comment on that?  I 
think that may be something -- those sorts of limits may 
very well make sense on pieces on which we really thought 
that the Committee had agreed on, but this is text that no 
one has, that no one has seen yet.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Fair.  Simply on pieces that --
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  But I think, I think --
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  -- gone over in work groups.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.  I think the point 
emphasizes the need to focus on what's really important, 
folks.
		MS. LAYTON:  Absolutely.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  And not, and not do a lot of 
editing that's not, you know, really very important to you.
		MS. DILLEY:  So to that reminder -- the AP 
section, the rest of the AP section, and then I'd like to 
get to the other parts of 3, Section 3 before we break for 
lunch, if at all possible, which includes the market 
segmentation and the consumer -- the last two parts of that.
		MR. DYKES:  I'd like to come back to the organic 
standards.  I'd like to keep that sentence in there, if I 
can because I --
		MS. DILLEY:  We got rid of that.
		MR. DYKES:  Huh?
		MS. DILLEY:  Why?  I'm sorry, Michael, I --
		MR. DYKES:  Because I think it's consistent with 
all of the, the rest of that paragraph talking about how 
certain standards are there, but they have exceptions for 
things that aren't a part of that definition.
		MS. DILLEY:  I thought we got rid of that in 
place of --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  GIPSA.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- the GIPSA definition.  So the 
rest -- all that number 1, number 5, all that's been deleted 
to go to how GIPSA establishes allowances.
		MR. DYKES:  I think it's important to raise the 
point about the organic being up to 5 percent non-organic, 
but I'm fine with it, if other people think that's a 
problem.  I think it's just another example other than the 
GIPSA definition.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think unless you really want to 
argue about it, it's gone.  It was deleted with the rest of 
that paragraph.  Okay.  
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Can I just ask in the GIPSA 
definitions are there percentages that are indicated or is 
it a generic idea.
		MS. DILLEY:  I have no idea.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  There are hundreds of 
percentages.  So I think what might make sense is just 
define foreign material and not put in a whole lot of 
percentages, because --
		MR. HOISINGTON:  As I see it, there are two 
things you can use that example for.  One is to show to that 
there are many things that could be unintended.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  And that's a good reason for 
having examples.  But the other option to use that -- 
specific numbers is low levels.  See you put a figure like 7 
percent and you're basically defining what do you imply by 
low levels in our previous definition of adventitious 
presence, and I'm trying to figure out, are we trying to say 
both of them or are we simply just trying to say there are a 
lot of things that have already been defined as unintended 
and we deal with them.  Or are we trying to deal with what 
is below level?
		MS. LAYTON:  Could we give a website that would 
actually list the definitions, GIPSA --
		MR. DYKES:  I was going to go to something like 
that.  Kind of leave the -- because I thought we were again 
generally speaking we were fine with the text.  What we were 
struggling with based on Mardi's comments was what is the 
real definition of foreign material.  So maybe we can make a 
footnote, and down below two lines about a website or 
reference GIPSA's definition of foreign material or foreign 
matter or however it's referenced, leave the text we have 
here, make it USDA number one, USDA number whatever we 
reference here, leave the two or three examples we have here 
and make a footnote back to a website or something where if 
you want to look up what GIPSA's definitions and percentages 
are for all different kinds of foreign material, you can.  
Is that another way to do it, so you dont have all that 
text in here?
		MS. DILLEY:  Not our decision.  It's yours.
		MR. DYKES:  Oh, I would recommend that.  And we 
keep the text that we have here.  Otherwise you're going to 
get off into a whole discussion and -- because I think when 
you start looking up GIPSA's definitions of these things, 
you're going to find them to be rather extensive.
		MS. DILLEY:  Terry.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Again I guess just calling a check, 
I thought on this discussion on adventitious presence and 
the comment I heard about moving the definition over to 16, 
page 16 around line 17, was to accomplish two things.  One, 
we'd have a general discussion as a lead-in here of 
adventitious presence.  And it would talk about the fact 
that, you know, how it occurs, has been existing, and then 
right before we get into biotech, we would have specific 
definition as relates to biotechnology.  And then we would 
start using the letters AP.  And if you do that, the last 
part of the second paragraph on page 16 starting with I 
guess its' line 13 or line 12.  That tries to go 
specifically to biotech and the fact that you cannot blend 
it back to compliance.  That doesn't fit.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Now in the general discussion.  So 
that would have to be moved to come after the biotech 
specific definition.  I also --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.		
		MR. MEDLEY:  -- am not exactly sure that this is 
correct.  I mean if one had IP systems, IdP systems and you 
had a threshold level set for biotech, then one could in 
fact, you could bring it back.  So this isn't accurate.
		MR. GIROUX:  It's not adventitious presence if 
you blend it back.
		MR. MEDLEY:  But the point is, if there is either 
contractual regulatory -- a level set, i.e., if there was, 
then you could met that level by blending back the --
		MR. JAFFE:  A labeling level.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, from --
		MR. JAFFE:  For labeling but not for adventitious 
presence.
		MR. MEDLEY:  That's -- I guess what I'm saying is 
because of this, I'm no sure that this -- what this adds to 
this discussion.  I think it raises some questions, but I'm 
not sure.  Now you have to say, yeah, from a labeling 
perspective, and I don't think that this is additive.
		MS. DILLEY:  What this adds, you mean that last 
sentence?
		MR. MEDLEY:  Well, this, this concept here of I 
think it's important to say in practice material introduced 
into seed, grain or food does not meet the definition of AP.  
Fine.  That's very accurate.  But then the next part of 
this, which I -- tolerance, I dont see what that adds.
		MR. DYKES:  Yes.  I had the same -- I had not 
raised it yet, but I had the same, I had the same concerns 
about that.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah.  I mean the first part of it 
is an accurate statement.  That's what we're trying to get 
to.  So I would suggest that we just say that, and then 
you're going to have -- right, and then you're going to have 
the definition.
		MS. DILLEY:  So you stop the sentence, add AP.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, but I would say in practice 
material introduced -- intentionally introduced into seed, 
grain, feed, or food does not meet, and I wouldn't say the 
definition, because we haven't given the definition yet.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, we did at the 
first --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, we did.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, we did.
		MR. MEDLEY:  We didn't move it.
		MS. DILLEY:  We did specific to transgenic 
biotech, but the general one is still up there.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Well, then let's just put the 
general definition and write out adventitious presence.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MR. MEDLEY:  And only use AP after we've gotten 
into biotechnology.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MR. DYKES:  Okay.  So that should be definition 
of adventitious presence.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Definition of adventitious presence, 
right, exactly.
		MS. DILLEY:  And still, you're still suggesting 
to move that to --
		MR. MEDLEY:  No, no, no, I'm fine.  You can leave 
it there.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. MEDLEY:  And then delete the rest of that 
sentence.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Did I understand you, Terry, 
that to say that we should not use the abbreviation until we 
use the term with respect to biotech?  That's a very 
nonstandard way of using abbreviations.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  You might want to say ABP 
or something.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Well then why are we using it?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I just think that's more 
accurate.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Absolutely.		
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  I mean I think it's just --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- an acronym for adventitious 
presence.
		MR. MEDLEY:  All right.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  And then later on, you know, 
when you're focusing in on the context, that's what you're 
referring to, and the context will be gotten from the text.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Well, we use it, I mean even in this 
specific discussion, we have AP and then we have the 
abbreviation AP, and I'm just trying to get some sense of 
what's the rhythm here or what's the rationale as to when 
you use it and when you don't?
		MR. DYKES:  I'm kind of where Mike was.   I think 
the rationale is is that it's just an acronym.  So you have 
adventitious presence, paren AP, and then throughout the 
remainder you use AP.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  AP.
		MR. DYKES:  Yeah.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think the only time --
		MR. MEDLEY:  So everywhere we have adventitious 
presence?
		MR. DYKES:  That would be my sense, because I 
dont think there's any difference in them.   I guess the 
fundamental question is do you think there's a difference 
between AP and the words adventitious presence?
		MR. MEDLEY:  Well, what I see here in terms of 
these events, one through four, I mean we're talking about 
biotech-specific.
		MR. DYKES:  Well, that's why we moved the 
definition of in the specific case of biotechnology and then 
right before these four different examples.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
		MR. DYKES:  So we have a broader definition of 
adventitious presence.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Right.
		MR. DYKES:  And then we make a specific reference 
to in the case of biotechnology --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Right.
		MR. DYKES:  -- and then we go on to these four 
examples.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Right.  And within these four 
examples, when I see adventitious presence written out or 
AP, I'm referring to the general definition or the biotech-
specific?
		MR. DYKES:  I would think the biotech specific.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Well, that's why I said what I said 
about we were referring to the biotech-specific.
		MR. DYKES:  But I guess the reason why I said the 
biotech-specific, I don't think you can make a distinction 
whether you're writing the words out or whether you make it 
AP.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MR. DYKES:  I think that's just, in my view, 
that's just standard formatting.  I think the reason that 
those four examples are biotech is because we make the 
reference in the preceding sentence that in the context of 
biotech it means such and such.  And then we go 1, 2, 3, 4.  
So it's relative to biotech because of its location in the 
document relative to where the definition is.
	`	MR. MEDLEY:  Well, no, no, I -- well so that we 
don't keep pushing this, on page 16 under one, we say the 
adventitious presence of approved events, we use 
adventitious presence.  We drop down to the third paragraph, 
and we say that in the case where complete avoidance is 
required, AP, and we use the term AP.  I'm just saying how 
do we decide when we're using it?
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  We'll fix it and make them all 
AP.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  We know what the concern is that you 
-- that we're confusing between --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- talking about broadly and talking 
about specific to biotech.  We'll just --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Right.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- make sure that the text addresses 
that problem.
		MR. DYKES:  I think the question for the 
Committee is, is they dont -- they're the same whether you 
spell out adventitious presence or you write AP.  I think if 
we agree on that, then I think you just go back and you --
		MS. DILLEY:  Fix it.
		MR. DYKES:  -- fix it the first time and you move 
on through with AP thereafter.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
		MR. DYKES:  Does that take care of your --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, just consistency.  Because it 
looks like there is a special meaning when we use it --
		MR. DYKES:  But there's not one intended.  
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, I just wanted to -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  It's an unintended acronym.
		MS. DILLEY:  How many people have comments in 
Section 1?  So it's the line on 16, page 20.  Do we have 
comments in that section?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  On page --
		MS. DILLEY:  16, starting line 20.  I guess we 
have a --
		MS. LAYTON:  There is a bracket there.
		MS. DILLEY:  Parens, yeah, Michael -- they're in 
parens.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, line 28?
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes, line 28, and it was 
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Labeled product to suggestion, 
food containing biotechnology-derived ingredients.
		MS. DILLEY:  So we're needing to --
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Just decide among those two.  
		MS. MELLON:  I vote for foods containing 
biotechnology-derived ingredients.  It's clear.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, any problem with that?
		MS. LAYTON:  So deleting --
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- labeled products.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.
		MR. CROWDER:  Are they separate, are they 
alternatives or are they both?  Are they two alternatives?
		MS. SULTON:  Just same way, describing the same 
thing.
		MS. LAYTON:  There were two alternatives.
		MS. DILLEY:  Two alternatives.
		MS. LAYTON:  Weren't they?
		MR. CROWDER:  That's --
		MS. DILLEY:  I think that was confusing in terms 
of --
		MR. CROWDER:  There's two different questions 
here, if you really want to know.  Do you want to avoid 
products with that or do you want to avoid labeling products 
that contain that?  They're addressing two separate 
questions, it seems to me.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, it was about consumers who 
wanted to avoid those products.  It wasn't -- this wasn't 
the question about industry.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, all right, is it the -- do the 
consumers wish to avoid labeled products or do the consumers 
wish to avoid foods containing biotechnology ingredients?
		MR. OLSON:  You could put a period there after 
marketing reasons, and then consumer starts a new sentence.  
Separate the thought.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We need a verb.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MR. CROWDER:   You clarified my question.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, leave it like it is.  Okay.  
So we're -- and we're deleting labeled products.
		MS. DILLEY:  Any other comments on one?  So that 
goes all the way to the top of page 17.  Anything else on 
that?
		MR. DYKES:  So just so I'm clear.  I don't want 
to -- but just to keep -- on process.  We came back to this 
foreign material.  Did we conclude that we're going to have 
a footnote?  Is that how we left that?
		MS. SULTON:  We're going to use the GIPSA 
definition.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.  In the footnote I --
		MR. DYKES:  Keep the text as we have it, put a 
footnote there that --
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:   -- not keep the text as we have 
it.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		MR. DYKES:  Not the, not the --
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Not the numbers.  All the 
numbers are gone.
		MR. DYKES:  Not the examples.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  There's going to be USDA has set 
grade standards for foreign material, footnote, foreign 
material is defined by USDA's Grain Inspection Service as 
such and such.  For information on detailed standards, see 
this website.  Is that okay?
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Can we move on to two then?  
That starts on line 8.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Wait a minute.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, Dave.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I dont know -- since I don't 
have the late copy, it's under the number sub-three -- 
elsewhere, but not --
		MR. JAFFE:  We're not there yet.
		MS. DILLEY:  We're not there yet.  We're on one.  
Anything else on one?
		MR. GIROUX:  Way ahead of us.
		MS. DILLEY:  Randy.
		MR. GIROUX:  We're -- you dont need both of 
them.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Where are you?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where are you?
		MS. DILLEY:  Line?
		MR. GIROUX:  Second line of the first paragraph, 
number two, adventitious presence -- processing United 
States.  Oh, no, I guess it does belong there.   Forget it.  
Never mind.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where are you?
		MS. DILLEY:  He's, line 10 or 12 or 11 on page 
17.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Closing out number one.  Now we can 
move to number two. Is there -- is there anything else?  
Randy, you were talking, but I didn't get to hear the point.
		MR. GIROUX:  No, never mind.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Anything else on number -- on 
two?  And that goes from -- on page 17 from line 8 to line 
30, anything else?  Any other comments?	
		MR. MEDLEY:  Eight and nine, the sentence, the 
last sentence in one, and it's a question, what are we 
seeking to, to make with that statement, and it begins with 
--
		MS. DILLEY:  Terry, where are you?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where are you?
		MR. MEDLEY:  Page 17, lines 5 and 6.  It's the 
last sentence in one.
		MS. DILLEY:  So in both cases the presence of AP 
-- biotech -- make the product -- include in feed supply 
chain.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah.  I'm just trying to -- what is 
the -- what was the purpose of that sentence and what are we 
trying to do with regard to this paragraph?
		MS. DILLEY:  Randy or Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'll defer to Randy.
		MR. GIROUX:  This was a statement that was in the 
original text.  I just restated it here.  There was no 
purpose for it.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Because it seems to me that the, the 
ending of the paragraph above that is the really one we have 
to deal with in terms of, you know, this acceptable zero, et 
cetera, and then we just kind of throw in the sentence, and 
it just hit me.
		MS. DILLEY:  Any problem with deleting it?
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. DILLEY:  I think it's picked up in the --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- other discussion of contracts 
anyway.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Delete.
		MS. DILLEY:  So Mardi, any problem with that 
or --
		MS. MELLON:  No.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Okay, anything in Section 2?  
That's what we're focused on now.  Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  I think we -- I think Greg and I 
have both raised this issue of approved.  I don't think we 
want to use that term.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Where are you?  Regulatory 
approval?
		MS. MELLON:  The events approved in the U.S. but 
not elsewhere.  Events are not approved in the U.S.  They 
meet regulatory requirements in the U.S.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Okay, so Line 29?
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually it's line 8.
		MS. DILLEY:  Line 8.
		MS. LAYTON:  Line 8.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, oh, okay.  Thank you.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where are we at now?
		MS. DILLEY:  Line 8 --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Title of number two.
		MS. DILLEY:  So products meeting regulatory 
requirements.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes, in the U.S. but not elsewhere.  
We don't want to, we don't want to imply that products in 
the U.S. are formally approved.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  So it would now read products 
meeting regulatory requirements in the U.S. but not 
elsewhere.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Do we want products or events?  
We've used the term events.
		MS. MELLON:  You want to do events?  They
don't --
		MS. LAYTON:   I dont know, but all four of them 
are events.
		MS. MELLON: Events meet regulatory requirements.
		MS. LAYTON:  And number one, is number one any 
different?  Mardi, I would ask you also because it's events 
approved in the U.S. and the importing countries.  So we 
have to probably look at this.
		MS. MELLON:  I think we need to look at it in all 
of these circumstances.  
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. CORZINE:  Question.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes, Leon.
		MR. CORZINE:  Question on approved.  I guess I'm 
not clear.  I, I -- because I dont agree.  Okay, in the FDA 
sense it's a voluntary and they give a pass or they dont 
formally use the term approved, but the other parts of the 
regulatory system as far as in the USDA part and in the EPA, 
you do have to have approval.
		MS. DILLEY:  That's right, so that's -- I think 
that's Mardi's point, is that --
		MS. MELLON:  You could have approved or --
		MR. JAFFE:  We're talking about food here.  We're 
not talking about --
		MS. DILLEY:  Leon, go ahead.
		MR. JAFFE:  And even then --
		MR. CORZINE:  I'm not sure that --
		MR. JAFFE:  -- regulated.
		MR. CORZINE:  I don't think, Greg, this doesn't 
just say food here that we're talking about now.
		MS. MELLON:  These are events --
		MR. JAFFE:  We're talking about adventitious 
presence here.  We're talking about -- 
		MR. CORZINE:  We aren't just talking about food 
so you do get approvals.
		MS. LAYTON:  So it's adventitious presence 
events?
		MS. MELLON:  No.  We're talking about --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		MS. LAYTON:  That's what I, I dont understand 
now.  I think we're a little --
		MR. CORZINE:  -- approval.  That's what I don't 
understand why --
		MR. SLOCUM:  Talking about biotech events. 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, that's what I want to make 
sure.
		MS. MELLON:  We're talking about biotech events 
where the biotech events accrue when they appear they are 
unintended their appearance is unintended in a, in a, in a 
batch of grain.  There are distinctions to be made between 
events that are approved or have met regulatory requirements 
and those that have not even been reviewed much less have 
met regulatory requirements.
		MS. LAYTON:  So is it events approved or meet or 
that --
		MS. MELLON:  -- regulatory requirements, and 
that's --
		MS. LAYTON:  Regulatory requirements?
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  So it's both.  It could be one or 
the other.
		MS. MELLON:  It could be one or the other.  I 
agree.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  But, but --
		MS. LAYTON:  So it's events approved or that meet 
regulatory requirements --
		MS. MELLON:  Regulatory requirements in the --
		MS. LAYTON:  -- in the U.S.
		MS. MELLON:  -- U.S. but not elsewhere.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.  
		MS. MELLON:  Because they're not approved.
		MS. DILLEY:  Isn't that correct, a correct 
statement?
		MR. MEDLEY:  No.
		MS. DILLEY:  No.
		MR. MEDLEY:  I dont think so.  I mean you can 
turn that around and you can say that the question can be 
what do I need to do to put something on the market, and you 
can have regulatory requirements that say you either do A, 
B, and C or you can have it say if it doesn't hit this 
trigger it doesn't have to go on.  And you are then 
marketing consistent with that.  If we're going to change 
events approved, we need to come up with a term.  Because 
now this is starting to get very, very complicated.
		MS. ZANNONI:  How about if you put events that 
may be sold in the U.S.  Take out approved and all that 
stuff because --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, I mean --
		MS. ZANNONI:  -- your point it's marketable.
		MR. MEDLEY:  -- you can market that.  You looked 
at what the requirements are.  They lay it out.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Why not use the word marketable?  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Why dont we say that.
		MR. JAFFE:  That can be marketed.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, that, can be 
marketed.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay, that would work 
fine.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Approved for marketing?
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. CROWDER:  I just wanted -- excuse me if I'm -
- if before I go to the government, I cannot put these on 
the market, and I know I cannot before put them on the 
market, and then if I go to the government and go through 
EPA, go through the USDA and so forth, I can't put them on 
the market.  Seems like to me that somewhere between time I 
ask mother may I go to play with Johnny --
		MS. MELLON:  You don't have to ask mother.
		MR. JAFFE:  The problem is you don't have to ask 
FDA.  You don't have to ask FDA.  
		MR. CROWDER:  Well, you have to ask someone.  I 
dont think this --
		MS. MELLON:  -- if you make your own decision 
about your own product and, and how it meets the FDA's --
		MR. JAFFE:  For certain biotech --
		MR. CORZINE:  That is only in the case of FDA.  
We're not talking -- you talk about EPA and USDA.   You get 
approval.
		MS. MELLON:  but you only need to go to EPA for 
those products that meet the definition of pesticides.  
That's a very narrow set of the biotech events that are out 
there.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think you either have events that 
can be marketed in the U.S. or you have to the -- approved 
or meet regulatory requirements.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  That have met regulatory 
requirements.
		MS. DILLEY:  That have met, that have met.  Those 
are technically correct.  So it's either marketable or --
		MR. MEDLEY:   So you're saying, so you're saying 
it's something that's met regulatory requirement.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Is not something that is considered 
something that is approved from --
		MS. DILLEY:  That's correct.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's right.
		MR. JAFFE:  Approval is active, meeting 
regulatory requirements is passive.   I mean the company can 
--
		MS. DILLEY:  We spent --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- drive 55 miles an hour.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.  So people have a strong 
preference for either marketable or that have met?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That have met.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That have met.
		MS. DILLEY:  That have met.  Okay, and that 
really goes either -- that goes in number one and number 
two?
		MR. JAFFE:  And number three.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We'll make them all fit.
		MS. DILLEY:  And number three.  And number four, 
that will get fixed.  Thank you.  So back to number two.  
Anything else in number two?
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  And similarly I presume that the 
places where it says regulatory approval all through the 
text it will be fixed to reflect the same, the same thing.
		MR. GRANT:  -- requirements.
		DR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Such as lines 29 and 30 would be --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Or line 12, yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Or line 12.
		MS. DILLEY:  So can we move on to Section 3?
		Okay, can we move on to three? 
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.  Very small.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  Number three in the last sentence, I 
would say currently the U.S. EPA maintains a zero tolerance 
specification for events -- not completed the regulatory 
policy.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, so specific to EPA?
		MR. JAFFE:  Other agencies don't have a 
specification.  
		MR. GRANT:  Where are you at, Greg?  I'm sorry.
		MR. JAFFE:  The last sentence in --
		MS. DILLEY:  37.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- number three.  It's line --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  37.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- 37.
		MS. LAYTON:  And instead of USA, he wants to --
		MR. JAFFE:  -- EPA maintains a zero tolerance 
specification.
		MR. MEDLEY:  So what do you consider the import 
requirements coming in under USDA?  What is that standard?  
If it doesn't -- if it isn't in the book, it must be zero by 
definition.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Huh?
		MR. MEDLEY:  I mean because it does cover 
imports.
		MS. LAYTON:  So Terry's extending it to USDA 
imports.
		MR. MEDLEY:  It covers imports into the U.S.  I 
mean currently right now if you don't have something 
specifically setting whatever it would be zero.
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually, you're right, Terry.  I 
think this is not about things in the U.S.  This is about 
things approved elsewhere.
		MR. MEDLEY:  That are coming into the --
		MS. LAYTON:  And so this is all about imports.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  And is the U.S. EPA the only person 
that --
		MR. MEDLEY:  No.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- that limits imports?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  And Terry is saying no.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Correct.
		MS. LAYTON:  It is U.S.A.
		MR. MEDLEY:  And I don't know, maybe Jim could 
tell us, I dont know what you do in terms of imports coming 
into the U.S.  There's testing of products, but I know USDA 
would have to be added to EPA.
		MR. JAFFE:  I would also ask that we just put 
import in the sentence then.
		(Pause.)
		MS. DILLEY:  The rest of you, if you could please 
make sure that you review the scenarios, preparing for the 
future, and the other conference call summary, so that we're 
prepared to talk about the scenarios piece when we get to 
that point of the agenda where we're going to do a check-in 
of how we're going to use the rest of our day when we come 
back, okay.  Briefly, before we dive back into the 
discussion.
		MR. DYKES:  I have none of my scenario stuff with 
me.
		MS. DILLEY:  It's back there.
		MR. DYKES:  All right.
		MS. DILLEY:  Pick up a copy.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Michael, I have your copy.
		MR. DYKES:  Thanks.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Be back here at one then.
		(Whereupon, a luncheon recess was taken.)


A F T E R N O O N   S E S S I O N
[1:29 p.m.]
	MS. LAYTON:  At lunch we discussed that we might talk a 
little bit more about how we were going forward.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah, so here's what's going on.  We 
have a group upstairs that's trying to work on the consumer 
-- consumer, let's see we're talking -- calling that 
consumer implications for varying labeling, varying labeling 
regimes.  And we think that that conversation could at least 
get going fairly productively in a smaller group as opposed 
to doing it in a larger group. So we're going to give them 
some time to work on that.  Again, half an hour, 45 minutes, 
we'll go check and see how they're doing.  In the meantime, 
one option was to go through other parts of the report.  The 
problem with that is that Dick is the one person who it 
would be nice to get.  Okay.  We hadn't heard his comments 
because he's the one person who wasn't with us when we were 
all together.  So where we thought we would start when we 
got back here while that group is working is talk about the 
guidelines for the scenarios discussion for a little bit and 
get that squared away and then move back to the document on 
the traceability and labeling.  So if we could do that for a 
little bit because we have, we do have some of you who have 
been involved with the scenarios discussion and just figure 
out how we want to approach this moving it forward.  Because 
I know, Terry, you have to go at -- did you say 3:30?
		MR. MEDLEY:  Uh-huh.
		MS. DILLEY:  So if we could at least start, set 
that conversation up and have any input by those who have to 
leave a little bit early to do that, and then we'll  move 
back to going through the traceability and labeling document 
at about two.  Does that sound reasonable to people?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It probably makes sense, and 
since we've talked about a lot of this -- before, before 
your plane arrived this morning, it probably is -- backing 
up for a moment to talk about what we were saying earlier -- 
that there was some thought that there was a possibility to 
move the scenarios chapter more quickly and see what could 
be -- see what the possibility was of actually getting some 
version of the scenarios document actually out of this 
meeting.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Would anybody have any major 
objections to scenarios as they are currently placed?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, they're -- you mean placed 
in the full document or --
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Yeah, in the whole document.  I 
mean edits, edits are different, I think, specific edits are 
different from major --
		MS. DILLEY:  In the overall --
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Any major blocks to how it's 
currently structured?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No.  I think if we could, if we 
could hold off on the discussion of the content just for -- 
talk through how we're going to do this, if that's --
		MR. GIROUX:  What are we going to do with them?  
Are we going to do --
		MS. DILLEY:  Well, I think we could, we could 
entertain that question that Juan put out.  I mean why not, 
because that may help shape what we want to do with the --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  So why not broach that.  And we 
recognize we're still missing people, but let's entertain 
that question and then come back to how do you want to set 
up this conversation.  Because that's as far as -- we wanted 
to get before we actually have the conversation with more of 
the Committee members here.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, because I did want to just 
make the one point in addition, Juan, that a couple of folks 
had mentioned that there were comments that they had 
provided on that section that -- that were never 
incorporated into the document.
		MS. MELLON:  Plus the entire implication section 
that we wrote for last scenario.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  We didn't do -- so the implication 
section will be the work of --
		MS. MELLON:  The future --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The next committee.  You 
know, this Committee goes as far as -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- do that.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  -- first two sections, and then 
the next group can design and sign off on implications, if 
they wish.  My understanding is four of the six people on 
the Committee are leaving.
		MS. DILLEY:  Six?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Four.
		MS. DILLEY:  Dropping like flies.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  So my suggestion would be that we 
don't deal with implications at this meeting because I don't 
think we'll get through.
		MS. DILLEY:  Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  I agree that we probably won't get 
through the implications.  I'm also quite interested in 
moving this forward to some sort of completion.  I guess I 
would put on the table the, the possibility that we might 
just have to not have implications, that we could have the 
scenarios, and they could kind of, you know, stand as 
thought provokers, but that we wouldn't need to have the 
implications in order to sign off on the piece as it's 
currently -- as it's written.  I am -- I mean I'm reluctant 
to kind of divide it into -- divide the piece into kind of 
two tasks, and give a whole new committee, you know, with 
four new people, the challenge of writing implications as a 
whole or even maybe implications for one of the scenarios.  
Just it seems to me that people are not going to want to -- 
they're either going to want to go back and reopen the whole 
thing or they are going to have a difficult time kind of 
getting back with the program to know what the implications 
ought to look like.  So as hard as it is for me to say this, 
I think one of the things that we have to entertain is the 
practicality of getting this done in two days is the 
possibility that we might just not have implications for the 
scenarios.  We would have the drivers, you know, the future, 
the purpose of the scenario -- not, not -- they're not 
predicting the future and then kind of let them, let them do 
what they do.
		MS. LAYTON:  And there would be also the 
questions.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		MS. LAYTON:  In other words, you've done 
something in the work group that I actually liked, which was 
--
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- you talked about what are the 
implications and what is the economic impact of the 
scenario, what is the economic impact of the scenario on the 
natural environment, what are the implications of the 
scenario for USDA, and you listed some, what are the 
implications of scenarios for public acceptance, and what 
are the implications of scenario for addressing food 
sufficiency and food security.  I thought those were 
wonderful questions.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes, they are, and --
		MS. LAYTON:  That are working questions for a 
group -- any group --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Even the group within USDA to use.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Sure.
		MS. LAYTON:  Without even us -- so you know I 
think that's one of those things that those are the kinds of 
questions that would be posed after each scenario.  I think 
that's also a very valuable tool.  That's just my opinion.
		Greg.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I think that --
		MR. JAFFE:   Yeah.  I mean my view is this is a 
great document, been put together.  I think it reads very 
well as it is, a stand-alone.  I think you could add a 
conclusion and take as Pat said, these and incorporate that 
into a conclusion or next steps or whatever you want to call 
it.  I don't think we should do as Mardi said, I don't think 
we should do implications at this stage.  We won't get it 
done.  My view is that because some of the members of that 
Committee are leaving, they spent two years, they'd like to 
show something for their work.  I think they've done a great 
job.  I think we should, you know, what comes out of these 
next two days' meeting -- transmittal to the Secretary 
saying, you've given us this charge and what we've completed 
to date is a scenarios chapter, part of the one -- Part A 
and Report B, and put them in as final documents together.  
And I think we should spend time this afternoon and tomorrow 
to the extent people have edits on this as Juan said the 
edit-type things, and put those in.  And I note not 
everybody's comments have been taken, but I think what Terry 
said was that they've all been at least analyzed.  We don't 
always take everybody's comments.  We -- I mean they're 
analyzed.  Not everybody -- this is a consensus.  We, you 
know, weight everything.  So I think that Terry did say that 
the Committee has at least reviewed everybody's comments and 
considered them.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  They didn't quite review all of 
them.  
		MS. DILLEY:  So the proposal on the table is to 
take out the implications section, do the scenarios document 
up to the point over the next couple of days to get it to 
how everybody is comfortable, and I think then we come back 
to Juan's question of just how off are we from everybody 
feeling comfortable, and then present that to the Secretary 
as well for something to consider along with the questions, 
I guess.
		Terry.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I think the questions could be 
phrased as you may wish to build your own scenarios based on 
your own knowledge, and here are some of the questions you 
may want to ask in terms of how these scenarios affect you 
and your business.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Well, I guess I have just a, maybe a 
slightly different slant on this.  I have to admit that when 
we first started working on the scenarios, this group I 
think we came together at a certain point really under
-- kind of semi-understanding what we were working on and 
what we were trying to do, and I think we were then able to 
make some progress.  But what I see that's really critical 
in the scenarios is the language we worked on trying to 
respond to the concerns raised by the full group in terms 
of, you know, whether a scenario  was likely to occur or how 
much are we trying to predict and what is unreasonable and 
what -- and so I think the language that was in the 
document, especially on page 8, which tries to go through 
the fact that each scenario is intended as a coherent 
description of what the world might look like if after 
events driven by the certainties, uncertainties play out.  
But then we go on to say they're not predictions -- it's 
probably not going to be accurate.  But I think at the end, 
which is not bolds, what's really critical to me, it says, 
however they demonstrate the sensitivity of agriculture and 
the food system to events that can tip the future in 
different ways and look -- altogether provide an opportunity 
to extract additional knowledge about broader impacts into 
the future.  And to me it seems that from the Department's 
perspective, it's okay to give some scenarios and to give 
this out.  But what's really the critical tools are the 
things you should start looking at that really make a 
difference?  In my opinion get into the time we spent trying 
to develop questions about impacts.  I mean what are the 
things you want to look at from the standpoint of economics, 
competitiveness, science.  And so it is really providing a 
document that's not trying to say here's an answer, but 
here's a pathway that one can go down to try to be prepared 
for the changes that could occur.  And so we spent a lot of 
time on the certainties, the uncertainties.  They're in 
bold.  I do believe that the strength of the scenarios is 
providing a document that hopefully the Secretary of the 
Department would say, okay, this can help us as we're trying 
to get prepared to carry out our duties in an area where 
certain things are certain, certain are not, and there are 
going to be new developments.  And so it's hard for me to 
see trying to pull that --
		MS. DILLEY:  It's hard for you to see -- finish 
that. 
		MR. MEDLEY:  It's hard for me to see pulling I 
guess the impacts out.  
		MS. DILLEY:  I don't think anybody suggested 
that.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No.  There was the thought of 
putting in the categorization of the kinds of impacts, you 
know, the key that you came up with for --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The structure.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- for the structure of analysis 
of implications.  Putting that in and saying --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- you may want to do that on 
these scenarios --
		MR. MEDLEY:  I see.  Fine.  Fine.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- or others which you may 
devise.
		MS. LAYTON:  So not answering --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- not answering by the providing 
the questions.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Because of one the things we learned 
early on was that --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- when you get scenarios, you're 
also given the questions to answer about those, and then you 
go into work groups and you work through those questions.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Exactly, okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  And so that may be the most valuable 
-- that may be what we really need to do is the scenarios 
and those questions so that then the Department can answer 
them from their different points of view.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.  No, I'm fine.  I just through 
I must have --
		MS. LAYTON:  Bernice.
		MR. MEDLEY:  -- wrong.
		MS. LAYTON:  No. I mean I think that that's 
actually a very -- that could be, you know, very useful, and 
you know, we may want to at some point, you know, once you 
finalize this, have you explain to, you know members of our 
coordinating group, you know, what, what you, you know, what 
you mean by the scenarios and how they can be used by the 
Department and have that kind of physical interaction as 
well as, you know, just putting it down on paper.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We won't hesitate to try to 
bring you back to that discussion, even if you're off the 
committee.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Whether we'll succeed or not is 
another matter.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think we have Michael, Lisa, Greg, 
and then Juan.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Well, no, I'm not on that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Michael and Lisa and Juan. 
		MR. DYKES:  I guess I'm a little -- I thought the 
last time we had a meeting we were going to meet one more 
day to finalize traceability and labeling, and the first day 
was going to on the T and L paper.
		MS. DILLEY:  Correct.
		MR. DYKES:  Two specific requests from the 
Secretary.  One was the document, the two or three chapters, 
which includes a chapter on scenarios; and then one on 
traceability and labeling.  So I guess I'm a little confused 
as to why now we want to pull -- I understand the argument 
about four of the members are leaving, but we had another 
member leave us before when their term -- and we 
-- the committee is set up so that people are going to 
rotate on and rotate off.  We happen to have four this time.  
We had Magnus rotate off on the first time.  I think we 
should continue on the process -- I'm fine with -- I'm not 
prepared to discuss scenarios today because I thought that 
was going to be on day two's discussion on the agenda.  And 
I'm not prepared to discuss it, but I mean I can read my 
comments, and I will discuss it.  But I think we should 
still stick to what we agreed in the last meeting was to try 
to finalize traceability and labeling, get that out the 
door.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think one of the key pieces of 
information, we're still committed to finishing the 
traceability and labeling document.  This is not taking over 
from that.  This is trying to do it in addition to.   The 
key piece of information that was missing in the December 9-
10 meeting is who was rotating off, and the fact that I -- I 
dont think anybody was aware that four people that just 
happened to be in the Scenarios Work Group, are rotating off 
the Committee, which is a huge piece of -- issues we know 
we're going to keep talking about because the majority of 
our -- of that working group is still going to participate.  
We're going to integrate additional members into that 
conversation.  But to have a much more dramatic turnover on 
the scenarios, I think a lot of people are concerned that it 
would not -- it may not have the same benefit of consistency 
of membership.  So that's why the proposal is on the table 
in terms of trying to finish it --
		MR. DYKES:  Well, I don't think -- I think we 
have, and we've talked about it in the work group, but we've 
also talked about scenarios as a larger committee.  So to 
say that part of the work group has gone, I don't think that 
detracts from where the rest of the larger committee is.  I 
think it's a chapter within the other section.  So I think 
we should complete the T and L.  We should work on the 
scenarios today, if that's what we want to do with some of 
our time while people are out.  But the other report should 
remain and scenarios should remain a part of the other 
report and to give credit to those committee members who 
worked on that, and I recognize their contribution.  We 
should -- and when we finalize the second report, we should, 
we should comment on those committee members that have been 
participants throughout this process, even those that have 
departed.  Doesn't say that they -- they're in consent with 
them, but they were part of the discussion and development 
of it.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Rotate off, not departed.
		MR. DYKES:  Their term, they rotated off.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		(Laughter.)
		MR. DYKES:  They rotated off.  That includes -- 
and before this time and maybe even more are going to rotate 
off before the other report is done.
		MS. DILLEY:  Lisa and Juan.
		MS. ZANNONI:  I think on the scenarios, when we 
review them, whenever we review them, we should concentrate 
on the questions.  And we did this internally in our 
company, the value was in the questions and how broad or 
narrow or out of the box they let you -- they thought.  And 
the scenarios just fell away, because the end product, if 
the Secretary does this, is what comes out of those answers 
to the questions.  Because that's, that's their product on 
what, what areas they have to look at, that type of thing.  
So the scenarios, as long as the facts are such that you 
look at the questions differently, it -- that's fine.  If we 
get into you know making edits on the scenarios, I dont 
think that's where the value is.  I think it's really in the 
questions and making sure that the scope of the questions 
are what we think the Secretary should be looking at when 
they use it as a tool.
		MS. DILLEY:  Juan.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  If you bear with me.  You know, in 
the time that we've been working, there have been three sort 
of quasi-scenario things published.  One was on 9/11, which 
is a report on 9/11 that people got through which was kind 
of complicated.  The National Intelligence Council put out a 
report called 20/20, which addresses some very thorny 
issues.  It's full of scenarios, potential intelligence 
counseling, what the world looks like 50 years out.  And 
then the FDA last week put out this little biggie, and the 
first chapter --
		MS. LAYTON:   Can you read the title so that it 
will be in the record?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Sure.  It's the 
Innovation/Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the 
Critical Path of New Medical Products."  If we read the 
first paragraph of this, if you indulge me for a second, 
might have something to do with what's happening in 
agriculture.  
		"Many of the new basic science discoveries made 
in recent years may not quickly the yield more effective, 
more affordable, safer medical products for patients.  This 
is because current medical technology development path is 
becoming increasingly challenging, inefficient, and costly.  
During the last few years, a number of new drugs and 
biologic applications submitted to the FDA has declined 
significantly.  The number of innovative medical device 
applications has also decreased.  In contrast, the product 
development costs have soared over the last decade.  Because 
of rising costs, innovators often concentrate their efforts 
on products with a potentially high market return.  
Developing products targeted for important public health 
needs like counter terrorism plus common diseases prevalent 
Third World diseases.  Prevention indications on 
individualized therapy are becoming increasingly challenges, 
challenging.  In fact, with rising health care cost, there 
is now concern as to how the nation would continue to pay 
for even existing therapies.  If the costs and difficulties 
associated with new medical product development continue to 
grow, innovation will continue to stagnate or decline and 
the biomedical revolution may not deliver the promise of 
better health."  
		If you change those words to agriculture, I would 
argue that you would have a very effective scenario 
development plan for this, and you see that in USA Today 
last week, biotechnology apparently -- food source.  Two of 
our Board members here are quoted in the particular article, 
and you see some issues evolving that have -- in our 
scenarios, which is the issue of avian flu and animal flu.  
Now if you're talking about what's going to happen to 
agriculture in the 21st Century and actually over the next 
decade, my argument would be things like traceability and 
labeling are very important, and they are a small piece of 
the puzzle.  And if the Secretary wants to look at what will 
truly change over the next year, 2 years, 4 years and 10 
years, we'd better get those scenarios out quickly.  This is 
not a process to go for another two years.  I think two 
years has already been too long.  But the way you prepare a 
farmer, the way you prepare a country, the way you prepare a 
business for what's coming is you try to figure out what's 
going to happen if you have techola (ph.), mad cow, reaching 
in this country, because that's what's been happening in 
Asia and -- when you get a case of mad cow in Japan last 
week, then beef imports disappear again for the next five 
years in Japan.   How do you prepare for stuff like that 
that you don't know is coming?  You put out scenarios, and 
they may not be perfect, they may not be right, but you get 
them out, get them into people's hands, and you do it 
quickly to try and get people thinking, what happens if the 
world starts looking like this?  It may not be the world I 
look like, but we can spend the next five years talking 
about scenarios.  I would argue we have to get something out 
the door, even if it's rough and dirty, and that's -- I 
think as important as anything this Committee is doing.  If 
you're looking at what this stuff looks like, you know, in 
the 21st Century.  That's one, one person's point of view.
		MS. DILLEY:  Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah, I mean I would agree totally 
with what Juan said.  We have talked about four people not 
coming back on the Committee because they haven't actually 
applied.  I'm one of the people who has applied.  I don't 
know if I'll be on this Committee a week from now or not.  
So, you know, my -- and five other people or something 
around the table will feel that way, and I'm not asking 
Michael to give me a call on that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I don't have --
		MR. JAFFE:  He can't give me a call on that.  
That's not important.  But I guess when I read the documents 
over the weekend, I said the issues document isn't anywhere 
near complete.  It's barely an outline of anything.  
		MS. DILLEY:  -- just three issues.
		MR. JAFFE:  The scenarios document, in my mind, 
read as a complete document.  It may need some editing and 
may have some comments from people, but I thought we could 
get it done and get it to the Secretary.  Our charge was not 
a report on scenarios or a chapter on scenarios.  We came up 
with the idea of part of the -- one of the reports was to do 
a scenarios piece.  There's nothing that says it has to wait 
for the rest of the report.  I mean it was something that 
our Committee as a group said.  This would be a useful thing 
to include in it.  We can -- and, therefore, we can as 
easily say it's a useful thing to separate it out and give 
to the Secretary now as Juan has said.  So I dont think we 
need -- it fits within our charter as something the 
Secretary we think is interested in, there's nothing that 
says we can't give it to him tomorrow with the traceability 
and labeling, and my view is we should finalize as much of 
our total workload as we can finalize, and I think we can 
finalize it.  So I think we really need to ask the question, 
Juan's question, which is, is there anybody here who thinks 
we can't?  Is there major heartburn with the substance of 
what's in these 14 pages that we can't get the editing done 
and write a conclusion that includes the questions in the 
next day and a half in addition to finishing -- which I 
think we only have a few more sections left of the 
traceability and labeling.  We have one page on consumers.  
We've got the implications things, 7 or 8 of those, and 
executive summary.  We've pretty much gone through 
everything there.  So I think Juan has asked the right 
question.  
		MS. DILLEY:  I think that is the right question, 
and I think we need to do that in full group is the problem 
right now, I think.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I think that's fair, and I think 
the answer is there are no major blockages to this thing.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I think I should sit down with 
whoever has a -- their half an hour just in the back during 
a break, if you want, and we'll go through the edits as 
anybody who has got edits come, and let's see if we can't 
get those edits in tonight, and get a document out by 
tomorrow so we dont spend more than an hour on scenarios, 
so people don't have major blocks on.  We --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I'll just put a little caveat on 
that, which is I think that some of the text suggestions are 
-- some are more substantive than others, and I don't know 
that it's -- which is not to say that you dont' try.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think that's a great offer.  I 
think we should field that question.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  When we have a full committee.  Get 
a sense of it, and then if it works, I love it, because 
you're doing our work for us.  It's just -- fantastic.  So 
if we can agree to do -- to field Juan's question when we're 
all here, I think then we'll get a better sense of whether 
it's doable and if, and try to get it done.
		Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  One fact, factual question.  How 
many comments are there that would -- that would -- that we 
know of that would need to be dealt with in the process 
Juan's described?  I mean Michael's -- you got a few 
comments that were not considered at all on, I think on the 
third scenario, is that correct?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, some comments that weren't 
considered at all, some comments that weren't included, but 
that he nonetheless may feel strongly about.  So they are 
not comments that have gone away.
		MS. MELLON:  But is -- are there other sets of 
comments that are not --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  There were some from you.
		MS. MELLON:  There were some from me, yes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And I believe that there were 
some comments that came up at the sixth plenary that there 
was not time to get into this document.  Not a large number 
and not very -- and I don't have them.  I dont have them 
here with me.  I didn't think we were going to be at this 
point.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  We could do it tomorrow morning.
		MS. DILLEY:  You would have to decide.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  -- things that you'd like to do 
today.
		MS. DILLEY:  We'd like to field that question 
today.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Put a time limit on the stuff.  If 
you're -- traceability -- for this thing, can't -- so we'd 
like to do traceability and labeling.  By all means, let's 
spend all afternoon on traceability and labeling, and then 
tomorrow morning we get on scenarios seriously.  And if 
people have edits, please give them to Mike, and we'll look 
through them.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think there was a question there 
are people, there are a couple of people who are not going 
to be here tomorrow.  And so if -- and there was some point 
that if we could get to -- if we could get tracing and 
labeling, traceability and labeling up to a certain point 
that we could then ensure that we got the scenarios comments 
from those people who weren't going to be here tomorrow, 
given that people felt comfortable that we could get 
somewhere on that.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Fair enough.
		MS. LAYTON:  So I think that there was some idea 
that we might have to piece the afternoon in, piece in a 
section of the afternoon for working on those scenarios.  
Now Michael said he did not bring his comments with him, but 
does this Michael have them?  
		MR. DYKES:  I -- I made comments in I guess 
according to this August 16th.  I have not read the scenario 
section, not looked at it since I turned in these comments.  
That's not to say that I can't sit here and read it, but I 
assumed that today's session was traceability and labeling 
and tomorrow was on the rest, on the other parts of the 
report.  So I'm fine.  I'm not going to be here tomorrow.  
I'm fine with -- you have my comments.  You want to discuss 
them tomorrow, proceed with the discussion, I'm fine with 
that, but I'm as of this afternoon prepared to sit here and 
talk about scenarios.  I mean I can read, I can read my 
comments, but I mean I'm not even -- not thought about it 
since August.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I guess the question really that 
we have is will we then proceed if people discuss your 
comments, you're not here?  That creates a procedural 
problem for us in finalizing something tomorrow.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Could we ask a similar question on 
the traceability and labeling?  Does anybody have major 
objections to the traceability and labeling? 
		MS. LAYTON:  I think, I think that there are on 
the consumer segment, and I think that's what's being worked 
on right now.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Other than the consumer section?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It's not a question so much of 
major objections.  There are choices that haven't been made 
yet by the Committee.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I think -- I mean Michael we have the 
same -- we have, we're already missing two people today.  
Doesn't look like Keith or Carole are showing up today.  I'm 
not sure if they're showing up tomorrow.
		MS. LAYTON:  Carole has bronchitis.  We're not 
sure on her status.
		MR. JAFFE:  And so we're going to be missing 
three additional people tomorrow.  The same question about 
the traceability and labeling as we are going to have about 
scenarios in terms of can you finalize a document if people 
aren't in the room.  So I think we have to broadly address 
that question, not just link it to only one of those 
reports, but to both of those, because we're not going to 
have the final document on traceability and labeling today 
either necessarily.
		MS. LAYTON:  Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  No.
		MS. SULTON:  Well, Abby has gone to try to get 
the group that's working on the consumer report.  Maybe when 
they come back, then we will return to the traceability -- 
report.  It had been our intention to continue with the 
sections identified on the agenda, I guess Mike's annotation 
and the consumer piece and go to issues and come back then 
to the executive summary.  Is that --
		Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  I thought the agreement was at 2:30 
after public comment we would move to scenario.
		MS. SULTON: No.
		MS. LAYTON:  No.  1:30 we would discuss it.
		MR. JAFFE:  But we also said that we would leave 
at least some time --
		MS. LAYTON:  At the end of the day.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, we had talked about --
Well, I'd like --
		MS. LAYTON:   We have to get to this consumer 
section, have to get to --
		MR. JAFFE:  We can get to consumer, but not 
exactly --
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, I'm asking.  I wasn't stating 
that --
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- was the way we were going to do 
it. I'm saying that was the way we had it in the agenda, and 
the -- question how -- would we still approach it in that 
order.  Correct.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.  I would propose that we could 
do the consumer section and do that, but then I would 
propose that we move on to scenarios since we have people 
leaving today who will not be here tomorrow and discuss the 
question Juan and others have said, because I think that 
that is very important.
		MR. GRANT:  So just to kind of the group on 
what's going on since -- but if this works all right, Pat, 
with you and the group, we're trying to come up with a clean 
draft of customer section, and then we'll print that off and 
bring it back down to you, if that works.
		MR. MEDLEY:  How long?
		MR. GRANT:  I'm guessing 30 minutes maybe.
		MS. LAYTON:  Can we start then from other issues?
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Are you comfortable if we go over 
the few other edits?  That would be my next question.
		MR. GRANT:  It's the bottom line.  We're going to 
either hash through the consumer thing up there or down here 
so --
		MS. LAYTON:  Or down here, right.
		MR. GIROUX:  So are we going to -- right.  So 
just a process question.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. GIROUX:  I mean your guys going to come up 
with something, you're going to bring it down, and then 
we're going to have to re-discuss it as the whole Committee?
		MR. GRANT:  So I --
		MS. SULTON:  We will have to.
		MR. GRANT:  Yeah. 
		MR. GIROUX:  So I'm just -- you know at some 
point if you -- we're going to all -- I mean it's one thing 
if you come down and say everybody here at the table says 
whatever they come up with, that's okay with us, but it's 
different to -- for everybody then to have to chime in again 
on it and maybe change everything you guys have done.  So I 
need a -- maybe a pulse check from the people that aren't in 
that discussion, you know, what's going to happen when they 
bring it down.
		MS. LAYTON:  Who is upstairs?
		MR. GRANT:  There's Carol, Dick.
		MR. JAFFE:  Leon and Duane.
		MR. MEDLEY:  I mean I -- to me I understand what 
Randy is saying, but it seems to me that there's a 
difference between this group I think rehashing or looking 
at something that, you know, is kind of a more consensus 
that addresses some of the questions then trying to write 
that anew in this group.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. MEDLEY:  That would take much, much longer.   
It's much easier to go through something, and we're only 
talking about a page, right?
		MR. GRANT:  Right.
		MR. MEDLEY:  We're only talking about a page that 
we would be able to look at.
		MS. SULTON:  Hopefully to vote up or down, I 
guess.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Because otherwise, if we try to 
draft it down here this whole --
		MS. SULTON:  It won't work.  What we've done is 
take the people who had questions, specific questions, and 
they are the ones actually working on resolving some 
compromise language.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So are we hearing the thought of 
having an up or down vote on the new piece that comes in?
		MR. MEDLEY:  No.  We're hearing not going to 
complete the process.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Pardon me?
		MR. MEDLEY:  -- take the 30 minutes that they 
said it would take to bring it down.
		MR. JAFFE:  One proposal is while they are doing 
that, for the scenarios people to get together and whoever -
- have major edits and things with Juan, and start that or 
at least start putting together what might be the 
conclusion, taking those questions or something like that.  
That may be one valuable breakout group at the same time.
		MS. SULTON:  Can we have -- people were saying 
they don't have their questions with them.
		Michael.
		MR. DYKES:  Another suggestion maybe.  Could we 
continue to go through the T and L paper, look at the 
particular edits, the bracketed text, when the people come 
back go through the sections that they have and tell them 
what we've talked about and discussed, and if they have 
other particular comments, we could bring those up.  If 
they're fine with what we've done, then we've done 
everything except the one page on consumer, and we look at 
what they did and we do that, and we get traceability and 
labeling by 5 o'clock today.
		MS. SULTON:  Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  I mean I, if I was in that group 
upstairs, I don't think that's fair.  Traceability and 
labeling is supposed to be something we're putting our final 
changes in.  Even this morning when I, when we talked about 
a rolling break people -- I and it was agreed by everybody, 
people all wanted to be in the room to hear that stuff 
because it's something they're going to be asked at the end 
of this two-day meeting are they comfortable with.  So I 
don't think it's particularly efficient if they're only 
going to be a half hour to start going through this, and 
then it will take us almost as long to explain the changes 
that we made, and they'll all have the right to have a 
comment just like Dick has the right to have a comment when 
he wasn't here last meeting.  I think it would be much more 
productive to the extent that there are -- people have 
things with the scenarios to break up in a group and do that 
at the same time for the half hour.
		MR. MEDLEY:   But didn't we have -- I thought the 
comment was we were going to through and in those bracketed 
areas we were going to make some choices. So, therefore, 
what happened is everyone would still have an opportunity 
when they come down.  Simply -- you would simply read --
		MS. SULTON:  These were the choices made --
		MR. MEDLEY:  These were the choices made by this 
group.  And then if you disagree, then that person can say, 
well, no, I don't like that.  If they say, okay, that's 
fine, then we've completed.  But everyone has an opportunity 
both on the consumer and on this to express their particular 
view about the language that was chosen.  I agree, we're not 
trying to --
		MR. JAFFE:  Are we talking about bracketed 
language or are we talking about people's comments?  Because 
we still have -- the executive summary people are going to 
be providing comments. 
		MS. LAYTON:  I don't think we want an executive 
summary --
		MR. JAFFE:  So we're just talking about --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Market --
		MR. JAFFE:  No, not market -- sounds like -- I'm 
comfortable if we're just going to go through Section 2 and 
go through places that people have the bracket.  I don't 
think we should go through new text.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, then let's do Section 2 to be 
productive.
		MR. JAFFE:  I still think we're much better ff 
spending the time -- 
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. DYKES:  Things that are not new text.  I 
totally agree.  Things that are what we should focus on. 
		MS. LAYTON:  Daryl has a question.
		MR. BUSS:  I don't have a question, but the 
concept of dividing into two breakout groups with one group 
breaking out --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Both get back reports.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Correct.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so are we -- do we want to do 
this off-record?  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What are we doing?
		MS. LAYTON:  Section 2.  Section 2, page 6.
		MS. MELLON:  Can I make just one more general --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. MELLON:  -- observation?  And that is follow-
up on what Greg said.  And we're going to get to the end of 
today, and we're not going to have enough people here to 
sign off -- so whether it's at the end of today with regard 
to the traceability and -- labeling.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Traceability and labeling.  
T and L.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I can't say -- 
		MS. MELLON:  -- what was in my coffee.  Or with 
regard to the scenario.  We're going to have to have a 
process for getting final approval that is going to have to 
be something like this is as close as we could get.  People 
who were not here for any reason, that includes because 
they're leaving, you know, today -- they're here today but 
leaving tomorrow will have one last opportunity to look at 
this, but there has to be some sort of a --
you know if this -- if we are to get sign-off on anything 
there has to be a process that kind of presumes that by the 
end of the two days we're pretty close to there, and unless 
you have major substantive objections that this thing is 
going to go forward.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Correct.
		MS. MELLON:  But that will be true of -- I mean 
we'll need a single process that will deal with both of the 
pieces.
		MS. LAYTON:  Comfortable?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Let me be more specific on that 
comment.  If after two years of work you lose a significant 
part of this Committee, the only thing that you bring out in 
this Committee in two years is the issue of traceability and 
labeling?  It's going to look like this was driven by the 
specific interests that are interested in traceability and 
labeling.  If the only thing after two years that we can 
have a consensus on or that we come up with that's 
traceability and labeling as what we're suggesting for the 
Secretary for 21st Century agriculture, I think you should 
think long and hard about what that report means.  
		MS. SULTON:  Abby, while you were out of the 
room, there was a suggestion made also that we go into a 
breakout to get the people's comments on traceability -- on 
scenarios.  
		Michael, did you --
		MR. DYKES:  Yeah, I was just going to say what I 
understand about scenarios being important, but I --
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I'm not just talking about 
scenarios.  I'm saying --
		MR. DYKES:  But I'm not --
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  -- this is a group that has spent 
more time editing this particular document and working on 
this particular document than any other issue.  It's a very 
important issue to what our charge is 21st Century 
agriculture.  If this is what's going to come out after two 
years, at least I'll have something to say about that 
because you know I dont think this reflects the work of 
what's going to happen.  We have in essence a day and a half 
for -- folks are going to rotate off after two years to say 
this is what we worked on for two years.  And if the only 
outcome is this, well, you know, we might say, well, perhaps 
reflect it, that's all.  As important as this is.  This is a 
committee on 21st Century agriculture.
		MR. DYKES:  I hear you, but I don't -- I think 
that's mixing what the request was with what's coming out of 
the meeting.  I don't think anybody is ascribing any more 
significance of one to the other or saying that the 
Committee failed or the Committee succeeded or any of those 
kind of comments.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  A statement of fact as we have it.
		MR. DYKES:  A statement of fact as we have it as 
-- Secretary asked for two reports.  Asked for one report 
and then came back and asked for a special report on 
traceability and labeling.  That's the way it was presented 
to the Committee.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  That's all the Committee is 
responding to.
		MR. DYKES:  So to comment that that's all we come 
out of here with, I don't think that's exactly true.  We 
have done a lot on the rest of the reports.  The other 
reports just not finished -- just -- traceability and 
labeling.
		MS. DILLEY:  So I think we have a commitment to 
work on both pieces and advance both pieces.  I think if we 
don't get on with it, then we're not going to get either 
report done.  So let's do it, and start with Section 2 of 
the Traceability and Labeling Report and move forward with 
that, and then we'll get back to hopefully Section 3 by the 
time that other group comes back, and make sure we get to 
scenarios for a portion of today.  I don't - we still did 
not have any public sign-up, so if there are people in the 
audience who have -- are interested in providing public 
comment, please do that so we can organize our time this 
afternoon as best we can.
		Okay.  Cindy, I'm going to for Section 2 then.
		MS. SULTON:  All right.  If we were to just go 
forward with looking at bracketed text, there is not a lot 
of bracketed text until page 10 as I look at it.  Section 2 
actually begins on page 6.  There's a lot of editing.  
There's one place in -- on page 6 in line 3 -- get the right 
line -- I'm sorry, on page 10.  In the --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Now there's some on page 9.
		MS. SULTON:  -- 9.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes, 9, lines 39 to 42 or 40 to 
42.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We needed a correction on 
that.  There's an issue on that.
		MS. SULTON:  It's on the word it?  Is that where 
you're looking?
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  For example.
		MS. SULTON:  For example, okay.  This is a 
question of fact with --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  This is in Section 3, labeling 
requirements triggered when modifications result in 
compositional novelty under the scope portion, and this is 
the example --
		MR. MEDLEY:  What page are we on, Michael?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  This is page 9, lines 40 to 42.  
This is your --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- the issue that you had raised 
about -- and I think, I think your suggestion  was just to 
eliminate the example.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Yes. 
		MS. LAYTON:  And this is in the e-mail that was 
sent to you.  This one is highlighted.  Sorry, I just --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So the sentence reads:  in 
the case where the new product mimics a conventionally bred 
product, it may or may not be exempt from labeling depending 
on the country.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. DYKES:  I'm fine with that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Everyone okay with eliminating 
the example?
		MS. LAYTON:  The country?  
		MS. SULTON:  You talking about eliminating the 
example in its entirety?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.  And then the answer is should 
we use the word on the country?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Sure.
		MS. LAYTON:  The.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Going to use the word -- 
or it?
		MS. ZANNONI:  It.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It being the product?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Michael, the next I see is on page 
11 in line 6.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Variety of factors, including 
detectability of -- why was this bracketed, Michael?  Can 
you give us a little --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  This was a case where there was 
not agreement on how to characterize the whole range of 
factors that might enter into this decision.  And I know in 
fact a good number of the folks who are actually off in 
discussion had views on this particular piece.  I was just 
trying to give -- to capture the various comments that 
people had provided and give a whole lot of different things 
you could cross out if -- to suit yourself and see how 
people felt about the most appropriate text.
		MR. GIROUX:  So, Michael, is there three choices 
here to finish that -- it looks like there's choices, four.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  There's some nested, there's 
some nested stuff in there as well so --
		MS. LAYTON:  Read it, you know, you think the 
choices --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Maybe based on a variety
of factors, including detectability, level of testing and 
political considerations, the level of testing detectability 
or balance of domestic factors, including consumer and 
political considerations, and then the, and then the last 
one has several different possibilities nested within it.  
There's nothing sacred about any of these possibilities.
		David.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I guess the question in my mind 
seems like tolerances are based on politics and things like 
that, not science (maybe I'm wrong), and our ability to 
actually meet those tolerances as a scientific consideration 
-- measure activity and all that.  It seems like to me this 
section confuses both of those in my mind.  I think 
everything is there, but -- that's how I review it.  
		MS. SULTON:  I'm sorry, Randy.
		MR. GIROUX:  So in my conversations, I think it's 
all of the above, all countries save different things.  Some 
trade, you know, trade or use detectability or testing 
capabilities or what the marketplace, what they believe the 
marketplace can achieve in setting a tolerance.  I've yet to 
see a country say they're using it as a political tool.  So 
I would like to see us come out with -- I think we've got 
three options.  I think some are better than others, but I 
think it's important that we would list all those 
considerations.
		MS. SULTON:  Terry.
		MR. MEDLEY:  There just seems to -- it just seems 
like it's a little bit of overkill.  It's, you know, and so 
it seems that there are areas that would be good for 
providing examples so you can simply say that tolerance set 
for AP are often country-specific and may be based upon a 
variety of factors, including detectability, you know, a 
required level of -- well, I was going to say a level of 
testing and marketplace considerations, but I was just 
trying to -- it just seems that we should be able to 
characterize it in a few examples, and not have to repeat 
this over and over again.  And what I've heard from this 
discussion is the detectability -- we'd have to probably say 
level of testing would have to be clarified a little bit, 
and then if there are other -- just used the term 
marketplace considerations or something.  But if there's a 
way we could just do that.
		MR. DYKES:  -- level of testing, testing 
capabilities.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  How about test method 
performance?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MR. DYKES:  So you could say tolerances set for 
APR from countries may be based on a variety of factors, 
including detectability, testing, performance, test method 
performance and considerations in the marketplace.
		MS. SULTON:  When you say test method 
performance, are you talking about the quality of the tests, 
the -- I'm not sure what that denotes.
		MR. GIROUX:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Yes, okay.  How well -- the 
sophistication of the test.
		MR. GIROUX:  Right.  So if certain countries say 
we will test at Level X because we know our methods are 
validated and we can do them to this level.  
		MS. SULTON:  So is it --
		MR. GIROUX:  And that's the level that we chose.  
And so it's the performance of the method as they validated.  
They say this is what the method can do and, therefore, this 
is the tolerance.
		MS. SULTON:  Right.
		MR. JAFFE:  To me I mean the issue is the last 
one which was this idea that sometimes these are not set 
scientifically, and they're not as I said -- on the 
marketplace.  I mean there's that -- Europe will say we 
balanced the consumer groups or the green groups and we did 
a political or consumer -- and that's not marketplace.  So I 
think it's wrong to call that marketplace. There is a 
political -- and other countries just randomly pick a number 
that they think that their consumers will live with or that 
they think they can say they've done the best they can do or 
something along those lines.  I mean I think that --
		MR. MEDLEY:  Consumers aren't a part of the 
marketplace?
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm not saying consumers aren't a 
part of the marketplace, but the decision is not based -- 
it's not a marketplace decision.  It's not -- it's based on 
other -- it's based on other -- it's based on the judgment 
of what politically people --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Acceptable.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- acceptable to people, not based on 
what is market acceptable to them.
		MR. DYKES:  How would you suggest changing it, 
Greg?  What would be your suggestion?
		MS. ZANNONI:  Just add marketplace and political 
considerations?
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah.  I mean --
		MR. DYKES:  So how would you say it?
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't have a problem with any of 
these, to be honest.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I don't either.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Michael said there are 
others in the room who aren't here -- more problems with 
this.
		MS. DILLEY:  Well, I thought it was based on a 
variety of factors, including detectability and test method 
performance, marketplace and political considerations. 
		MR. MARYANSKI:  Marketplace consumer.
		MS. DILLEY:  And political?  	
		MR. MARYANSKI:  Yeah.
		MS. DILLEY:  Marketplace consumer.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I mean consumers have a 
huge impact on that number, way more than the marketplace.
		MS. ZANNONI:  The political situation is 
responding to the consumer, so I would just put consumers 
like you're suggesting and not --
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay, so marketplace and consumer 
consideration. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right, because I'm -- 
considerations, I mean it's so --
		MS. ZANNONI:  Yes, if you put consumer.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Marketplace and consumer 
consideration -- marketplace or consumer considerations.
		MS. MELLON:  Put in all three, marketplace, 
consumer, political.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Just put all --
		MR. MARYANSKI:  The truth is it's all -- 
		MR. DYKES:  I dont really care.  Just long as we 
put something, I think we can close --
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, so --
		MR. DYKES:  So tolerances set for APR may be 
based on variety of factors including detectability, level 
of testing, marketplace, consumer and political 
considerations.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  But test methods performance, okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.  Is that okay?  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Sure.
		MR. DYKES:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What he said.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Got it.
		MR. DYKES:  I think we've captured all the words 
on the next two or three sentences.  
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. SULTON:  And the next is D4.  No, we 
scratched what was bracketed.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's because we didn't 
introduce any of the -- any substantive changes in these 
sections --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- that people had were not, 
were not put in this text.
		MS. SULTON:  So we didn't -- the next thing we 
put in is -- trying to find --
		MR. DYKES:  I don't see any more bracketed text 
up until AP.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I don't either.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So we can continue along in 
sections that we've already reviewed post AP.
		MS. SULTON:  So the next thing is --
		MR. DYKES:  I have one question.  I'll just ask 
the question.  I'll leave it to whoever -- that ad hoc task 
force on biotechnology, what are the officials titles?  That 
is --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Where are you?
		MR. DYKES:  It's under Codex.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I believe that is the official 
title.
		MR. DYKES:  Okay.  Ad Hoc Task Force on 
Biotechnology?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, I --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It is.
		MR. DYKES:  That's fine.  That's fine, that's 
fine, that's all I had.  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  So if we --
		MR. DYKES:  Intergovernmental I think we in there 
as well.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Oh, I missed intergovernmental?  
Sorry.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where is it, Michael?
		MS. DILLEY:  No. We didn't have any brackets. 
It's Ad Hoc Inter-organizational Task Force?
		MR. MARYANSKI:  Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task 
Force.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I don't know where it is 
in --
		MR. MARYANSKI:  It is under Codex.  It's under 
the last paragraph.  It's about five lines up in 
parentheses.	
		MS. ZANNONI:  What's the number?
		MS. SULTON:  It's page 13 number 29.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Intergovernmental.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Intergovernmental,
between --
		MR. DYKES:  Page 13, line 29.
		MS. SULTON:  So it's Ad Hoc Intergovernmental 
Task Force?
		MR. DYKES:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Sorry.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Is that food derived from 
biotechnology, Jim, or is it just biotechnology?
		MR. MARYANSKI:  If you want the whole name, it is 
food derived from biotechnology.
		MR. DYKES:  I think it is Ad Hoc 
Intergovernmental Task Force on Food Derived from 
Biotechnology.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's correct.
		MR. DYKES:  I believe that's technically the 
correct name of it.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, all right.
		MS. DILLEY:  I guess they dont read titles from 
novels.
		MR. DYKES:  Just trying to --
		MS. SULTON:  So that brings us pretty much 
through that section.  The next section with text -- changes 
is in the Issues Section.  Begins around page 35, but I --
		MR. DYKES:  I thought it was on identity 
preservation --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. SULTON:  Are we going to do that section?  I 
thought we were going to --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. SULTON:  Thanks.  I'm sorry.  I didnt mean 
to point.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's okay.
		MS. SULTON:  We're sharing text here.  	So that 
would be preservation systems.
		MR. DYKES:  I had a comment on preservations in 
that second paragraph.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, Michael.
		MR. DYKES:  Page 21, line 23.  We use the word 
segregated biotech varieties, and I really think we are 
talking about biotech products instead of varieties.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  What -- where again, please?
		MR. DYKES:  On page 21, line --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Line 24.
		MR. DYKES:  -- 23 and 4 -- maybe 24, yeah.  I 
would suggest we change varieties to products.  I don't 
think --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Great, great.
		MR. DYKES:  -- we're talking about varieties as 
in --
		MR. JAFFE:  I thought we were -- this is where -- 
now it seems like we're doing other questions, not going 
through bracketed text.  I'm still --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Oh, okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- I'm still --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes, all right.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, moving along with bracketed 
text. 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  There shouldn't be much because 
it  was --
		MS. SULTON:  no.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- because those things were not 
included.
		MS. SULTON:  -- not finding bracketed text.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The next place is on impacts of 
market segmentation.
		MS. SULTON:  Well, we were going to
	 
	MR. SCHECHTMAN:  the next place is on impacts 
	MS. SULTON:  we were going to wait for that one, is 
that correct?  And because that's new text, and -- yeah.  So 
again it brings us back to the policies and issues, 
policies, concerns, and issues raised by the analysis.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I dont' think we should be doing 
that.
		MS. SULTON:  Right.  
		MR. DYKES:  So the impacts of market segmentation 
is all -- that's all new text?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The only pieces that are new are 
first sentence and the replacement text that is on page 31, 
which is -- that I drafted, which is Lines 5 through 9.  The 
rest of it is entirely -- that replaces the stuff that's 
crossed out below it.
		MS. SULTON:  And begins on page 30 in the 
official text.
		MR. DYKES:  And the first sentence was merely put 
in there as I recall the conversation to kind of key up what 
--
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's right.  There was a 
desire for definition.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What page are you on, 
Michael?
		MS. SULTON:  Page --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  This is 30.
		MS. SULTON:  -- page 31, begins, line 21.
		MS. DILLEY:  Just clarifying what's new text.
		MR. DYKES:  The first sentence is new.
		MS. SULTON:  Against market segmentation is
the process.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And I suspect not terribly 
controversial.
		MR. DYKES:  I'm fine with that first sentence.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Just need a few --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.  We'll clearly need to get 
feedback from the other folks on the other piece, but maybe 
we can just take people's temperature here and see where we 
are for just a second.
		MR. DYKES:  I'm fine with both the first sentence 
and the -- over on the other page, the -- most current 
future --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Greg, Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  Substantially equivalent?  We want 
to use that --
		MS. SULTON:  Where are you reading?
		MS. MELLON:  I'm reading on page 31, line 5.  
Just in terms of taking the temperature.  It seems to me 
that the view that most current and future products are 
likely to be substantially equivalent to traditional 
products, I just -- I don't think -- I would just advise 
that we wouldn't want to use that word.  It's -- it carries 
a lot of baggage, and a lot of people don't, you know, take 
the position that in fact none of the products are 
substantially equivalent.  So I don't think you would, you 
know, you might want to say very similar to.
		MR. DYKES:  I was wondering what you were going 
to -- I almost suggested the same reason, Mardi, but I 
didn't -- but change from substantially equivalent to 
similar to or very similar to.  I think I agree with Mardi.  
The two words substantially equivalent have significant --
		MS. MELLON:  I would definitely draw a line on 
that.
		MR. JAFFE:  How do you make a difference between 
most current and future.  I mean future is supposed to be 
things that aren't similar to traditional products.  That's 
the whole point.  So I don't think it's true for -- you can 
say that for current products.  I don't think you can say 
that for future.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Jim.
		MR. MARYANSKI:  I didn't raise substantial 
equivalence in the section on labeling, but I really was 
sitting here groaning over it because it really isn't the 
correct terminology to use there.  And Mardi's right.  
There's been a lot of different views about what the term 
means.  So I think it would be better to use something other 
than that term in this -- and labeling you know we talk 
about significant composition -- changes in the product, but 
we've never used substantially equivalent at FDA to refer to 
labeling changes.  It has now a very precise meaning, but I 
think, you know, for this document, I would agree it would 
be better just not to use it.  Because people will read it 
differently.
		MS. SULTON:  So significantly similar is --
		MS. DILLEY:  To Greg -- I think to Greg's point 
is that the case, I mean are some future products intended 
to be not similar to but maybe it's the emphasis is more on 
although the promise --
		MS. SULTON:  But this is the range.  It says that 
they range from, and that's one, that's one end of the 
range.
		MS. DILLEY:  But it's not a comment on the 
products themselves.  It's just that they --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Would this address it, Greg, 
that a view that most current products are likely to be very 
similar to traditional products and that future products 
offer the promise of addressing --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Why, why do --
		MR. JAFFE:  Current products aren't likely.  
Current products are.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- likely to be --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  They either -- I mean you're talking 
about a view here.  People who are -- technology say the 
current products are --	
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay, okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- or are like future products -- I 
mean --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MS. MELLON:  And my other comment is why we would 
need to make -- market segmentation is further complicated 
by attitudes.  I'm not sure that the attitude that products 
offer a promise of addressing future needs in the U.S., I 
mean how does that, how does that bear on the, on whether 
market segmentation is complicated?  I think, you know, a 
lot of people believe that that might be the case, but that, 
you know, what really differentiates the ends of the 
spectrum is, is how they -- whether they consider things to 
be inherently different or not, at least I --
		MS. SULTON:  Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think Ron wrote this.  He had a 
-- I mean he had -- he comes from the industry and -- market 
segmentation, he wanted to capture this.  I think it would 
be better --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MR. DYKES:  May we just say we have a question 
about the use of the word substantial --
		MS. SULTON:  So we'll hold this --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Why don't, why dont we table 
this piece and then move on.
		MS. SULTON:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Move on.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think we've hit the end of the 
pieces that we can do until everyone comes back.
		MR. DYKES:  So the next piece is a consumer 
piece, and then the policies and the issues. 
		MS. MELLON:  Are we getting copies of the 
comments that Michael and I made on the, on the scenarios so 
that people can look at them?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We haven't done that.  I have, I 
have --
		MS. MELLON:  It might be useful to have copies 
made of those so that people --
		MS. SULTON:  We have comments on so many 
sections, that's why we didn't do that, but we were hoping 
that people would present their comments, the ones that -- 
had strong feelings about.
		MS. MELLON:  But we can't memorize --
		MS. LAYTON:  Can I suggest something?  It's 2:30.  
The cookies are in the back.  Why dont we take a five-
minute break while Abby runs upstairs.  Get your cookie, 
make your phone calls.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Blood sugar.
		MS. LAYTON:  Get your blood sugar up, and let's 
be sitting here at no later than quarter till.
		MR. GIROUX:  Will the rest of the Committee be 
back --
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm hoping --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's what Abby is checking.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- that's what Abby is going to see.
		MR. GIROUX:  Because we need to --
		MS. LAYTON:  We need to move.  And were there any 
public comments that came up?  Just want to check one more 
time. 
		(No response.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So the small group is 
still working.  What we want to do is come back -- and 
they're working productively.  They're not just going out 
for ice cream or something like that.  And what we thought 
we'd do is come back here and start the conversation on 
scenarios.  Obviously we table Juan's question completely 
because we want to do that with full committee, but we're 
going to go forward with the discussion within time of 
trying to do as much on both documents as possible, 
hopefully completing both documents between today and 
tomorrow and start, just get a sense from the people who are 
in the room in terms of your comments on the scenarios as 
has been described in terms of how we would move that 
document to completion, which is to take out answering the 
questions, but leave it at posing the questions, with 
drivers and the three scenarios as an exercise that the 
Department can consider or whatever.  We can draft a cover 
note when we're close enough to finishing that, but just see 
where people have more than editorial comments.  Basically 
are there -- is there anything in these that really is major 
cause for heartburn and what are they?  Are they in the 
drivers section, are they in the scenarios section or the 
questions?  And start that conversation so that we can be 
productive while the other group is still working.  When 
they come back, we'll come back to the traceability and 
labeling, and we hope to do that by about quarter to at the 
latest, right?  Yeah, quarter to.  So that's what we're 
proposing.  So and then we can table the questions to the 
larger group for the 15 minutes -- traceability and labeling 
--
		Is that comfortable to people?  Okay.  So -- 
Angela, you want to -- well do we want to just take this 
section-by-section or step back and just get overall 
comments?  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  You want to introduce it?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I think we've done that.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think it's been introduced.  Juan 
I think is hopefully going to be back here at quarter after 
three for the discussion, but -- so why dont we just take 
the -- what we know or think we know section and see if 
there's any major substantive comments on where that is.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me just add one point.  I 
know there were comments that were sent in to improve the 
text from various people that are not in here.  Particularly 
I know Mardi and Michael.  And I guess the question is not 
so much all the comments that might improve the text, since 
I think if we're trying to really get something out, it's 
not just for the small improvements, but it's for things 
that are really, really central.
		MS. MELLON:   Well, I mean for what it's worth, I 
can't remember what my comments were.  I join Michael.  
Sorry, but it was a long time ago.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We're printing them out.
		MS. MELLON:  Thank you.  But I can say that I, I 
did not, I know that my comments were not of a major --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Heartburn variety.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes, heartburn variety.  I was quite 
happy with the way the scenarios had developed, and so I 
think I did have some comments, but I do think that they 
were either minor or editorial.
		MS. DILLEY:  Anybody else have comments?  
Michael, did any of your comments go to the first section?
		MR. DYKES:  Again, I'd jus like to reiterate for 
the record I have not read any of my comments.  I've not 
read anything on scenarios because scenarios was not on 
today's agenda.  But having said that, as I recall from 
August, I didn't think that the scenarios, and I think they 
were drastically improved as I'm recalling from the last 
plenary where we had as I recall looking at the first two 
scenarios we had picked up some of the, the drivers and 
incorporated those into the different scenarios so that I 
thought we had broadened the scenarios out so that they fit 
a broader range of issues.  I also thought, and again I'm 
going from recall here, so I also thought that on many of 
the drivers were all the negative drivers, but I think when 
the work group got together prior to the last plenary I 
thought they had also looked at both positive and negative 
drivers.  So I guess I -- as I recall of the two scenarios 
that we had from the last plenary, I thought they had been 
drastically improved, and I don't recall major, major 
problems that I had with either of those two.  So that's 
kind of if I had to summarize for my own mind, I am on 
those, that's where it is.  And I guess I'd add one more, 
optimistic that if the work group had worked on the third 
scenario and had made commensurate adjustments to that as 
they did with the first two probably be fine, but again I'm 
going from August so.
		MS. DILLEY:  So the only one just for my 
recollection, only one that has not been incorporated into 
the document has been -- the work group didnt get a chance 
to really work through in the same manner on scenarios one 
and two or three, right?
		MS. LAYTON:  Can I as a question?  When I look at 
the document, it is -- it talks about, you know, note to 
Committee members on what we know or think we know.  That 
section had been reviewed by the work group.  We worked very 
hard on that, I know several times in.  Is that section 
pretty well done?  And then if you move to the next section, 
which was what we don't really know, the notes in there say 
what is much -- certain needed to review -- that needed a 
review, and then a question I would have is was there a 
section in the scenarios work group conference call thoughts 
that indicated that they have reviewed it, and that they 
were more comfortable with it?  And, Angela, you were on 
those conference calls.  Did a lot -- did much changes go 
into or was there much to change and what is much less 
certain?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  What is much less certain was 
not -- there were not huge numbers of changes, but it was 
not reviewed.  The last work group did not go back and look 
at those.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so that still has not been 
done.
		MR. MEDLEY:  To look at what now?  I'm sorry.
		MS. LAYTON:  What is much less certain.  Your 
notes on the -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Page 5.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- it's page 5, and your note on 
page 5 says the work group needs to further review this 
section.  So I guess I would feel comfortable with having a 
feeling of where the work group is on that based on all the 
work that was done.  And I think that was for the October 
2nd -- 22nd conference call or any subsequent work on that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, and I think, I think that 
intent to further review that section was really to see 
further in response to your question, Michael, about some of 
the drivers being negative.		
		MR. MEDLEY:  You mean in the last --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  In pages 5 --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Through 7.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- through 7.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Of the scenario document?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MR. MEDLEY:  What is --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay, the two parts that have 
been less reviewed apart from implications, which maybe are 
going elsewhere, is the What is Much Less Certain and the 
third scenario.  And the question about the What is Much 
Less Certain piece was, as I recall the discussion, really 
going mostly towards ensuring that some of the uncertainties 
were positive uncertainties as well as negative 
uncertainties.
		MR. DYKES:  That squares with my recollection as 
well.
		MS. LAYTON:  So my question is, do we feel -- how 
do we feel about those from the Committee?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Do you want to give people 
a couple of minutes to look it over?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.  Can we do that?
		MR. DYKES:  How do we feel about it in this 
document --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Uh-huh.
		MR. DYKES:  -- that we are now, the November -- 
what we -- the November 29th document, is that the document 
--
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MR. DYKES:  We are dealing with three documents.  
The November 29th document, is that the document?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  That's it.
		MR. DYKES:  And then we are dealing with -- when 
we keep talking about questions, are we dealing with 
scenarios work group conference call October 22nd?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That was largely for 
implications, which we are --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Not going to --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- not going to talk about 
except for the list of the questions that are in that.
		(Simultaneous questions.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The questions, not the 
implications.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- conclusions of this 
paper or --
		MS. DILLEY:  Terry, you are looking puzzled.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yeah, I --
		MS. DILLEY:  Why?
		MR. MEDLEY:  If we're looking -- if the concern 
is -- positive as well as negative for what's -- what is 
much less certain, that section is written in terms of 
questions that can go either way.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. MEDLEY:  It's just questions.  It doesn't say 
either negative or positive.
		MR. DYKES:  Well, I guess --
		MS. DILLEY:  It was more tone then.		
		MR. MEDLEY:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  So what we're asking is take a 
couple of minutes to read pages 5 through 7, and see is that 
section --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Good.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- good, yeah.
		MS. MELLON:  Could I just, since we've got Jerry 
here, can I just ask one factual question about on page 5 
about soybeans?  It says enormous new agricultural commodity 
production areas will -- in South America, particularly in 
Brazil and Argentina.  There will be tremendous pressure and 
structural change in the soybean market.  This could have 
implications on sourcing soybeans given that this is the 
only large open commodity market for the U.S. in the 
European Union.  That just doesn't make any sense. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That doesn't make any 
sense at all.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Mardi, where are you?
		MS. MELLON:  I'm on page 5.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The second to last --
		MR. SLOCUM:  No. It's the second bullet.   The 
big bullet at the top of the page.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Oh, I see.  
		MS. DILLEY:  -- enormous new agricultural 
commodity production areas --
		MS. MELLON:  What's the concept here?
		MR. SLOCUM:  The concept is that, is that we 
don't sell any corn in Europe because of biotech issues.  
They dont want to import any U.S. corn into Europe anymore 
because of biotech issues, and they still import a lot of 
soybeans.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. SLOCUM:  If you look at commodity trade 
between U.S. and Europe, it's a big chunk out of the 
soybeans.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. SLOCUM:  So the statement is right that there 
will be huge new areas -- Argentina -- structure, structure 
changes -- so we just need to reword that last sentence.  I 
think what we want to point out is the importance of the 
European soybean market to U.S. growers.  Because it's the 
second largest market that the U.S. sells -- the European 
Union is.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay, so the new soybean acreage, 
what it could mean would be that there would be an increased 
supply of non-transgenic soybeans that could go to the 
European Union?
		MR. SLOCUM:  There's an increasing supply of both 
transgenic and non-transgenic.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Right.  Yeah, I mean because from 
what I review -- over the last year or so, if you take the 
combined soybean production yields in Argentina and Brazil, 
we're getting to a point where those yields were meeting and 
then exceeding the yields here in the U.S., and Europe is a 
major market for soybeans, especially for animal feed.  And 
so the way I read this is that with those increased 
capacities in Brazil and Argentina, there is then this issue 
of competition for that European market, whereas those from 
Brazil and Argentina could be sourced to replace what's 
currently now coming from the U.S.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's right.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think we all -- I remember having 
that discussion before, and you all said that was what was 
going to happen so.
		MR. MEDLEY:  It could.
		MS. LAYTON:  It could.   Could happen.  
		MR. SLOCUM:  -- should be that this could have, 
this could have implications on exports of soybeans given 
that this is --
		MS. LAYTON:  This meaning EU?
		MR. SLOCUM:  What's this?  
		MR. MEDLEY:  No, I think that --
		MR. SLOCUM:  This is EU.
		MR. MEDLEY:  -- this could have implications on 
the U.S. export of soybeans.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Right.
		MR. MEDLEY:  Given that this is the only --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's better.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's much better.
		MR. MEDLEY:  It's the U.S. export of soybeans.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's right.
		MS. LAYTON:  On the U.S. --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Export of soybeans.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- export --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And then that can go 
either way.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MS. DILLEY:  And then does that -- the rest 
of it say the same, Terry, then given that this is the only 
-- 
		MR. SLOCUM: That goes away.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Don't need that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Just goes away.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  So the final sentence is just this 
could have implications on the U.S. export of soybeans, 
period.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's right, because it 
doesn't --
		MS. LAYTON:  Absolutely.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Biotech is not the issue.
		MS. MELLON:  Exactly.  That's what I was trying 
to get to.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Exactly.  That's what I 
was trying to get to, just that you've got this huge new soy 
source -- okay, great.  Thank you.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Do you want a minute to look over 
the rest of it or you want ready to talk about it?  And that 
is what is much less certain -- 5, 6, 7.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Could someone explain the 
documents that were sent out?
		MS. LAYTON:  One is Michael Dykes' comments, and 
one is Mardi Mellon's comments.  MM is at the top of 
Mardi's, and M -- Michael Dykes' name is at the top of his.
		MS. DILLEY:  Randy, you have a question?
		MR. GIROUX:  I'm okay for us to proceed as long 
as it's not -- is there anything someone is not happy with?  
If we can take it in --
		MS. DILLEY:  No.
		MR. GIROUX:  -- bite size pieces so we could kind 
of skim and read as we're going through it, I think that 
would be a lot more productive.
		MS. LAYTON:  So disruptive events.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  One paragraph at a time.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, and then nothing on disruptive 
events -- I just got finished reading. Does anybody --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Randy, slow down.
		MR. GIROUX:  -- too quick.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So where are we reading?  
What page, which document?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Top of page 6.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Five, bottom of five -- 
six.  From our -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  November 29th document. 
		MR. BUSS:  -- where it says current popularity of 
-- 
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I'll tell you, there's a 
lot of people out there --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  If you just say low carb 
diet, I don't know that you need current popularity --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, good.  
		MS. LAYTON:  So just low carb -- for example low 
carb diets.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right. 
		MS. DILLEY:  Anything on democratic -- move to 
political uncertainty?
		MR. SLOCUM:  Going too fast.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  
		(Pause.)
		MR. DYKES:  I think one of the things under 
political uncertainties -- the European Union a decade from 
now be granting access for -- I guess that's a question so 
you can't -- the kind of -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Increasing? Increased --
		MR. DYKES:  Increasing.  I think the point is 
it's there, although very limited, but --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Increasing instead of 
granting?
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Or just increasing access.  
		MR. MEDLEY:  That's true, but that's a -- 
hopefully it goes in that direction.
		MS. LAYTON:  That's why it's a question.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, that's why it was a 
question. 
		MS. LAYTON:  Terry, once again, thank you so much 
for your service on this Committee, and we really appreciate 
your being here.
		MR. MEDLEY:  And I will continue and whatever is 
called upon, if it's another meeting or whatever, I'm happy 
to do that.
		MS. LAYTON:  Thank you again, Terry.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Thanks, Terry.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Bye, Terry.
		(Mr. Medley exits room.)
		MR. SLOCUM:  Maybe because that language was 
written while the moratorium was still on.  It's -- maybe we 
ought to just say will the European Union continue to grant 
access.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Oh, yeah, yeah that's it.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Because we, we wrote that sentence -
- European Union in a decade be granting access.  We wrote 
it -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.  So we changed it to will the 
European Union a decade from now be increasing access for 
transgenic crops and growing them as well.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Anything else on political 
uncertainties?
		Okay, so people have moved on to technological.
		MR. BUSS:  Under the technological, five lines 
down, the first part of that sentence needs to go away 
because it links into Chapter 2.  So if you just start the, 
start of the sentence that says which products will make it 
to the U.S. access.
	MS. LAYTON:  so 
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, that's one of my suggestions 
too.  Also in the first -- second sentence, I think there's 
too many "wills."  With an evolving regulatory system, it is 
uncertain how quickly will new applications will reach the 
marketplace here or in other countries.  I think -- get rid 
of the first will was my suggestion.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Stick to her --
		MS. LAYTON:  No, that's editorial.   I'm sorry.  
That wasn't substantive.
		MR. DYKES:  Is that a violation?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes, it is.  We'll take 
it, but let's not go in that trend.  We're sticking with 
heartburn stuff.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Mardi is out of the room 
and she had a comment --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What was her comment?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  About the reference to the 
safety --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where is that?
		(simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, Mardi had a comment I'll bring 
up under the question, will additional cases of food safety 
issues with organically grown produce continue or expand 
with the expanding organic market, and will consumers demand 
their -- demand other agricultural products.  And Mardi's 
comment is, I'm not aware of any cases of food processing -- 
poisoning traced to certified organic production.  But even 
if there were a few cases it is important enough -- is not 
important enough to mention here.
		MR. GIROUX:  So I disagree.  I think there are 
several cases where -- and whether it's organic food or 
whether it was -- there are a number of instances where 
organic produce has been removed the market.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me suggest that we wait 
until -- let's hold this when -- Mardi probably just went to 
say goodbye to Terry.  And she'll be back in a minute.  
Let's come back.  Let's come back to this.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  I just want to mark that 
place though.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  Any other comments on that section?
		MR. DYKES:  I think that's also an issue in 
Hawaii with crops coming in under the organic -- to the 
environment that --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let's mention that when Mardi's 
back so we can have the whole discussion on it, if we can.
		MR. DYKES:  I was just responding to the 
question.
		(Pause.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Are we up to environmental 
uncertainties?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.  We'll come back to that 
section when Mardi gets back in the room.
		(Pause.)
		MS. LAYTON:  In that section, I don't think -- 
are we talking about transgenic animal products in the -- in 
this chapter or was that in an earlier chapter?  There's a 
paragraph in here that says as discussed earlier in this 
report, these include transgenic animal-derived products, 
plant-derived food products engineered to offer specific 
health benefits to consumers and plant and livestock 
producing pharmaceutical or industrial compounds.  Are these 
in the drivers piece?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No, they're in earlier 
chapters.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Earlier chapters.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So maybe we can just --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I think that whole 
sentence is referring to --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MS. DILLEY:  Or you can say increasingly novel 
products such as and put some of those in there and then 
close out the sentences.
		MS. LAYTON:  So take out as discussed earlier in 
these -- in this report.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And these includes such -- and 
just say such as.
		MS. LAYTON:  Such as --
		MR. SLOCUM:  Such as.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And we'll just rearrange the 
sentence to make it --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MR. BUSS:  In the first sentence in that 
paragraph -- large body who would argue that the effects of 
global warming are already apparent, and so would it be 
better to say the serious effects of global warming become 
more pressing within the within the next decade?
		MS. MELLON:  I'd be glad to do that.
		MS. LAYTON:  I have to say that some people in 
the world don't think --
		MS. MELLON:  Where are you?
		MS. LAYTON:  -- they're there, though.
		MS. MELLON:  -- serious effects of global warming 
--
		MR. GIROUX:  Take away the word more, will become 
pressing.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Will become pressing, okay, 
okay.
		MR. BUSS:  That works.
		MR. DYKES:  So you're replacing apparent -- the 
apparent with become --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Becoming pressing.
		MR. DYKES:  Become pressing.
		MR. GIROUX:  That was a question, right?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I'm happy.  
		MS. LAYTON:  I can live with that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Is there anything else in that 
section?
		MR. BUSS:  The second paragraph, the first 
sentence, will consumer opinion regarding the technology
remain malleable, which means -- implies manipulation, and 
like I said earlier -- something like remain open or 
something to that effect.  Do you see what I'm saying?
		MS. LAYTON:  So in other words delete malleable 
and open --
		MR. BUSS:  Well, or something to that effect.
		MR. SLOCUM:  The concept was that they're still 
being formed.
		MS. DILLEY:  Flexible.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  Evolving?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Continues to evolve.
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually I was thinking of the word 
nave.  But that's not probably the right word either.
		MR. BUSS:  Open-minded.
		MR. GIROUX:  Changeable.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  How about changeable?  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I like that changeable.
		MS. DILLEY:  Is there anything else in that 
section -- to come back?
		MR. DYKES  What did we change then?  Did we 
change malleable to changeable?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MR. GIROUX:  Then the last --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So do --
		MR. GIROUX:  -- would have to go away, right, 
difficult to alter or --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Question mark, delete rest of 
sentence.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Uh-huh.
		MR. BUSS:  So, Randy, in that context of using 
changeable, do you mean open to change or changeable plus, 
minus on a given day?
		MR. GIROUX:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, yeah, I think it's either one.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay, either one.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Long as you can read it 
either way and --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.  It's not hard to -
-
		MS. LAYTON:  Mardi's back.  Before we progress 
too far, do we want to go back to her comment on page 5 
under technology and regulatory uncertainties?
		Mardi -- page 6.  And this is in the first 
paragraph, and it's about organically grown produce and food 
safety issues.
		MS. MELLON:  We -- yeah.  I'm not aware of any 
cases of food poisoning that have been traced to certified 
organic foods.  I mean that's just -- I dont even know 
where that comes from.
		MR. GIROUX:  So maybe I don't understand the 
context of the question.  Is this organically grown 
certified food in the United States or is it food poisoning 
versus recalls?  Meaning I'm not sure how broadly that 
you're trying to make that statement.  Because we know there 
have been several recalls for vomitoxin not specifically 
tied to organic, but it's been organic produce that's been 
taken off the shelf.
		MS. MELLON:  Right, but it's not -- I mean 
there's nothing that shows that we're any more likely to 
have a recall of anything coming from a certified -- coming 
from certified organic food.  It just isn't -- there's just 
no -- there are simply no data.  Yes, there are recalls that 
include conventional food, and there are recalls that 
include organic food.  But why would you mention organic 
food as if it's something special?  There are recalls all 
the time.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Is the issue about 
recalls?
		MS. MELLON:  I would just suggest that we -- I 
mean additional cases of food safety issues with organically 
grown produce.  I just think we should delete that.  There 
are just -- there aren't any cases out there right now that 
have any meaning.
		MS. LAYTON:  Could you live with that sentence 
gone, that question gone?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I'm trying to understand 
where it came from, and I guess there are some people that 
believe that, you know, that organic food is safer or better 
for you.  And on the other side of the coin, it really 
isn't.   So or may not be in some instances, and so I'm 
trying to -- I don't know where it came from.
		MS. MELLON:  I don't either.
		MS. LAYTON:  I don't either.  It doesn't actually 
look like it fits.
		MR. GIROUX:  So there is a perception or a -- not 
a perception, but a lot of people moving towards organic 
foods.  So if something bad happened in organic like 
something bad could happen in biotech -- both sides the full 
picture, I'm just wondering if that's  -- is that plausible 
that something bad could happen in organic food and people 
could say you know I'm really not going to eat the same way.
		MS. MELLON:  I mean surely that could happen, but 
I'm just not sure why it would be in technological and 
regulatory uncertainties that's, you know, it just doesnt -
- just seems to me like a, you know, like an outlier.  It's 
clear there are people that, you know, I can name a few 
names, people making this case, but they are not -- it's not 
backed up by data that there is any -- that there are any 
more food safety incidents of any sort associated with 
certified organic or even just natural -- natural foods, 
organic foods and with conventional food.  So I just think 
it's not -- and, you know, we don't -- this is not the, this 
is not an issue we're discussing.  It's only an example.  So 
I would just suggest that we do without it.
		MS. LAYTON:  So anybody have heartburn if we 
delete that question?
		MR. DYKES:  That may have come from me as I'm 
trying to sort through my comments here because I looked 
through two different texts.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What is underlined --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's -- on Michael, on 
your comments dated August 16th, it's underlined, which 
means
		MS. AGOSTO:  On Michael, on your comments dated 
August 16th it's underlined which means that it was added.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Added.
		MS. AGOSTO:  By you.
		MR. DYKES:  Okay.  So this probably came from me.  
So I guess maybe what I was trying to get at there, Mardi, 
is will there be changes, will there be unknown issues in 
the organically-grown produce that can somehow  create 
uncertainties, regulatory uncertainties.  So maybe it's too 
strongly worded.
		MS. MELLON:  Well, I just don't think -- I mean 
we're --
		MS. LAYTON:  We're not talking about organics 
here.
		MS. MELLON:  At all.  I mean there are lots of 
alternatives out there, alternative foods that are, that are 
not, you know, transgenic.  I -- just doesn't seem that it's 
a pertinent --
		MR. DYKES:  The previous -- says -- new products 
developed using the wealth of new genomic information be 
transgenic or whether it be non-transgenic developed through 
--		
		MS. MELLON:  Maybe we could say well some of 
these, you know, turn out to have problems.
		MR. JAFFE:  Couldn't you just say -- will 
organically grown produce continue and expand and will 
consumers -- or will consumers demand other agricultural 
products?
		MS. LAYTON:   I don't think organic is an issue 
here though.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's not the issue.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's not the issue.  I'd say just 
delete the question.
		MR. DYKES:  All right.
		MS. LAYTON:  Now the last question there about 
U.S. farmers, is that still a valid question there? 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so that stays.  
		MS. MELLON:  Michael -- I would argue it's a 
little redundant, but you know since we've already talked 
somewhat --
		MR. JAFFE:  I think I may have added that 
sentence as well.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  You did.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think where it's coming from is 
with the regulatory uncertainties in South America and with 
the technology in South America.  That's why I put it there.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay, I mean I'm happy with that.
		MS. LAYTON:  That seems logical.
		MR. JAFFE:  As I recall.
		MS. MELLON:  That sounds good.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, back then to agricultural and 
food system uncertainties.  
		MR. BUSS:  Could I just back up to --
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. BUSS:  -- environmental uncertainties?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. BUSS:  I guess in the discussion we just had 
prompted me to notice that other than global warming, we 
don't really talk about the environment very much under 
environmental uncertainties.  I was wondering if it was 
worthwhile having an additional question that might read 
something like will pressure for reduced fertilizer, water 
or chemical use drive support for biotech products?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I as I -- I'm trying to 
get my thoughts together.  I thought there was a whole 
missing piece on the problems of water availability.  Yeah.  
So I'm kind of -- where you are, I think --
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually, water availability is in a 
certainty and it is water issues will become increasingly 
important domestically and international.  There will be 
increasing pressure on fresh water supplies and less water 
will be unviable for agricultural purposes.  Overall world 
fresh water quality will decline.  Linkage between water 
conservation, new agricultural technologies and -- 
agricultural will become increasingly important.  So those 
are incertainties not uncertainties.
		MR. BUSS:  Only the water fee.
		MS. LAYTON:  The water -- what else were you 
asking about?  I'm sorry.
		MR. BUSS:  I had lumped actually three of them, 
fertilizer, water or chemicals.  So we could take water out 
as an uncertainty, and we --
		MS. MELLON:  Should they really be added to 
certainties the concerns about that there will be increasing 
concerns about the use of fertilizers and --
		MR. MARYANSKI:  Much less certain, isn't 
that --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What's your question 
again, Daryl?
		MR. BUSS:  Well, I don't know.  I was posing the 
question of should we add in that section under 
environmental uncertainties, the question of will pressure 
for reduced fertilizer or chemical use drive support for 
biotech products?  It could be turned around as a certainty.
		MS. MELLON:  I mean I'm happy with that.
		MS. LAYTON:  The certainty -- I'm sorry.  The 
certainty on fertilizers is in the increasing price and 
diminishing supply of fossil fuels will become an ever more 
urgent concern for U.S. agriculture, and it says, and I'm 
continuing the sentence, in addition high energy prices 
could constrain the use of synthetic fertilizers in the U.S. 
and also pose a challenge for the long-term viability of new 
agricultural lands that are dependent on large fertilizer 
inputs.  That's --
		MR. BUSS:  But that would be determined entirely 
by economics.
		MS. LAYTON:  That's an economic certainty and not 
an environmental point.  I'm looking.  I'm continuing to 
look.
		MS. MELLON:  I mean I guess since we've mentioned 
it in certainties, we probably dont need to raise it.  It 
really is a certainty, you know, that the -- I would say 
that these things are, are -- that's the direction they're 
headed. I think the question --
		MS. LAYTON:  The uncertain --
		MS. MELLOW:  -- might be to look and make sure 
that it's reflected in the scenarios.
		MR. BUSS:  That it's somewhere.
		MS. LAYTON:  And that's why I was looking.  The 
uncertainty that I thought about on the environmental side 
might be something about animal waste products or 
byproducts.  Animal waste products, increasing -- if you've 
got a lot of feed animals, how do we deal with the waste 
products from those animals, but I dont think that's a 
transgenic issue, so I think it's --
		MR. GROUP:  I think one of the issues that's 
missing here is sustainability under environmental 
uncertainties.  I think the court's still out.  Some people 
say that it is more sustainable, other people say that it's 
really not more sustainable.  So what is the uncertainty 
then if biotech will, will demonstrate that it's a more 
sustainable farming system, and then what does that -- what 
are the impacts of that?  That was -- f it's not true 
something happens.  If it is true, something happens.
		MS. MELLON:  I dont know.  I guess I wish that 
was, that was true, but I think I'm not --
		MS. GIROUX:  You don't agree it's true?
		MS. MELLON:  No, I just -- what my -- where my, 
my concern is, is that the word sustainable is a mushy word 
that the notion that people would agree that that anything 
is sustainable or is not.  I have a hard time seeing that 
that actually kind of has ramifications.
		MR. GIROUX:  Could we say improved sustainability 
over convention agriculture?  Could we qualify it and say 
that it's improving, improves the sustainability -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  As a question.
		MS. MELLON:  So you would want to have a question 
that would say, you know, will biotechnology turn out to 
improve the --
		MR. GIROUX:  Demonstrate.
		MS. MELLON:  -- or be seen to improve the 
sustainability of 
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. GIROUX:  -- production agriculture.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay, production agriculture.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  But that should go in the last 
section, right?
		MR. GIROUX:  Yeah.
		MR. DYKES:  But I think he's talking about from 
an environmental --
		MS. LAYTON:  The environmental --
		MS. MELLON:  No, it actually is better in the 
environmental --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay, okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Can we, can we read that again then?
		MS. MELLON:  Well, agricultural biotechnology --
		MS. LAYTON:  Will ag biotech, abbreviated.
		MS. MELLON:  We want to say be seen to improve or 
--
		MR. GIROUX:  Demonstrate that it improves --
		MS. MELLON:  demonstrate --	
		MR. GIROUX:  -- sustainability of production 
agriculture.
		MS. MELLON:  That it --
		MS. LAYTON:  Will ag biotechnology demonstrate 
improvements that --
		MR. GIROUX:  And the sustainability of production 
agriculture.
		MS. MELLON:  Or the sustainability of --
		MS. LAYTON:  In sustainability in production 
agriculture.
		MS. MELLON:  In the sustainability of production 
agriculture.
		MS. SULTON:  In the sustainability of production 
agriculture.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Would you repeat --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Hang on.
		MS. SULTON:  Will agricultural biotechnology have 
demonstrable improvements in the sustainability of 
production agriculture?
		MS. MELLON:  I would actually say will 
agricultural biotechnology demonstrate improvements in the 
sustainability of production ag.
		MS. LAYTON:  In the sustainability of production 
ag.  That's what I thought, uh-huh.  
		MR. BUSS:  That works.
		MS. LAYTON:  As a question, and that goes in the 
second section, second paragraph or the first paragraph?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  First paragraph, end of 
the first paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  First paragraph.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- first paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		(Pause.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, and this, and the U.S. 
agriculture -- you can mention Wal-Mart specifically.
		MR. GIROUX:  So I'm afraid that -- I'm afraid 
that adding that line that I just mentioned may create --
		MS. LAYTON:  Havoc?	
		MR. GIROUX:  Create havoc, and maybe I broke the 
rules when I said that because --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We're only supposed to be 
working on the text so --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  This is true. 
		MR. GIROUX:  So I will rescind that if that's 
okay, because I don't want us to create more issues then we 
have.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Thank you, Randy.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Take out the whole --
		MS. LAYTON:  -- of a question.  
		MR. GIROUX:  I just don't want us to --
		MR. DYKES:  You've got a lot of buzz words in 
there.  There ought to be a red flag.
		MR. GIROUX:  I was just thinking about the 
people --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I agree, I agree.
		MS. MILEWSKI:  I wanted to just ask a question.  
That next paragraph that begins with consumer opinion 
regarding the technology remains changeable.  Why are 
questions about consumers in the environmental area?  
Wouldn't it seem more logical just to have --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I wonder if there was just a 
missing heading.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, that is a consumer section and 
not environment. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Consumer uncertainties.
		MS. LAYTON:  Consumer uncertainties?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Thank you, Elizabeth.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.  I think that must be a missing 
heading.  Thank you.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Let's make sure that we -- make sure 
that Mardi -- I mean that --
		MS. DILLEY:  Supposed to be back -- I'm locked 
out of the cafeteria, so I cannot get the doors do not open.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I hope they are not locked in.
		MS. DILLEY:  I didn't see any faces pressed up 
against the windows so --
		(Simultaneous comments.) 
		MS. MELLON:  I'd like to go back to the question, 
will there be consumer backlash against large conglomerates 
or will this not be an issue for the majority of consumers?   
Do we really need the second -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Either it is or it isn't.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Not really.
		MS. MELLON:  I mean will there be a consumer 
backlash against large conglomerates?
		MS. LAYTON:  Question.
		MR. SLOCUM:  As they renew their Sam's cards.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Which one --
		MS. LAYTON:  We dropped the phrase, or will this 
not be an issue for the majority of consumers after will 
there be consumer backlash against large conglomerates.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where are we?
		MS. LAYTON:  Consumer uncertainties.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Oh, I got it.
		MR. GIROUX:  Do we have to mention Wal-Mart 
specifically?
		MS. LAYTON:  Oh, I really wanted to.  Well, I 
love them but I hate them.
		MR. DYKES:  I'm trying to figure out what was 
dropped.  
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Under consumer uncertainties.  
		MR. SLOCUM:  Talking about Wal-Mart reminded 
Mardi of large conglomerates.  Imagine that?  
		MR. DYKES:  I don't know why Mardi would jump to 
such a conclusion.
		(Laughter.)
		MS. LAYTON:  And you really could take out like 
Wal-Mart.  I think mega-retailers are sufficient.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Sufficient.  People will 
visualize.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right, right.
		MR. SLOCUM:  We could put i.e., Wal-Mart.  Be 
more accurate.
		MR. GIROUX:  I don't understand this one.  Will 
there be consumer backlash against alleged conglomerates.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, in my town there was a huge 
backlash against building a Wal-Mart in our town --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  In Loudun County and 
several places.
		MR. BUSS:  Certainly --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  They still build them.
		MR. SLOCUM:  They still build them.  They build 
them and the parking lot fills up and they stay.
		MR. BUSS:  So they actually are modifying their, 
their --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MS. MELLON:  That was one of my suggestions.
		MR. GIROUX:  What was that?
		MS. MELLON:  Well, this was I was in my Juan 
mode.  Is that the end of the -- is at the end of the 
paragraph beginning down the food chain, it talks about Wal-
Mart, you know, how they look, conglomerations, how much 
consolidation or expansions will there be, what will be 
added to its work product containing transgenic-derived 
ingredients.  And then I ask whether the convergence of the 
interest of Wal-Mart, the world's largest retail, and China, 
a major U.S. competitor, will emerge as a problem or an 
opportunity for U.S. agriculture.   I think the most 
interesting thing out there is that the world's largest 
retailer, Wal-Mart is requiring its suppliers to go to 
China, which is our largest competitor.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  More than half of the non-
food stuff in the store is made in China, more than half of 
non-food stuff in the store is made in China.  
		MS. MELLON:  But it also raises a whole new set 
of questions.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MS. MELLON:  And if there were even the slightest 
disinterest in it, I think --
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think that we need it.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. JAFFE:  We could -- gets into a whole area 
that's a little far a field in terms of merchandising and --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Interesting nonetheless.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Interesting, but let's go.
		MS. MELLON:  That's part of the discussion 
between the coordinating committee and our committee, 
committee.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So in the absence of your 
dying on the heart there, we're going to drop that.
		MR. DYKES:  So all we changed in that last 
paragraph was, delete like Wal-Mart.
		MS. LAYTON:  Like Wal-Mart, yes.  Okay, next.  
Envisioning -- this is just an opening paragraph under 
envisioning a -- possible future.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So the question do you 
want to keep going in this mode and wait for the other group 
or --
		MR. SLOCUM:  Keep going.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.  Okay.  		
		MR. BUSS:  Use the time.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  I would ask one more question.  If 
this were to go out on its own, is there something that 
should be added to the beginning, and how would we come up 
with that?
		MR. JAFFE:  Page 1 you're talking about or --
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, I just went back to think 
about that, and I didn't know if there was --
		MR. DYKES:  Think about that now?
		MS. LAYTON:  No.  But I want us to not forget 
that.  It's a question.  I'm posing a comment.  Because 
there may be something from like Section One, the 
introductory section that needed a little pre-paragraph or 
something that may have to come in.  I just want us to make 
sure we get to that point at some point in time.
		MR. JAFFE:  Actually the beginning reads fine.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Pretty good.
		MR. JAFFE:  Maybe we can just say to the 
Secretary, you know, you asked us to do task one.  Here's 
that paper that we did that supports part of task one.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  A cover letter.
		MS. LAYTON:  A cover letter will do.  Cover 
letter will do.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think this is good.  I actually 
think -- the beginning paragraph says we were charged to do 
this, and here's what we did.
 		MS. MELLON:  Can we at least have one paragraph, 
I mean one sentence that says that we hope that the USDA 
will --
		MS. DILLEY:  Want that in a cover note, cover 
letter or --
		MS. MELLON:  Yeah, cover note I -- but that they 
will consider using scenario development and planning, and 
we encourage them to, you know, look at the questions that 
we offered for implications and see if those, you know, 
wouldn't be useful guidelines for the USDA as it moves 
forward.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  I'm back, okay, sorry.  It's 
there.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  If you want to be specific about 
it for those staying on the Committee, this is the type of 
document that's like to get the Secretary to want to come 
and sit down, talk about -- particularly over the next three 
weeks as he's trying to figure out what he's going to -- 
this is the kind of thing that would bring him here to say, 
that was interesting, tell me more.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.  I mean I think we, we 
hope -- we would like to see if we could get the Sectary to 
come to the next meeting,  but you know obviously there's no 
promises on this yet.  He's still figuring out where he is, 
and it may be that some of you might want to hear that 
conversation even if you're not on the committee.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  This is the kind of thing that 
landing on his desk in the first month in office could lead 
him to ask more questions.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Are we gong to say here are 
the titles of the three scenarios as a separate sort of 
paragraph all on its own?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  -- paragraph out of that.
		MS. DILLEY:  So title and description, is that 
what you're suggesting doing?
		MR. SLOCUM:  Why don't we say the three scenarios 
we decided to look at are, and make that part and then make 
that part of the paragraph, and then -- each scenarios -- 
description of what the world might look like.
		MS. LAYTON:  So start with the titles of the 
three scenarios, delete, colon, are, something and Rosy 
Future, Continental Islands, and Biotech goes Niche.  No 
paragraph.  Each scenario is intended as a coherent 
description of what the world might look like after events 
driven by the uncertain -- the certainties and some of the 
key uncertainties listed above --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  All one paragraph.  And 
then does that next thing go in that same paragraph, these 
are not predictions of the future or is that a separate 
paragraph?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's a separate 
paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Separate paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think it's an important piece, so 
I want -- I think standing it out is okay --  
		MR. SLOCUM:  Well we, you know, we think all 
those -- the bolded things --
		MS. LAYTON:  Should stand out.		
		MR. SLOCUM:  Yeah.  And in fact Terry thinks that 
the sentence starts with however should be bold.  I speak 
for him.  You know, he -- that's the sentence he read to us 
earlier in the day.
		MS. MELLON;  We could bold the whole paragraph.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, why don't we just do 
the whole paragraph bold and make it all --
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually does that paragraph end?  
I'm wondering if there's a missing space there or --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- if there's a missing -- there is 
an additional return that needs to be changed.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  It's all one paragraph.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  All one paragraph.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Just one paragraph.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The whole thing from 
beginning to end.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Just bolded.
		MS. MELLON:   I actually would suggest that we 
take out the titles of the three scenarios move them from 
where they are to, to after the paragraph that ends visions 
for the future.  I think we could just go from on page 7, 
all the scenarios share the certainties but uncertainties 
play out differently.  Each scenario is intended as a 
coherent description.  These are not predictions of the 
future, dah, dah, dah.  And then here then are the three 
scenarios for the future, and we could say we, we've decided 
to call them, we've entitled them Rosy Future, Continental 
Islands, and Biotech Goes Niche.
		MS. LAYTON:  I like that. Here then are the three 
scenarios we've selected --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Created.
		MS. LAYTON:  We have created?  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Created.
		MS. LAYTON:  Created. We have -- we have decided 
-- we have entitled them --
		MS. MELLON:  Yes, we have entitled them.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Given them titles.
		MS. MELLON:  I mean I think that kind of gives 
the idea that it is somewhat -- arbitrary.  We've entitled 
them Rosy Future --
		MS. SULTON:  Creating them.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, here then are the three 
scenarios -- here then are the scenarios we have created.   
We have entitled them Rosy Future, Continental Islands and 
Biotech Goes Niche.  And then, boom, that's the end.
		MR. BUSS:  -- make a suggestion on that preceding 
page --
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.		
		MR. BUSS:  -- on page 7 toward the bottom.
		MS. LAYTON:  Uh-huh.
		MR. BUSS:  In that last paragraph we now say 
however the AC21 believes that it is useful to provide a few 
examples, think we ought to say three examples.  Because 
about two sentences down we typically say three scenarios.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Just examples.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Right, examples.
		MR. BUSS:  Three examples.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Just examples.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Opposed to a few or --
		MS. MELLON:  Well, I think just examples.  
		MS. SULTON:  provide examples.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  But then you say later --
		MS. LAYTON:  I think it's these three scenarios 
then share the uncertainties, but -- okay.  That's 
editorial.  Never mind.  Not substantive.  Okay, so Rosy 
Future.  Michael, I think you said you felt pretty good 
about the first two.  Is Rosy Future one of the ones that 
you felt pretty good about?  Because we went through that 
one before.
		MR. DYKES:  I think so.  I think some aspects 
of --
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Anybody else had any 
heartburn?
		MR. DYKES:  I've not read it since August.  I 
hate to keep reiterating that point, but it's hard to say 
I'm okay with something that I haven't read since August.
		MS. LAYTON:  Can you kind of look at your 
comments and make sure.
		MR. DYKES:  Yeah, I have been trying to do that 
as we go along.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, Randy.  Randy.
		MR. GIROUX:  Did I just hear you say that we're 
going to talk about the three individual scenarios now?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes, we are.
		MS. LAYTON:  They're not back.  Do you want to 
move to the questions instead?
		MR. GIROUX:  -- general comment?
		MS. LAYTON:  Uh-huh.
		MR. GIROUX:  These scenarios are -- they're not 
right and they're not wrong.  They're simply ours.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.  
		MR. GIROUX:  We spent a lot of -- are we going to 
debate the scenarios or what's in the scenarios?  What 
exactly are we talking about here?
		MS. LAYTON:  Heartburn, any heartburn on --
		MR. SLOCUM:  If you violently object.
		MR. JAFFE:  There's something in there that is -- 
tremendous heartburn.
		MS. LAYTON:  Because they're not right and 
they're not wrong, they're just --
		MR. JAFFE:  -- everybody is going to differ on 
whether they think the likelihood of one scenario is 90 
percent versus 0 percent, that's my understanding.  But 
we're not -- document says in several places that it's not 
an attempt to -- not ascribing a likelihood of these.  We're 
just giving three potential scenarios. Everybody will differ 
on what the likelihood of them occurring is, and then -- 
have a whole series of facts, you know, statements in them 
that might not happen so.
		MR. GIROUX:  All right, so what we're trying to 
do is understand what the scope of our discussion is going 
to be -- what are we, what are we trying to -- are we 
looking to say that they're wrong?  Are we looking to say 
there's some inconsistencies with the drivers?  What are we 
going to do?  And I just want to set some ground rules --
		MS. DILLEY:  Good idea, very good idea.  
		MS. MELLON:  I think	 that we should look at them 
for -- one is for tense.  I mean we, you know, these are all 
presented as kind of in the past tense, so we don't want to 
have would do this or would do that.  They all ought to be 
in the straight past tense.  And I think we, you know, we 
might want to look at them just to see whether they -- the -
- whether they're as descriptive as they might be.  So for 
example Michael added -- small family farming became 
profitable.  I think small adds -- it's a nice little 
descriptor, and so I would say we would leave it, but I 
wouldn't want to, you know, take on the whole issue.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think, just an amendment to that, 
I wouldn't worry so much about tense, because I think we can 
do that subsequent to the meeting.  I think it's really does 
the -- do the three meet the task at hand, which is to set 
up descriptions of possible futures to raise these 
questions.  I mean that we're basically saying let's forward 
this to the Secretary for an exercise to consider, right.  
So I guess the question really is are there -- are these 
three scenarios, do they meet that in terms of presenting 
three different possible scenarios that help flush out some 
of these questions or make it interesting to pose those 
questions.  And the other piece of that is not only 
interesting, but is there just anything plain that 
completely freaks people out, gives them serious heartburn?  
Because I think tense stuff we can deal with later.  
		MR. GIROUX:  What do you mean freaks people out?
		MS. DILLEY:  I -- that you just completely object 
to have that piece in there.  Am I off base or --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, no actually --
		MS. SULTON:  -- is it well framed.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me try one thing on one of 
the scenarios, and this is really trying this out on 
Michael.
		(Laughter.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  This is noticing that you had a 
number of comments on the second scenario, which in your 
comments you had called staying the course, which reflected 
to me that the scenario was intended to be a description of 
what the current situation is, and that there was a 
difference of view maybe on current -- different people 
thinking different things about current trends.  And I 
wonder if we disconnected the second scenario from the idea 
that this is the trend that is happening right now if that 
would ease some of the concerns about that scenario.  Do you 
understand what I mean?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I would get rid of the 
first sentence.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Get rid of the first --
		MR. JAFFE:  The logical argument, you have a 
problem with the logical flow of it and is when you look at 
a logical flow of this, there's something radically missing 
or something --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's right.  
	GREG JAFFE:  the logical argument; flow 
	MR. SCHECHTMAN:  so that if you got rid of the first 
sentence of that scenario --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It wouldn't be a --
		MR. DYKES:  I can't comment on your question.  I 
guess, Michael, because -- I'm not trying to be difficult.  
I mean I haven't even read any of these.  I haven't.  So I 
mean I could sit here and try to read it and respond to 
that, if you like.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I think it makes a lot of 
sense --
		MR. GIROUX:  Because then it's not judgmental.
		MR. JAFFE:  It's just saying this is the second 
scenario.  It doesn't say something that we're doing today 
is being continued and it's a question about whether people 
agree that that's the state today, so --
		MS. MELLON:  And we might want to deal with in 
the fourth sentence of the paragraph continued to increase 
the amount of biotech crops planted at a 15 percent CAGR. 
What does that term mean?
		MS. LAYTON:  I -- where are you reading from?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Reading from Michael's --
		MS. MELLON:  I'm reading from Michael's. 
		MR. DYKES:  I don't think that got picked up 
though, Mardi.  
		MS. MELLON:  Oh, okay, well then -- I'm sorry, 
that's, that's probably why -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me make a little suggestion 
now, which is that we may really need just to have a couple 
of minutes talking about process on what we're going to be 
doing -- what's going to -- what could come out of this 
meeting and what's going to be need to be done wit it after 
we leave today or tomorrow, because clearly it's the case 
that some folks have already left, some people aren't here.  
Some people are leaving in -- at the end of today and will 
not be here tomorrow.  I think -- and, and while it's -- 
while we're talking about scenarios, it is also clearly the 
case that it's been something that not everyone was equally 
prepared to come in and talk about.  So I think we just need 
to have some discussion on -- and we have just on time 
people coming back into the meeting.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, they're back.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We think they're back.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  They're smiling.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So we sort of need to talk about 
--
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		(Laughter.)  
		MS. MELLON:  Well really we -- I mean I just want 
to note that Michael doesn't really have a lot of -- he 
didn't really have a lot of suggestions on the third 
scenario, and that was the one that we really hadn't gotten 
to.  So that suggests that --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Are people okay with five?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Five is fine.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Five what?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  O'clock.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Five o'clock.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I've got to leave at five 
sharp, because I've got to get to the airport.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And I've got to get 
tickets before I get to the airport.
		MS. LAYTON:  Then five o'clock it is.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, let's talk sort of briefly 
about what is doable and what our sense of consensus means 
in the view of people coming and going and documents going 
to people for whether it is thumbs up or thumbs down or 
things that are -- thumbs up or thumbs down or major 
questions of fact that might need to be adjusted.  Is that a 
reasonable criterion for dealing with sending out the 
documents after this meeting?  Because we will -- obviously 
a lot of people have been off working very hard, and I think 
I see white smoke coming out of every one of their heads.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's hair.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The gray ghost over here.
		(Laughter.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And you look like you're ready 
to say something.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No, you finish first.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I'm trying to figure out in -- 
you know, there obviously is going to need to be some kind 
of process to accommodate having people see the document 
after this meeting.  Seeing both documents in their 
entirety.  And the question is what is the nature of that 
process?  I think that's a really important thing that we 
need to answer while as many of us are here as can be.
		Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  I just think it should -- I mean 
people that just came in missed the long discussion we've 
had about -- you say the document -- they understand what 
document we're talking about, what we're trying to -- at 
least what some of us talked about as proposals we're trying 
to accomplish in these two days.  May just want to elaborate 
a little more.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Sure, both documents meaning the 
traceability and labeling document, which we will discuss 
shortly, and then the preparing for the future paper that 
would go both of which would go around for review and just -
- I think you guys were in the room but maybe not.  They 
were taking the implications section out of that and trying 
to work through, had been working through and will continue 
to do so tomorrow, working through comments on what we know 
the uncertainty -- the -- what we -- what is much less 
certain, and then the three scenarios and put that forward 
as --
		MS. LAYTON:  With the questions.
		MS. DILLEY:  With the questions, sorry, with the 
questions that are contained in this.  So merge those 
together as a separate document what would -- both the -- so 
both the traceability and labeling and that document as 
outlined would come back for review by the Committee and 
then we'd need to set a date certain by which people need to 
respond as to whether they're -- they would -- are 
supporting both documents, and then they would go forward to 
the Secretary, be submitted to the Secretary.  So we need to 
have a date certain.  And I think what you suggested in 
terms of a bar for any kind of comment was statements of 
fact, right?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Statements of fact.
		MS. DILLEY:  So we need to set a date for -- and 
I think then the issue is date certain.  What date certain 
are we talking about.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Seven days after receiving the 
document.  Is that reasonable?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Whether it's 7 or 14, people are 
on travel, et cetera, but a very, a fixed date not far in 
the future that we can decide on.
		MR. JAFFE:  I guess I'm just a little confused. 
This would -- my understanding is everybody would be 
agreeing at the end of the meeting that subject to their re-
reviewing of it they would be comfortable with both of these 
documents going forward to the Secretary, give them a chance 
to review it, reiterate their comfort or raise any questions 
of fact that they might have a question with.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  Is that what you're -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.  The only caveat to that is 
that there will be a number of people not here at the end of 
the meeting.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So that --
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.  The question I have then is 
what happens if somebody said they weren't comfortable with 
the -- in other words, we've always talked about this being 
a consensus document.  So what happens -- everything works 
with that scenario.  That's why so -- everybody say when 
they leave this meeting that they're comfortable with it 
subject to obviously reviewing it and making sure it's -- 
but I guess my question is what happens if somebody comes 
back and says they're no longer comfortable with it or on 
review they're no longer comfortable with it, one or both of 
the documents or something like that?  How does that play 
into this?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  -- that second for one question.  
We've been sitting here for two years.  Every discussion has 
been public, every working group has had a summary put 
forth.  Everybody in this room has had two years to review 
these documents and has had three months since the last 
meeting.  If you did not review the documents of the last 
meeting and this and that, that's your trouble.  At this 
meeting we should know where we stand on this thing, and if 
you've got a major heartburn.  What you can't do at this 
meeting is say, you know what, I didn't do my homework, and 
I'm going to hold the thing up.   I don't think that's a 
reasonable position, because all of these discussions have 
been public.  All the working group meetings have been 
public.  And you know everybody here has had two years to 
think through these issues, to comment on working groups, to 
comment on these things.  If there are major statements of 
fact that are wrong in the stuff brung forward, let's put 
them out on the table.  If there are major disagreements, 
let's -- if there are factual issues which are wrong, by all 
means let's change them in the future document.  But I think 
we're getting pretty close to a thumbs up or thumbs down on 
the series of documents.  Because otherwise we're going to 
be reviewing this stuff for months.  I mean we -- I 
guarantee -- for five years --traceability and labeling for 
five years.  
		MR. CROWDER:  I agree with Juan, but I'd like to 
-- I am not comfortable with the documents right now because 
I've not gone through them.  I have read them and said 
comments in every one at one time or the other, but I don't 
know where we are in terms of -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And your comments --
		MR. CROWDER:  On tracing and labeling on --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Scenarios.
		MR. CROWDER:  Scenarios.  I was probably more 
comfortable with that than something else, but there also -- 
Juan not only issues a statement of fact and what's in 
there, but there are some things that -- we just spent 
several hours going through how things are represented and 
whether they represented, you know anything acceptable, 
acceptable way.  So I guess that I'd like to -- and I know 
that on tracing and labeling there are some things that I've 
not had a chance to comment on that were postponed from this 
morning, in addition to the consumer side.  But I'm willing 
to -- I mean I think this idea of a drop dead date is, is 
worthwhile, but as far as I'm concerned, the rules got 
changed for me today when I walked in here, and if I had 
known that the rules -- known what the rules were I would 
have prepared differently.   I mean I came to take a history 
test.  I didn't come to take a history and English test, and 
I didn't study for the English test.  But I'm willing to 
look at it and be as accommodating as I can.  But if there's 
something that is, you know, in a different place, then I'd 
like to have a chance to have input into it.  But other than 
that, I don't have any problem with moving both documents 
along, but -- to see where the language is before I come to 
saying I'm going 
to --
		MS. LAYTON:  And that's why I think it's send it 
out, get it done, get it revised, send it out.
		MR. CROWDER:  -- and I'll get it back in.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Randy.
		MR. GIROUX:  Just a question of process.  So what 
happens if somebody comes back and says, I can't sign off on 
this document unless this substantial change is made or I 
won't sign off on this document?  What happens?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  After the, after --
		MR. GIROUX:  Because it's too late.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- member terms expire?
		MR. GIROUX:  Right.  So what happens?  Just so 
everybody in the room understands if they say no or yes what 
is the implication of that.  I just want to know.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I do too.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  What are people's views?
		MR. GRANT:  We thought you had the answer.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think you got a couple of options.  
I think you either say okay, by this date either it -- the 
documents will go forward, and we'll either have everybody's 
name on them or they'll have some portion of the names of 
people on them.  That's one option. I'm not saying that's 
the answer.  I'm saying that's one option.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  All right, one option.
		MS. DILLEY:  Another option is to take a tally at 
the end and if there are say two people who are disagreeing 
on two -- each of the documents, you can try and put another 
timeline on that to address concerns or and then at the 
second date certain again they either go forward or they 
don't go forward.  So you can either put a clause in there 
that there is a little bit of time to try and get -- reach 
consensus or not.
		MR. GIROUX:  Two members of the Committee can't 
work separate from the rest of the Committee.
		MS. DILLEY:  No, no, no, no.  So you would have a 
timeline on it, just addressing the particular thing, 
whether it was by conference call or however you try and 
resolve it.  That gets complicated.  I'm not saying it's 
not.  I'm just laying out options here.  It's a lot more 
complicated because then it becomes more of a moving target.  
So the third option, I guess, is to say well if those people 
are not supportive to submit a letter of -- along with the 
reports going forward of why they have concerns or minority 
report I guess, if you will.
		MR. CROWDER:  But are we not bound by the terms 
we were chartered under?
		MR. GIROUX:  -- the bylaws.
		MS. LAYTON:  I pulled them.  Decision making -- 
or it's under Section 3, Decision Making Consensus.  We, the 
AC21 will seek to operate via consensus and recommendations 
made to the Secretary of Agriculture.  On occasion the 
Chairperson may request a motion for a vote.  Any member 
including the Chairperson may make a motion.  
Recommendations or other documents can be considered to -- 
consensus if there is no consent by any member of the AC21.
		MS. FOREMAN:  I'm sorry.  We had a little crisis 
over here.  Would you start again?
		MS. LAYTON:  Referring to Section 3 of the Bylaws 
there on the back panel.  And so it's talking about we can 
vote.  Then it says the USDA believes there is a value in 
the Committee articulating the range of desperate views --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Disparate.
		MS. LAYTON:  Disparate.  
		(Laughter.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so why don't I explain how to 
pronounce that word.  Of its members even if consensus is 
not reached.  Therefore, if consensus on specific 
substantive proposals is not possible, the AC21 will make 
every effort in any recommendations or findings provided to 
the Secretary to articulate both the reasons of both the 
areas of agreement and disagreement and the reasons why 
differences continue to exist.  In striving to achieve 
consensus AC21 membership should consider all relevant 
public and private sector perspectives and the interests and 
concerns of all AC21 members.  If recommendations or 
findings are given to the Secretary that are not based on 
consensus, those AC21 members not joining in consensus 
should be afforded the opportunity to provide to the 
Secretary in a timely manner a minority report.  The AC21 
will also strive to achieve consensus on significant 
procedural issues such as -- and that's what -- so I think 
that's it.  
		MR. JAFFE:  So it seems to me one thing we could 
do would be to leave this meeting with that, give everybody 
still the opportunity to that everybody comfortable with 
going forward but giving the opportunity to look at the last 
one, and if there's a -- I mean I -- coming from Dick, 
having not studied for the English test, if there's a 
problem, I like Abby's idea of sort of trying to work it out 
first.  It seems to me, it may not be as big a problem as 
one thinks.  But then, if it can't be worked out, then 
whoever is in those groups -- the concept would be that 
these two would definitely go forward to the Secretary but 
there might -- if there needed to be a minority report --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Would not be a consensus 
document.
		MR. JAFFE:  Small number of people that might be 
in either one of those, but the concept would be leave this 
day that both of these would go forward and trying to work 
out any distinctions, and then if need be it sounds like a 
minority would be the way to solve it.
		MS. LAYTON:  And, or you could put both, you 
could put both opinions.  We could not achieve consensus on 
this questions.  These are the two few points, and that 
document could then reach consensus and move forward.  
Having the two sides in there.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It's a little dangerous to start 
the process of doing that because then --
		MS. LAYTON:  Absolutely.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- opening the whole thing.
		MS. LAYTON:  I agree.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  But I think, you know if there 
are very small, you know, small but important points that 
members feel will prevent them from reaching consensus 
articulating those, you know, not as a minority report of 
the whole report, but, you know, articulating those little 
points of problem are not -- I don't see where it would be 
particularly problematic.
		MS. DILLEY:  So people are comfortable with that 
process?  Date certain, see where we are, try and work any 
lingering issues out and then if we can't, then we go to a 
non-consensus format versus trying to work it out and 
getting it done. 
		MR. DYKES:  Are we saying that we have to have
non-consensus?  Are we separating the two issues, one on 
traceability and labeling.  If we get a green on that one, 
that one goes; if we don't get a green one on the other one 
the other one doesn't go?  Or are we saying have agreement 
on both.  I just want to make sure I'm clear on this 
process.
		MS. DILLEY:  The goal is to get both.
		MR. DYKES:  So if we don't have agreement on 
both, neither goes?
		MS. DILLEY:  No.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, no.  I think what it's saying is 
we're using the same process for both of them.  So they're 
both going to go to the Secretary.  The question is are they 
both going to go as consensus or with a minority majority, 
but we're going to leave the -- we're not going to --
		MS. LAYTON:  So it's process and timeline is the 
same.
		MR. CROWDER:  -- parallel track.
		MR. JAFFE:  They're on parallel tracks.  They're 
not linked in the sense of that -- consensus of both of -- 
but they're both going to go in the same both on the same 
track.
		MR. DYKES:  They're both going to go -- depends 
on how they're going to go.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. DYKES:  That's the only question.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And we're going to do our best 
to get them both out of here.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Obviously the consensus that we 
will reach at the end of tomorrow is going to be of the 
people who are here.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MR. DYKES:  And have we talked about the process 
for the two people that aren't here today?
		MS. DILLEY:  You mean Carol and Keith?
		MS. LAYTON:  I will be happy to call them and 
walk through what we've done, and then hopefully -- and they 
will see everything we've done and have the time frame that 
we have.  But I could call them, you know, I can even call 
Carol tonight because she's just suffering from bronchitis.  
Is here in D.C.  And get a feedback on her.  Keith, I don't 
know about, but we could certainly call him Wednesday.
		MR. DYKES:  My reason for asking the questions is 
just process.  So we make sure we have down and we follow 
what we say we're going to follow so we don't --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Uh-huh.  We're following 
that.
		MR. DYKES:  So they dont change the rules during 
the day and during the, during the --
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So do you want to write that 
process down formally so everybody sees it in writing or are 
you comfortable?
		MS. DILLEY:  Pat's opening line is here's the 
deal.
		MS. LAYTON:  Here's the deal.
		MR. DYKES:  I just think it should be reflected.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'd like to hear it.  
		MR. DYKES:  I'd like to see it reflected in the 
minutes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let's write it down.
		MS. LAYTON:  Let's write it down.  It's always 
important.  Because this is it.  We should have consensus
		MS. LAYTON:  let's write it down.
		MR. JAFFE:  One other thing.  I think that's 
great, Pat, that you're going to do that, but there will be 
three more people not here tomorrow.  However you want to 
call
		MS. LAYTON:  Absolutely.
		MR. JAFFE:  I dont know whether -- Michael is 
going to kill me for this suggestion, but -- going to take a 
week or whatever I think to turn these documents around, I 
don't know whether one can get a unofficial transcript of 
what's gone on in these two days in a similar time frame to 
sort of get back to the people who also weren't here so they 
could actually have what they wanted to be able to sort of 
actually go through and see what was done by the Committee 
on those two days.
		MS. LAYTON:  The master is in the --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, that -- you know we can't 
guarantee exactly when we will get our transcript.  I know, 
you know, we've worked with folks to get us transcripts 
quickly, but that takes awhile for us to get.  I can't 
promise when you're going to get them.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm saying for people who weren't 
here either one or both days, even if that's gotten later on 
when they're doing the review, the 14-day review period, it 
would be able to give them the -- for what happened then.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We will try to turn them around 
as quickly as we get them.  That's -- we can certainly do 
that.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So the first was the 
documents will be -- all comments will be taken during these 
-- this two-day period, and we will deal with the issues as 
we can.  The staff will then incorporate all changes as 
outlined during this two-day process, hopefully within a 
week, 10 days, a week to 7 to 10 days.  The documents will 
then be E-mailed to every member of the Committee current 
member of the Committee, since we don't know the new members 
of the Committee, so we're just dealing with the old members 
of the Committee.  Because at this point in time, if we feel 
consensus walking out the door, without any, you know, 
without seeing the revised version, that's what we're 
talking about, based on the tomorrow as we leave or today as 
you leave -- then we would have a review period of 10 -- 7 
working days?  Seven working day review period?
		MR. DYKES:  I dont know if that's going to be 
sufficient time.  When are you going to get them to us?  
Seven days --
		MS. LAYTON:  If they're out in 10 days, one week 
to 10 days.
		MR. DYKES:  Oh, okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. DYKES:  And the seven days after that.
		MS. LAYTON:  Seven days after that.
		MR. DYKES:  Seven days after that.  So you're 
looking at --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Seven work days.
		MR. DYKES:  -- 14 to 10 -- 14 to 17 days.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER::  I think instead of 
workdays or 10 days?
		MR. JAFFE:  I would say 10 working days.  
		MS. LAYTON:  10 working days.  Okay, 10 working 
days, 10 working days.  Hopefully everybody will do it 
sooner, especially if we've got a problem.   
		MS. DILLEY:  And at that point --
		MS. LAYTON:  At that point in time --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Responses are?
		MS. LAYTON:  Via e-mail.
		MR. GIROUX:  And what are, what are the potential 
responses?
		MS. LAYTON:  Accept, and -- sorry.  No, up, no, 
up, down, factual check, fact check needed and put in fact 
check needed.
		MS. DILLEY:  You can't abstain.  If we dont hear 
from you, you're okay.
		MR. GIROUX:  Right.
		MS. DILLEY:  We'll assume that's a yea.
		MR. BUSS:  That was what I was going to say.  It 
seems to me that no response --
		MR. DYKES:  No substantial changes.
		MR. CROWDER:  So that means for those of us who 
won't be here tomorrow, we have no chance for input into 
-- on what we've already had into scenarios?  I tell you, 
that's fine, but --
		MS. LAYTON:  I think we're going to try to --
		MR. CROWDER:  -- I think --
		MS. LAYTON:  Dick --
		MR. CROWDER:  I dont think it's very good given 
the fact the way it was handled.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. CROWDER:  -- put on that on the table, that I 
can understand the reason for it where we're going, but I 
dont like the way it came about.  I want that, that 
reported too.
		MS. LAYTON:  I understand.
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  I wasn't expecting to do this 
either.
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  What I am going to say is that while 
you were working on consumer issues, we went through most of 
scenarios in terms of the documents and looked at comments 
that were there and made some decisions, and we want to take 
a few minutes and brief you on what we did at this time.  So 
you can feel comfortable with where we are.  And then have 
you all do the same for us on consumers.
		MR. JAFFE:  Let's finish the process.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, I think we haven't quite 
captured --
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- everything, because there was 
this, there was some -- go ahead Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  So what happens if -- so you need 
number four, so if there's the not, the question is work out 
by --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  If --
		MS. LAYTON:  If there's a no, the DFO --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What am I going to do?
		MS. LAYTON:  By facilitators or by secretary.  
The DFO will facilitate a process of seeing if there's a way 
through it, quick way through the issue.  No.  Okay, what 
were you saying, guys?  I'm trying to repeat what I heard.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Can I make a suggestion on that?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  There has been working groups on 
each of these things.  If there is a strong no, then that 
person goes into a conference call with the working group, 
and the working group decides, yeah, we'll make this change 
or we won't make this change.  And if the working group says 
that's a valid point, let's do it, then they'll recommend to 
the Committee as a whole that that change be made.
		MS. LAYTON:  How does that sound?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The person still has to be able 
to sign off on it.  I mean the issue is that --
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  If the work group says no, then it 
goes into a minority report.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay, all right.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  If the working group says we don't 
agree with you, put it in as a minority, go for it.  If the 
working group agrees with it, then it will recommend to the 
Committee as a whole that that change be made.
		MR. GIROUX:  So it's not just no.  It's no with a 
reason.
		MS. LAYTON:  Reason.  Yeah.  If you're going to 
say no, please say no with a reason.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right, that's what I'm saying.  I 
wanted to get down there that if somebody says no, then they 
realize eventually they may have to do a minority report.  
It's not, no, I get to veto this report from going to the 
Secretary.  It's, no, leads to a minority report.  So number 
--
		MS. LAYTON:  No reason for it.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- five would be if you can't work it 
out with the work group, I like Juan's thing, then five is 
minority report.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Dick's point, it's hard to put 
changes into monologue.  I have to say two things.  One is 
we've been working on implications for the past thing that 
is not going in this report.  This language has been in 
here, and I don't think it's changed for five, six months.  
So we've had five or six months to prepare for this thing.  
And tomorrow is a regular scheduled meeting.  And you know 
those of us who can make it, great.
		MS. FOREMAN:   There's one other thing, and that 
is that on at least two occasions when we were scheduled to 
deal with scenarios, we didn't do it at the time the agenda 
said we were going to do it.  We switched and did labeling 
and traceability.  So this got put off in favor of something 
else on several occasions.  It doesn't seem more reasonable 
that now we're pushing it to get it finished.
		MS. DILLEY:  Does the work group then -- is that 
the traceability and labeling work group addresses the 
traceability and labeling comments and the scenarios work 
group addresses --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- the --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay, clarified.
		MR. CROWDER:  On your points -- except for the 
fact that I scheduled one thing this week and got another 
thing this week, and that, that caused -- that had some 
consequences even though --
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  My concern on this is the next 
meeting that this group has is going to have a whole new 
membership, and trying to go through this process again with 
a whole new membership, it ain't going to happen.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, let's focus on the process 
then so --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me reiterate what I think 
the last two steps were that I heard.  That will be when the 
document is sent out, it will go out to people via e-mail 
either accepted or not with the reason saying what the 
problem was or questions of fact.  No response will mean 
agreement.   If there are nos, then there will be a quick 
consultation with the work group, notwithstanding the fact 
that the date may be after the date of the membership, and 
then if the work group doesn't agree to put it in, it will 
either go into a minority report or the person will have the 
opportunity to -- the person will have the opportunity 
either to do a minority report or to indicate acceptance.
		Yes.		
		MR. JAFFE:  Can I just add one thing I guess.  I 
would just say that at this stage at least we should at 
least give the rest of the people who were not on that work 
group the opportunity to participate in that work group -- 
if 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Absolutely.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, absolutely.
		MR. JAFFE:  Should be limited to the work group, 
but it's obviously scheduled for the work group and people 
who have that disagreement.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  People okay with that?
		MR. GIROUX:  If that small work group comes up 
with a solution --
		MR. CROWDER:  I don't think we've got much choice 
in terms of where we go from here.  I mean I 
don't --
		MR. GIROUX:  If that small work group comes up 
with a solution to the problem, they solve the problem, it 
doesn't go back to the greater committee again.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think there has to be a review by 
e-mail from the work group to --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  An explanation to the 
Committee.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Has to, yes.
		(Simultaneous comments.
		MR. GIROUX:  So then you agree with the report, 
but then in the end you may disagree with the report --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And if you do then I guess 
-- 
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Let me suggest this.   If you say no 
and have a reason for saying no and have a reason for saying 
no, it needs to be communicated to the whole Committee.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah, I think that makes sense.  So 
if there is -- so if somebody doesn't accept the report and 
they forward a reason, then that should be forwarded to all 
the Committee.
		MS. LAYTON:  Everybody on the Committee needs to 
know about it.  Because then if it's going to work group, 
you need to know if you want to participate in that or not.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes, that makes sense.  Full 
transparency.
		MS. LAYTON:  Full transparency.
		MR. JAFFE:  And then the solution for the work 
group would go out to the whole Committee, and I guess if 
somebody objected to that, then they could --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, if they objected, they 
should be in the working group.
		MS. LAYTON:  They should be, they should be in on 
the call.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  So you'll know what's coming.  
You'll know it's going to either be solved or not solved on 
that call, and it should be -- in time for you to be on that 
call, even from India.  
		MR. CORZINE:  Does the process repeat itself if 
there's somebody that can say there is substantial change?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's why you'd be on the 
call.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  You have to be on the call.  I'm 
not sure it's -- we're stretching our margins here a little, 
but --
		MR. DYKES:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  But I think it's what we're 
going to have to do.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think the work group has to feel 
that they -- I think they have a sense of the group to know 
they're pretty --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  May I get thumbs up or down on 
the process?   May I get thumbs up or down on the process?
		MS. LAYTON:  Carol.
		MS. FOREMAN:  There's no linking between the two 
reports.  
		MS. LAYTON:  For --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No -- but --
		MS. LAYTON:  -- on procedure to move them forward 
at the same time.
		MS. FOREMAN:  Yeah, but what, what is there is, 
you know, objection to one
		MS. SULTON:  They'll all go forward.
		MS. FOREMAN:  They'll all go forward, just some 
of them may have a minority report.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's right.
		MR. JAFFE:  My understanding is they're not 
linked but they're both going on the same track.  They'll be 
sent together, whether or not they have a minority report or 
not, they'll be -- both will be sent.
		MS. FOREMAN:  Okay.  I'm sorry.  That was stated.  
I just --
		MR. DYKES:  So I think to be clear then, they are 
linked.  They'll either go forward for the -- full Committee 
report, or they'll both go forward one with a full 
Committee, one without -- one with, one without.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Or both with.
		MR. DYKES:  Or both with or both without.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. DYKES:  I think to be clear.  It's not fair 
to say they aren't linked.  They are clearly linked.
		MS. DILLEY:  They're linked in time frame.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  In time.
		MR. DYKES:  They're both going to the Committee.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Do they have --
		MR. DYKES:  They're both going to the Secretary.
		MR. CORZINE:  Because you may not have any need 
to re-gather the work group, say T and L, there's no -- 
there's not a -- so it moves forward while the other 
is still getting resolved.  I mean is that right or are you 
--
		MS. FOREMAN:  Same date.
		MR. CORZINE:  It wouldn't -- unless then you're 
going to link them.  
		MR. DYKES:  They are linked.  According to the 
process, they are linked.
		MS. LAYTON:  And so what we're really looking at 
is a cover letter that transmits both of them the same day.  
Is that what I've heard?  Chronologically they would, they 
would --
		MR. CROWDER: Then I'm against the process.
		MS. LAYTON:  That's what I asked.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  When did we link --
		MS. LAYTON:  That's what I'm trying to find out.
		MR. CROWDER:  -- because I -- we, we were given 
two different charges, and not only did we change the 
homework assignment, we changed the study hall period also.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. CROWDER:  So I --
		MS. LAYTON:  Are you comfortable or is everybody 
comfortable if they are -- it's the same process. One may be 
10, 5 days ahead of the other?
		MS. MELLON:  No.  
		MS. FOREMAN:  Listen, there are days when we did 
not do scenarios.  We changed the homework assignment.  We 
changed the agenda in order to move tracing and labeling 
-- traceability and labeling ahead of those, and so I think 
it's -- you know, you just have to deal with the fact that 
now this time the -- Keith -- was able to come one day last 
time, and when we got to the meeting, we changed the agenda 
and moved scenarios off of the first day, the one day he was 
able to be here.  So it's happened to everybody.
		MR. CROWDER:  And, Carol, I've been coming to 
these -- I agree, it has happened to everybody, but it has 
not happened to everybody at the time we were trying to 
finalize reports.  There's a difference.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I signed up for a committee on 
21st Century Agriculture.  If the only product coming out of 
this project is the traceability and labeling report driven 
mostly by concerns about traceability and labeling and 
that's the only thing that comes out of it, I would be very 
uncomfortable with that being product for two years.
		MS. DILLEY:  I don't think there's a question of 
whether there's one or two products.
		MR. CROWDER:  I would too, but -- as it may -- 
that I solved that by imposing an artificial restriction or 
condition on top of it.
		MR. CORZINE:  That's what I see.  I don't see, 
even with what you're saying, Juan, I don't see the need to 
combine them like that.  I thought a long time ago we said 
that USDA asked and we moved T and L to the front.  I mean 
that was done quite some time ago. 
		MS. FOREMAN:  I never for the record, I never 
agreed to that.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I dont remember that --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Maybe that -- was that 
before you --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		MS. FOREMAN:  I'm a member of the committee now 
and I don't remember.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think there was an expectation 
that the one report --
		MR. CROWDER:  Let's get back to --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- might be easier to do than 
the other, and that, and that it might, it might very well 
get finished before.  But I dont think it was made a higher 
priority, you know.  I think it was thought of that because 
it was more a matter of fact than of issue development, it 
might be a bit easier to do.
		MS. DILLEY:  I dont think there's any 
disagreement among the group that I'm hearing that two 
products are going forward.  I think the question remains, 
is there a way to -- either we go with the date, the same 
date for both, whether one is finished before the other one, 
or we go with a way of linking the two in time frame, but 
they are submitted separately, and I, I -- there's no option 
that two reports aren't going to be submitted.  So I guess 
that's the question to the group is whether we can find a 
way around this or not find a way around this.
		Greg.
		MR. JAFFE:  I mean it seems to me -- maybe we'll 
put a time limit on number four, that if there is --so that 
they are both then together, but that there's not a major 
time lag.  Again that conference call is to happen within 
two weeks of the -- everybody saying no, and so they are -- 
and then the reports will go, you know, so that, I mean I 
guess the concern here is if you link them to make sure they 
go, one doesn't go six months later because somebody holds 
up on a minority report or something, which I guess, I don't 
believe anybody would do, but we're playing off scenarios 
here.  So why not again put a time limit on number four to 
get done, which would then --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, I mean --
		MR. JAFFE:  -- make sure that they're both 
together but are also done timely.  So they are being 
linked, but it's not line one is holding up the other.
		MS. DILLEY:  So you're saying that a letter would 
go forward with one report that says the second report will 
not be -- will be submitted no later than --
		MR. JAFFE:  No, no.  I'm saying --
		MS. DILLEY:  -- days or they're sent at the same 
time.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm still, I'm still saying that they 
are linked.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  But saying if the worry here is 
somebody saying that they don't want the fact that there's a 
disagreement with one to hold up the other, I'm saying let's 
make sure there's a time limit on the disagreement so that 
they both go at the same time.
		MS. FOREMAN:  So they -- one may go and then -- 
report, but it has to go --
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually according to the Bylaws a 
minority report can come afterwards.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right, so --
		MS. LAYTON:  In a timely manner.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- they both could go and one could 
go -- first one -- second one is a minority report and then 
the person who is writing the minority report --
		MS. LAYTON:  Their minority report would be --
		MR. JAFFE:  -- and then it's under their burden 
to get it as quick or short, but it doesn't hold up --
		MS. LAYTON:  And that is in the Bylaws.  We do 
not have to wait for a minority report to send it --
		MR. JAFFE:  So therefore if the conference call 
happens within two weeks, this idea of timing doesn't become 
-- it's not material in the two-year time frame.  They both 
go, and the minority report is something that is left up to 
that person.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  But I do want to check that we 
don't have to hold both calls on the same day.
		MR. JAFFE:  Hopefully there will be no calls.
		MS. DILLEY:  Hopefully there will be no calls.
		MR. CORZINE:  So it gets back to the basic 
question.  One can hold the other hostage for --
		MS. LAYTON:  No, they can't until --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  For two weeks.
		MS. LAYTON:  For two weeks.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  For two weeks.
		MR. CORZINE:  I guess why I still -- is there a 
basic thing that I'm missing, why they are linked?
		MS. SULTON:  Treating them the same.
		MS. DILLEY:  So that both go forward as products 
of the Committee at the same time that --
		MR. JAFFE:  They're being linked because there 
are two products of this report that go to the issues we've 
been asked to look at by the Secretary, and at least in some 
members of the Committee, they're near enough done that they 
both should go.  And one -- although believes everybody is 
working in good faith here, one doesn't see -- one is not 
more important nor more valuable to the Secretary than the 
other or goes to more to our charter than the other, and so 
if we're finishing our two-year charter, our products should 
go together that have been completed.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Daryl, you had a comment.
		MR. BUSS:  I think aside from timelines, I guess 
I would see -- I would prefer that the documents go forward.  
I separately -- I'm assuming at a different time, but each 
with their own cover letter.  To me combining the two 
implies that there may be a relationship between the two -- 
in other words, traceability and labeling document did not 
arise as a consequence of or was written in a way to reflect 
the scenarios, for example.  I think they're -- you know, 
they're independent events.  And so in my contacts with -- 
Leon we were trying to match these to get them forward, then 
we seem to suddenly have evolved into bundling them together 
with a single cover letter, and I'm not sure that serves us 
well.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  So five, and then 6 I guess they go 
forward with individual cover letters.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's fine.
		MS. LAYTON:  Did I hear -- I heard Carol say yes.  
I'm looking -- yes, nods?  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Fine.
		MS. LAYTON:  Happy campers on that Dick?
		MR. CROWDER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Happy camper -- okay.  Happy camper 
on separate cover letters.
		MS. DILLEY:  The time frame issue.  Do we have 
clarification on that or not?
		MR. SLOCUM:  We do now.  It's fixed.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Fixed time.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Fixed time.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. SLOCUM:  If you want your minority report, if 
there is one, to be included with the Committee report, 
you've got to submit it in that period of time, is that 
right?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Or else it will wind up being 
submitted on its own later.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Separate.
		MS. LAYTON:  It says those -- AC21 not -- 
consensus shall be afforded the opportunity to provide to 
the Secretary in a timely manner a minority report.  That's 
our Bylaws.  And I think that's incumbent upon the 
individual to submit. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Does the Committee get to 
see that report before it's submitted or is it submitted 
just --
		MS. LAYTON:  I --
		(Simultaneous comments.) 
		MS. LAYTON:  It's minority --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I mean we'll circulate it to 
everyone, but no one else gets to comment on it, I dont 
think.  I would just suggest that we build in here if there 
is permission for minority, if there is need for a minority 
report we will build in a couple of weeks from the point 
this is done to allow the minority reports to be written, to 
give folks an opportunity to provide them with the report, 
if they so desire.  And if it comes in later, it comes in 
late, but just to give them a chance to --
		MR. SLOCUM:  Are you talking about two fixed 
times then?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We will get this done --
		MS. LAYTON:  Which is this.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Which is this?
		MS. LAYTON:  The working --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The conference call in a, you 
know, in a brief -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  10 working days.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, and then we will allow, if 
there is not agreement, we will allow a fixed period of time 
for the person to decide if they're going to submit a 
minority report and to give it to us after which it will go 
forward with or without the minority report. 		
		MR. GRANT:  Let's fix that time too then now.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Which is that time?
		MR. GRANT:  So the minority report time.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. CROWDER:  That's a reasonable period of time.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can always send it later.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, can always
send it --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  How are people with the process?
		Michael.
		MR. DYKES:  Just a comment on the process.  Until 
we walked in here today, we have spent the last two or three 
meetings talking about getting one report done, and we set 
up this meeting today with agreement at the last meeting 
we'd spend one day to try to finalize the T and L document.  
We changed it to two days.  And now we're changing -- and 
I'm not saying I foresee any issues here, but in terms of 
process, we're changing the process as we go.  Without -- 
how do we get consensus of the Committee even on the 
process, because we're changing within the meetings 
themselves.  So --
		MS. DILLEY:  You're right, that's not a great 
process, that's not, that's hard.  And I think the thing 
that's driving us so much is that people are rotating off, 
which is a factor that we didn't know at the last couple of 
meetings.  
		MR. DYKES:  We did know.
		MS. MELLON:  No.
		MR. DYKES:  We did know terms were expiring and 
people did know whether they wanted to re-up for the 
Committee or not.  We're going to have people rotate off.
		MS. LAYTON:  I don't think we knew that.
		MS. DILLEY:  I didn't know that.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Well, who is we?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And in point of fact, we don't 
know that people who are on the Committee and reapplying are 
going to be reappointed.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. DYKES:  That's right.  So there's a lot of 
things we don't know about the makeup of the Committee.
		MS. DILLEY:  That's correct, and --
		MS. FOREMAN:  But we do know one thing that 
virtually every member of the scenarios group has not 
applied to be reappointed -- two-thirds, four-fifths.
		MS. MELLON:  Here I am, a potted plant again.
		(Laughter.)
		MR. JAFFE:  I agree with you, Michael, that 
things have changed at this meeting, but I have to say that 
at the October meeting, Michael Schechtman got up there and 
said, you know, we're going to finish both reports. We're 
going to work real hard.  The issues group, we tried to have 
an all-day meeting in November.  It wasn't until even -- we 
were trying to get -- can't tell you for the last couple of 
meetings we've only worked on T and L.  It wasn't until we 
got to the December meeting we made a decision at the 
beginning of that meeting that we couldn't get the other one 
done as a whole, and I have to say that I asked Terry at 
that meeting, and he hadn't decided yet.  People didn't have 
to -- send in their things until December 22nd. He told he 
had hadn't decided.
		MS. LAYTON:  He did not, I agree.  He told the 
same thing to me.
		MR. JAFFE:  I had asked specifically.  So at the 
December 8th-9th meeting, I had asked different people, at 
least Terry, and he had not made a decision about whether he 
was going back.  I hadn't made a decision yet.  I hadn't 
made a decision yet.  I hadn't talked to my boss.  So -- 
whether I was even applying, whether I get on or not.  So I 
dont -- I think there are facts that have changed.
		MS. LAYTON:  Michael, you're leaving in five 
minutes, three minutes.  You were here for the discussion 
that we've had so far on scenarios.  We've not had this 
implications -- consumer implications.  Can we get, can we 
get five minutes on this so that Michael is -- has heard 
what you all's thoughts are?
		MR. DYKES:  You've got other sections you've not 
gone through the -- you've not gone through the executive 
summary.  You've not done the last section on issues raised 
and concerns.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. DYKES:  I mean I'm not saying there's a 
problem with -- I'm just talking about the process.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, I know.
		MR. DYKES:  We've got a lot of other work when 
the other document --
		MS. LAYTON:  And we've got -- and we want to 
finish it.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- able to get done tomorrow morning.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Tomorrow morning.
		MS. LAYTON:  First thing in the morning.
		MR. CROWDER:  I thought we were going to agree to 
stay late tonight.
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm ready to stay late.  Michael has 
to leave.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We've already exceeded by one 
hour.  We were scheduled to go to four.  I know Michael has 
to leave not to go catch a plane.
		MR. DYKES:  Yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  I mean I'm willing to stay and work 
longer. But I just wanted to -- since this is here, Michael, 
you have -- you might think about it.
		MS. FOREMAN:  It represents the hard negotiation 
best thinking and agreement of an odd group of bedfellows -- 
Ron and -- and me and Dick.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Also ran down batteries 
too.
		MS. FOREMAN:   Yeah, not to mention --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. GIROUX:  So it's just the group that worked 
on this that had consensus on the wording of this document?
		MR. OLSON:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		Leon.
		MR. CORZINE:  Suits me.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. FOREMAN:  -- with sweat.
		MR. GRANT:  That consensus, that doesn't mean 
we're necessarily --
		MS. FOREMAN:  -- we do not love every word of it.
		MR. GRANT:  -- the equivalent of what would go in 
the implications.
		MS. FOREMAN:  No.
		MR. GRANT:  Language --
		MS. FOREMAN:  No.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. MELLON:  My question is why in the last 
paragraph the -- in the sentence beginning in the U.S. where 
there is no mandatory processed-based food labeling most 
grain-based foods.  I mean I think they write --
		MS. LAYTON:  That's not the last paragraph 
though.   There's a paragraph --
		MS. FOREMAN:  -- another paragraph.
		MS. MELLON:  Oh, there is.
		MS. FOREMAN:  But that's not relevant.  
		MS. MELLON: Oh, because I think it's most 
processed foods contain low levels of genetically-engineered 
corn or soybeans and no health or safety issues have arisen.  
I don't think --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What's a grain-based food.
		MS. MELLON: -- multi-processed foods as grain-
based foods.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Do Mylo (ph.) -- peas
contain it?
		MS. MELLON:  Well, I'm saying they might, but I 
mean processed foods that contain low levels of corn and 
soybeans.  That's what we're talking about.
		MR. JAFFE:  But that's not what -- this says 
process-based food labeling.  That you don't label according 
to the process.  
		MS. MELLON:  No, processed foods, for the foods 
in the, in the grocery store that are processed foods rather 
than, than in the produce department.  If you go into the 
produce department, there's nothing that's genetically-
engineered.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's not true.
		MS. FOREMAN:  The scope of the --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. SLOCUM:  Her question is grain-based foods.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What's a grain-based food?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Cereals, breads, pasta.
		MR. JAFFE:  So corn in a can, sweet corn in a 
can.
		MS. LAYTON:  Is a grain-based food.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Grain-based food.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think what Margaret is saying is 
that usually when people talk about it, they talk about the 
fact that things have soybean oil and corn oil or corn syrup 
in them.  So Coca-Cola is not a -- nobody would think of 
Coca-Cola as a grain-based food. It has an ingredient that 
people think has been genetically-engineered, derived.  So I 
think that's the distinction she's saying.  If you want to 
say here that it's corn flakes contains genetically-
engineered ingredients or do we want to say that everything 
that has corn oil or corn syrup have it, and those are not 
grain-based foods, those are just processed foods.  I think 
that's what Mardi is trying to distinguish between and what 
do we want to be saying.  Because the grain-based food would 
be corn starch, corn flakes, corn meal, sweet corn in a can.
		MS. FOREMAN:  So it's a question of fact.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's a question of --
		MR. CROWDER:  What is Coca-Cola?
		MS. LAYTON:  It's a processed grain.
		MR. JAFFE:  It's not a grain-based food.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  May I interrupt for just one 
second.
		MR. JAFFE:  Thinking more like Healthy Choice 
Salisbury steak dinner, which has --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Just one process question for 
our afternoon.  How late are we planning to stay?  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Now?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.  What are people 
comfortable with right now for continuing.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I want to be in bed by 
10:30.
		MR. DYKES:  I need to leave in a few minutes.
		MS. FOREMAN:  Does anybody have a problem with 
saying most processed foods have at least small amounts? 
		MS. MELLON:  I would say most processed foods 
contain low levels of genetically-engineered corn or 
soybeans.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Not processed foods.
		MS. FOREMAN:  It's not process-based.  It's 
processed foods instead of grain-based foods.
		MR. CROWDER:  I thought we did talk about that.
		MR. GRANT:  I don't think so, Dick.  No we --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I think it was.
		MS. LAYTON:  What?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The grain-based foods.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, but it's really --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I dont know.  I don't 
know.  I don't think we know enough to say that most 
processed foods are --Your Honor
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  How about most processed -- most 
grain-based foods and many processed foods?  Does that --
		MS. LAYTON:  So most foods contain genetically 
engineered ingredients?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No, because you want to 
say processed, don't you?  You don't want to say most foods.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  May we suggest this.  Most 
grain-based foods and many containing plant oils.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. JAFFE:  -- wheat --
		MS. MELLON:  Sweet potatoes.  Maybe it's --
		MS. LAYTON:  -- DNA in them at all.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I just ask again the 
question of how late we're planning to stick around?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I'm going to be leaving 
pretty soon.  
		MR. MARYANSKI:  I have to leave within 30 
minutes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  5:30?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  5:30.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No, I have to go.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  5:15 or -- or do we -- 5:15.  
Okay.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I am really getting upset.
		MS. SULTON:  So how are we going to fix this?
		MR. CORZINE:  Does many foods do it?  Forget -- 
take out processed, forget most, forget -- many foods.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.  Many foods I would say contain 
low levels of genetically engineered corn or soybeans.  Most 
foods do not contain any -- those are the only two things 
that are out there in the food system in any, in any 
amounts.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So what she has proposed is 
in the U.S. where there is no mandatory processed-based food 
labeling, comma, many foods contain low levels of 
genetically-engineered ingredients, and no health or safety 
issues have arisen.
		MS. FOREMAN:  She said -- I wouldn't --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- soybean and --
		MS. FOREMAN:  -- or soybeans --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- instead of ingredients.
		MR. CORZINE:  Well, I dont know that you want to 
mark soybeans out.  Just say many of those foods, because 
you've got -- what are you going to do with papaya?  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. GRANT:  There's cottonseed oil, there's 
cotton --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Absolutely.
		MR. GRANT:  It's ubiquitous clear through the 
system.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Corn flour.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.  Are we --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- say corn flour.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  This is not important.
		MS. LAYTON:  Many foods contain low levels of 
genetically-engineered ingredients and no health or safety 
issues have arisen, okay.
		MR. OLSON:  What's the low level?
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, many foods contain 
genetically-engineered ingredients and no health or safety 
issues have arisen.
		MS. FOREMAN:  I buy that.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Going once, twice.  The 
Committee and everyone agreed to take -- dropping most 
grain-based and putting the words many in.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Any other changes?  I haven't 
read the back.
		MS. DILLEY:  If not, then do you want to 
highlight, Dick, your -- the particular comments you have on 
other portions of the document so that we have those for 
further discussion tomorrow?
		MR. CROWDER:  I --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  We're signed off on this.
		MS. DILLEY:  Thank you very much for your hard, 
hard work.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Thank you.
		MS. LAYTON:  Absolutely, tremendous work.  Thank 
you.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  This is wonderful.
		MS. MELLON:  Very nice.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Dick is looking for his comments for 
those of you who can stay, it's -- it would be good to give 
Dick some amount of time to put his comments forward because 
he's not going to be here tomorrow.  So --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That would be good.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- if you can find them and at least 
put them on the table, and we can pick them up tomorrow, 
that would be helpful.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Dick, she has your 
comments.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. DILLEY:  This is on labeling and 
traceability.
		MS. LAYTON:  And I'm going to have to change that 
to say labeling and traceability, because obviously I can't 
say tracing and label --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's exactly the --
		MS. LAYTON:  So if you all could make that 
alphabetical in the title, I'd be happy.  Absolutely.
		MR. CROWDER:  Are mine the ones in the green?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Cindy?
		MS. SULTON:  Are you green or are you red?  I 
dont --
		MR. CROWDER:  I think I'm -- this one, yeah.
		MS. SULTON:  Yes?  Can you tell?
		MR. CROWDER:  Yeah.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  This is yours?
		MR. CROWDER:  Yeah.  I had a couple others too.  
Okay.  Although the pages may be a little --
		MS. LAYTON:  So try to give us the section number 
so we can find --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  This is mine.
		MS. LAYTON:  Are you in the executive summary 
now?
		MR. CROWDER:  Yeah.  Let's go to the executive 
summary.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. CROWDER:  On the 1, 2, 3, 4th paragraph down.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  First page?
		MR. CROWDER:   First page.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.  Starting additionally?
		MR. CROWDER:  Yeah. The last sentence in that 
says, on the other hand the United States neither required -
- or feed products derived from genetically-engineered 
organism indicate the method by which they were produced nor 
requires specific tracing of biotechnology products through 
the food chain.  I've got -- it's a question I've got here.  
If a trait is novel or changes in composition does it not 
require labeling?
		MR. JAFFE:  Not for the method by which the 
organism was produced.  It will require according to the FDA 
guidance on FDA policy, they will require that the 
difference be labeled.  So if it's high oleic soybean, they 
will require you to identify it as high oleic.  They wont 
require you to indicate the method by which it was produced, 
so they won't -- their policy doesn't require you to say 
it's --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Genetically engineered.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- genetically engineered high oleic 
soybeans.  They'll just say you have to identify the 
difference, the novelty.  You have to identify the trait, 
not how --
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so that's a back check --
		MR. JAFFE:  Result --
		MS. LAYTON:  Result.
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay, I go from page 3 to -- I'm 
missing a page here.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Missing page 4?
		MR. CROWDER:  I'm missing page 2.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Sorry about that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Very well, there were no issues 
on -- I can, I can give you my page 2.  Are you missing from 
your copy?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.  Hold on.  Hold on.
		MR. CROWDER:  You didn't pick up my copy of this, 
did you?
		MR. OLSON:  No.  Check to make sure.
		MR. CROWDER:  Oh, here it is, here it is.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Are we going through 
the --
		MS. SULTON:  No.   Just -- 
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  
		MR. CROWDER:  Here it is.  This is in the 
executive summary in the paragraph starting contracting 
requirements, the last sentence I would suggest changing to 
read: however, contract terms relative to liability 
transfer.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's actually in -- we have 
contract terms relating to is what we have as a bracketed.  
We haven't gone over that yet, but that's actually included.  
All of your comments are included in sections that we 
haven't talked about yet.  So there --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So they're included in --
		MR. CROWDER:  All my comments?  No.  Some of them 
were not, I think.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Well, in the --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Except that one.
		MR. CROWDER:  It's in, it's in, okay, that's in, 
okay, that's fine.  If it's there, okay.  The one on the, on 
the charge was --
		MS. LAYTON:  We dealt with that this morning.
		MR. CROWDER:  We dealt with that, we dealt with 
that one.
		MS. LAYTON:  We dealt with all of the 
introduction.
		MR. CROWDER:  And did we deal with -- what did we 
decide on commercial risk?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where?  Which one?
		MS. LAYTON:  Commercial risk reads --
		MS. SULTON:  Refers to --
		MS. LAYTON:  -- refers to financial --
		MS. SULTON:  Financial exposure.
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay, we did that one.  Did that 
one.  I -- I'm going to keep going.  Page -- well, let's put 
it this way.  On the exemptions for mandatory biotech 
specific labeling of -- I've got it on page 10.  Then go to 
the next one, just above two, exemptions from requirements 
based on status of ingredients.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MR. CROWDER:  Right above that, it says in 
addition, the potential for extension of liability related 
to either human, animal, plant, environment and social 
impact.  What is a liability related to social impact, and 
how is social impact defined?
		MR. SLOCUM:  It's not.  Where are you, Dick?  
What page?
		MS. SULTON:  It's page 11, line 20, 21, 20 or 21.
	
		MR. GIROUX:  So I believe that may address some 
of the things that are being negotiated -- Biosafety 
Protocol.
		MR. CROWDER:  Social impact?  I don't recall 
that.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Doesn't fit.
		MR. CROWDER:  I don't see how it fits either.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's what the protocol -- I 
mean there are places, if I can clarify on this that there 
are places in the Protocol that enable countries to look at 
socioeconomic impacts.
		MS. LAYTON:  Socioeconomic -- social --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Social, socioeconomic.
		MS. LAYTON:  But is social impact the right word?
		MS. ZANNONI:  Or should it be socioeconomic 
impact?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Exactly -- the U.S. has a very 
clear view on what if anything should be done on liability.  
Liability is still being negotiated, and how the Parties, 
which we are not one, are going to resolve that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I would just as soon to see that 
not in this report in terms of our own government position 
in terms of bargaining with that, see what I'm saying.  It's 
in here and your own people recognize it.  I just, I don't -
- if somebody could pull it out and put it somewhere without 
a specific relation here to.  I don't know why we should be 
creating that environment.
		MS. LAYTON:  So strike and social -- so strike 
and social --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And social.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- so or environmental impact.  
Okay.  Anybody have heartburn on striking and socio -- 
social?  Keep going, Dick.
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay, I'm going to go pretty fast 
now.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Love it.
		MR. CROWDER:  Oh, page 18 or -- find out where it 
is -- reserve systems.  
		MS. SULTON:  That's page 21.
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay, page 21 in the new one.  
Okay.  It says that several, at least --
		MS. LAYTON:  And the paragraphs?   How many?
		MR. CROWDER:  Paragraph -- system 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 
6.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That starts several traditional 
agricultural organizations?
		MR. CROWDER:  Several traditional organization.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Page 22, line 7.
		MR. CROWDER:  Several additional -- have 
established producer certification systems.  I don't know of 
any, and I'm -- it's a question.  I don't know of any 
producer certification systems.
		MS. LAYTON:  Leon, isn't that your section?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  They are cited at the 
bottom of the page.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  A footnote is for the --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.  I was just trying 
to catch up --
		MR. CROWDER:  Right, but I don't know what they 
are, Leon.
		MR. CORZINE:  I'm sorry.  What, what part?
		MS. LAYTON:  Page 22, line 7.
		MR. CORZINE:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  The citation of footnote number 
four.
		MR. CORZINE:  Have established producer 
certification systems.  That's like -- producer 
certification systems like the ISO 9000 and those kind of -- 
they've got -- there are producer certification systems by -
- Colorado corn growers have one, Illinois, Iowa corn 
growers have one.  We had them listed before.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  They're here.  They're in 
the footnote.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  They're in the foot, 
except there needs to be --
		MR. CORZINE:  But not there that you want the 
name or --
		MR. CROWDER:  No, no. I'm just trying to figure 
out what they are certifying.
		MR. CORZINE:  They're certifying producers.
		MR. CROWDER:  To --
		MS. LAYTON:  That have a higher level of 
education and are equipped to operate under various --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay, that's fine.
		MR. CORZINE:  They're equipped to operate under 
various SOP --
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay.  Okay, that's fine.  That was 
-- okay, perfect.  Because --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Cancel that one.
		MR. CROWDER:  -- we're going to need more -- just 
on the, the one offered by -- the footnote six offered by 
the American Seed Trade Association, I would prefer we put 
owned and offered because it is a owned --
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, so the footnote should say 
owned and offered.
		MR. CROWDER:  Yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Footnote six on page 23 
should say owned and offered by the American Seed Trade 
Association.
		MR. CORZINE:  What's the line of boxes?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Pardon me?
		MR. CORZINE:  The boxes.
		MR. GIROUX:  Paragraph starts with
National Corn Growers --
		MS. SULTON:  Page 23, footnote number six at the 
bottom of the page.
		MR. CORZINE:  -- up on the --
		MS. SULTON:  Now reads owned and offered.  
		MS. LAYTON:  What's Randy asking about?
		MS. DILLEY:  He's saying developed by the 
National Corn Growers Association, and that's that footnote.
		MR. CORZINE:  The next paragraph down, maybe it's 
just in mine, I've got a line of boxes underlined.
		MS. LAYTON:  Oh, we don't -- know before you go 
and know where to go programs have been developed, footnote 
seven, to better inform producers before they bother 
seeding, before harvest, as to who is willing to accept and 
channel specific transgenic -- in specific regions of the 
U.S.  And that footnote is by the National Corn Growers 
Association.
		MS. DILLEY:  You have a row of boxes, but nobody 
else has them.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No one has them.
		MS. LAYTON:  No one else has them.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's a bonus.
		MS. DILLEY:  You're just lucky.  
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. CROWDER:  Traceability -- you've got the 
changes under the seed industry operates today -- federal 
and state seed laws -- then in testing associated issues.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, page 27.
		MR. CROWDER:  -- to the paragraph that begins in 
the absence of international standards.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, that is in --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  To of page 29.
		MS. LAYTON:  29.
		MR. CROWDER:   The last sentence, I'll read the 
whole thing, but-- as such there are commercial risks 
associated with applying transgenic or non-transgenic 
ingredients.  And I think the phrase on the end of that 
should be based upon testing results.  Because all of that 
above there talks above the variability in testing outcome.  
So if you, if you sign a contract or one testing system and 
you send it to the market and test another, use another 
testing system, that's where the risk comes in.
		MR. OLSON:  And we deleted testing where it shows 
here.  Testing was deleted.  It was in there between the 
word commercial and risk -- there was test -- the word 
testing was in there before.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  But the words --
		MR. CROWDER:  Is commercial risk based upon 
testing results?
		MR. GRANT:  I like that, Dick.  I think that 
helps to clarify it.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So you're adding at the end 
of this sentence after the word ingredients based upon 
testing results.
		MR. CROWDER:  Yes.  In fact one of the things 
that we encourage growers to do is to make sure they know 
when they sign IdP contracts they know exactly what testing 
system is going to be used, what lab is going to do it and 
everything else.
		MS. LAYTON:  Any other heartbeats on that one?
Okay.
		MR. CORZINE:  Testing results.
		MS. LAYTON:  Based upon testing results, at the 
end of the sentence.
		MR. GRANT:  Not methods.
		MR. CROWDER:  No, just -- yeah.  Okay, that's it.  
Thank you for your patience.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Dick, thank you.
		MR. GRANT:  You did good.  I think that's the 
model we should use from now on. 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:   Can I ask you -- you didn't 
want to say anything about the issues, the policy concerns 
and issues?
		MS. LAYTON:  The last section.
		MR. CROWDER:  Yeah, I wanted to, but I was going 
to do that as I read them during the day and I just, I 
didn't get to it.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MR. CROWDER:  I intended to cheat a little bit 
here today and do this.
		MS. LAYTON:  Can I just ask you one question?
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  There was a good deal of 
discussion at the meeting that you were not at last time 
about including this issue that we know was yours about the 
role of international organizations.  There was -- I think 
you were -- there were a number of people who didn't think 
that it belonged as an issue.  I want to just take your 
temperature --
		MS. LAYTON:  Because we're deleting.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- on it since you're, since 
you're departing.
		MR. CROWDER:  Which issue are we talking about?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MR. CROWDER:  In mine.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Number nine.
		MS. LAYTON:  Number nine.  It's in this, in the 
document that was on the back table, it's number nine, line 
15.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's not going to be on 
that one, Dick.
		MR. CROWDER:  No, I've got it, I've got it.  
Delete question.  I find that -- well, I guess what I'd like 
to hear is the other side of the coin as to why it should 
not be there. I mean what's the argument that says it ought 
not to be there?
		MS. LAYTON:  I don't actually remember personally 
that it -- the reason why it came up as a delete, and it's 
just -- I dont personally remember that.
		MR. CROWDER:  And we've gone through all these 
items in the adventitious presence and everything else 
today, and we've -- about the issues again and I just --
		MS. LAYTON:  Is that one that got combined?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		MR. CROWDER:  I'd like to leave it in unless 
there's a strong argument --
		MR. JAFFE:  I guess I'm comfortable with it if 
you delete the second sentence.
		MS. DILLEY:  Some issues?
		MR. JAFFE:  Because that -- I mean if you're 
talking about if it's a -- if it's a thing on international 
organizations, that's fine, there's a role, there's a 
potential role for -- the impact.  It's unclear which 
organization.  The U.S. Government should continue to -- 
explore different venues and approaches.  Then to me that 
just means different international organizations, different 
venues and approaches.  I think that bilaterally and 
multilaterally is not related to this, and so --
		MR. CROWDER:  Maybe it ought to be a separate 
issue then.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- and I would -- I don't -- I'm not 
comfortable with us -- I mean there's already references to 
a Mexico thing that I think we're not necessarily properly 
factually describing, but I'm willing to, to not get into 
that and leave it the way it is.  I've never seen that.  
It's not an official document.  I'm not going to endorse it, 
and to me that second sentence indirectly endorses that, 
which I don't think there's a -- it's not even a policy of 
the U.S. Government.  So I'm comfortable with I guess my 
reason for doing that was the second sentence.  I'm 
comfortable with the first and third sentence saying then 
international organizations may have a role in addressing 
some of these things.  I agree with that.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  But I --
		MS. MELLON:  I just -- I mean my only concern 
about that, that one is that it has a recommendation that's 
not, you know, it's not an issue or a concern, it actually 
is phrased as a recommendation.  The U.S. Government should 
continue to creatively explore --
		MR. CROWDER:  Okay, I thought that's, I thought 
that's what Greg was -- but I, Greg, I would suggest that we 
consider in that second sentence to put alternatives on 
issues, maybe --
		MR. JAFFE:  If we take out the references to the 
Mexico agreement in the report, then I'm more comfortable 
with it, but I'm not comfortable with both of those in the 
report because it is an indirect endorsement of the Mexico 
agreement, and I'm not comfortable with that -- bilateral 
that we discussed --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Trilateral.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Trilateral.
		MR. SLOCUM:  BSP --
		MR. JAFFE:  I think we're not describing that 
correctly. It's not a government --
		MR. CROWDER:  Well, let's describe it correctly 
and do it, but I mean I don't see why this group would have 
an issue given the importance of international trade 
agriculture to endorse one channel of approaching these 
issues at the exclusion of another channel.  And I just -- I 
think that's not very kind to the wheat growers and soy bean 
growers, the corn growers, the pickle growers and everything 
else who are looking to see something, and if, if Argentina 
is a big market for U.S. alfalfa or Japan is a big market 
for U.S. alfalfa, I don't know why we shouldn't approach 
that bilaterally.  
		MR. GRANT:  We should leave all the options.  I 
guess my question is, can we find the section on Mexico and 
look at that and see if --
		MS. LAYTON:  I have it. It's page 14, line 29.
		MR. GRANT:  Greg, maybe you can describe how it's 
characterized incorrectly, because I don't see how it's 
described as government --
		MS. LAYTON:  Page 14, line 29, is where it 
begins.  To that end.
		MR. JAFFE:  It is not -- I don't know if it's a 
trilateral agreement.	It's not between the governments.  It's 
not a government document.  It does not have any official 
status of the U.S. Government.  It is a document that talks 
about if a private party sends grain to Mexico what the 
Mexican government will consider sufficient for purposes of 
the Biosafety Protocol.  That's my understanding.  It's not 
published in the Federal Register.  It's not a guidance.  
It's not a policy of the U.S. Government.  The U.S. 
Government hasn't signed it.  So it's not between parties 
and non-parties because it's not --	
		MR. CROWDER:  It was negotiated as I recall 
directly by the State Department.
		MR. JAFFE:  On behalf of private parties.  It's 
not -- I mean that's the problem.  It is very unclear.  But 
I went to, and I can't remember where was the presentation 
where somebody finally described it to me.  There was 
finally a government person I felt described it accurately.
		MS. LAYTON:  Someone is waiving their hand.	
		MR. JAFFE:  That's right, the person described it 
at the -- maybe we can get the transcript or something.  But 
this doesn't describe it.  I'm willing to leave this in, but 
I'm not willing to then link them.
		MS. LAYTON:  Bernice is the expert.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  I'm not the expert, but Greg is 
right.  It's not a formal government-to-government 
agreement.  It's -- we refer to it as a trilateral 
agreement, and so --
		MR. OLSON:  Why don't we just say that.  
Negotiated a trilateral arrangement.
		MR. CROWDER:  Call it what it is, and then -- I 
dont have a problem with that.
		MS. LAYTON:  So it's really not a bilateral 
agreement, government agreement.
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. JAFFE:  It doesn't say that.  It doesn't 
belong here then.  It --
		MR. GRANT:  I think it, I think it belongs 
because it facilitated trade, but footnote it at the bottom 
explain this is not a treaty.  It's not between the 
governments.  This is an arrangement, and explain what it 
is, if that's what we need to.  But obviously it facilitated 
trade and continues to this day, so it met the purpose.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  I think it's reasonable to say the 
government helped facilitate the --
		MR. JAFFE:  The beginning of the paragraph says 
the Protocol allows the Parties or non-Parties to enter in 
bilateral, multilateral agreements.  I have no problem with 
that.  This is not a -- described that's not what this is.
		MR. CROWDER:  Then let's get it correct, and 
let's take out to that end, and start another paragraph and 
decide what this one is.
	MR. JAFFE:  Well, I don't think it belongs here then.  
This is the discussion of what the Protocol does.  It's not 
a discussion of how people implemented the Protocol.   This 
is purely factual.  I've always had a problem with this 
section here, but I've been comfortable with it.  The whole 
point of the Codex and the Biosafety Protocol sections here 
was to talk about what other labeling and traceability 
requirements are out there, not how they're being 
implemented.  We're not here to write a treatise on the 
different implementation --
		MR. CROWDER:  No.  We're talking -- let me just, 
let me ask -- let's talk about the business and trade side 
of it and not the legal side.  You say it's not associated 
with the Protocol.  The Biosafety Protocol that never came 
into -- look, if the Biosafety Protocol had never came into 
existence, would this agreement have taken place?
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm not saying it's not associated 
with the --
		MR. CROWDER:  Well, no, you did.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, I'm saying if not -- it is not -- 
this section here -- for this section to describe what does 
the Protocol require, what is in the Protocol, not to 
discuss implications or how different countries are 
implementing it, which is this -- different thing.  That's 
not part of our group charge.  I've never seen the document.  
I'm not comfortable with --
		MR. CROWDER:  I've seen the document.  I'll tell 
you what, others can say what they want, but if I had to 
take out one thing, and I don't think we ought to take out 
either, I would take out this because it's known in fact 
exists and leave the policy --
		MS. LAYTON:  So take out --
		MR. CROWDER:  No, I'm not -- I'm not saying -- if 
I've got to make a choice, I'm saying that the trade -- 
we've got to do everything we can to facilitate trade, 
period.  And if we just leave it with this one document and 
don't suggest a broader approach later, we have not done 
justice to -- but I dont really -- I'll let you reflect on 
--
		MS. FOREMAN:  I, I -- we should do everything 
within reason to facilitate trade.  We -- I can't buy the 
unalloyed endorsement of all trade, so --
		MR. CROWDER:  Well, I'm kind of against -- the 
legal approaches to it too.
		MS. FOREMAN:  I'm -- there are a lot of trade 
things that we don't support, even though we're the most 
pro-trade of all the consumer groups, there's a lot of 
things we're not for.
		MS. SULTON:  Jerry.
		MR. SLOCUM:  It seems to me that you know Greg's 
issue is not with bilateral or multilateral negotiations.  
His issue is with the tacit endorsement it gives of this 
trilateral arrangement.
		MR. JAFFE:  That's right.
		MR. SLOCUM:  That's right?  So what we really 
need to do then is clean up this paragraph on page 14 that 
you take exception to.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'd love to eliminate that.
		MR. SLOCUM:  That's what we need to fix.
		MR. JAFFE:   And then you could rewrite the 
recommendations saying, you know, I mean you could write the 
issues saying, you know, there's a role for adjusting the 
impact internationally be it through -- organizations, 
through bilateral agreement, through multilateral agreement.
		MS. LAYTON:  Or through arrangements.
		MR. JAFFE:  The government should -- I'm not 
going to go into arrangements.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  Because then we're discussing --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- this other thing, which I dont 
think has a lot of legal validity.
		MR. GRANT:  Greg, can you answer one question for 
me?  Does the arrangement allow trade to continue between 
the participants to the arrangement and meet the 
requirements of the Protocol?
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't know.
		MS. LAYTON:  Could it be in footnote?
		MR. JAFFE  It says what the Mexicans are going to 
-- my understanding is it says what the Mexicans will be 
comfortable with in terms of labeling for commodity 
shipments that are going into Mexico.  I don't think we 
could -- if we -- if the trade was going the other way that 
it would be binding at all on our government in terms of 
saying that if somebody else was shipping something with -- 
adventitious presence, something that wasn't approved there, 
that we'd be particularly comfortable with the labeling of 
it -- approval of it.  
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Mardi and then Leon.
		MS. MELLON:  I would be in favor of having it 
described, because I think it's -- it's important to me that 
this is what is happening in the real world in response to a 
lot of these issues.  Now I'm like Greg.  I don't, I don't -
- I think I don't like it because I think it cuts consumers 
out of the process more than I would like, but I don't 
understand it well enough to be sure that that's the case.  
But I would -- so I would be searching for some description 
of the fact that there's an informal agreement among three 
countries that, you know, that appears for the moment to be 
facilitating trade and then some -- but what I, what I would 
like it -- I don't like the idea that we would be 
necessarily endorsing it without fully understanding it.  
But I would like it to be described, because I think it's an 
event in -- you know, that's going on out there.
		MS. LAYTON:  Could it be described under the 
auspices of while not -- while the U.S. is not a Party to 
the BSP, arrangements have been made that respect ongoing 
negotiations in the BSP to facilitate trade?  And I don't 
know the answer to that, so I'm just asking.
		MR. CORZINE:  I think it kind of starts right off 
that paragraph saying that, sub-Parties and non-Parties, and 
I think it shows a good example of in the real world of what 
has been done to move forward, and how they can use the 95 
percent how they can use -- it's just an example.  I guess 
if you don't like what -- maybe you dont agree necessarily 
completely with that trilateral agreement, it is there.  It 
is real world, and this is, this is what --
		MS. LAYTON:  And I would say this.  I think what 
it is saying is, is that the word agreement implies it is a 
government-to-government and it is not a government-to-
government agreement.  It is a business agreement arranged 
by the government.
		MR. JAFFE:  It is not allowed for under the 
Protocol.  It's not an agreement that -- there's a section 
of the Protocol that says specifically you can have 
arrangements between Parties and non-Parties.  The U.S. 
Government has specifically said this isn't something that 
qualifies under that article. So it doesn't fit here.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well that's why I'm saying is it 
could be described here and that it respects what's going on 
in the BSP, but it is a business arrangement that did 
include some help from the government in negotiating.  I'm 
just trying to find a way around -- I understand why it's 
here with the BSP because it respects what's in the BSP, but 
it is truly not a formal-to-formal government agreement, and 
the word agreement I think does have implication of being a 
formal State-to-State agreement.  So I think there's some 
need -- if we could work on some language, fine.		
		MR. CROWDER:  So all you need to do is change the 
word agreed to terms.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think it needs a statement ahead 
of that.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's following a sentence 
that this is authorized by the Protocol and it isn't.
		MS. SULTON:  Ron and then --
		MR. OLSON:  I think it needs to be in there, but 
it needs to come out of this paragraph.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I agree.
		MR. OLSON:  I think it can be a stand-alone 
paragraph when you could just start at the beginning, 
alternatively, you know, a business arrangement or describe 
what it really is, but take it out of that sentence --
		MS. LAYTON:  Absolutely.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think the language can be 
fixed.
		MS. LAYTON:  Absolutely.
		(Pause.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Are you comfortable with 
that, Greg?
		MR. JAFFE:  I'll have to --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I'll work on something 
myself.  I'll get Ron to help me.
		MS. SULTON:  Daryl and -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Mardi, I'm okay with that.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay, Daryl --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's not, that's not an 
issue.
		MR. BUSS:  Okay, to avoid confusion with the 
Cartagena Protocol, why wouldn't we simply just insert 
between line 26, 27, a number three and head it as Informal 
Business Agreements or whatever you like 
outside --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Because it's really, it really 
is related to --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.  We wouldn't have 
done it without --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think its a matter of how 
it's characterized.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I think it can be fixed 
fairly easily.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I'll have to see it.
		MS. LAYTON:  Please let us work on it.  Okay.  
Tomorrow.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm not committing one way or the 
other, but --
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, tomorrow.
		MR. CROWDER:  You might have to --
		MR. JAFFE:  What?
		MR. CROWDER:  You might have to write up a report 
on that one.
		MS. LAYTON:  He's kidding.  
		(Laughter.)
		MS. LAYTON:  He's kidding.  But --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Juan.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I think this discussion actually 
brings up an important issue here, which is when you talk 
about global traceability and labeling, there are going to 
be strict government-to-government agreements.  There's 
going to be another level.  There's going to be another 
level, and I think there should be a paragraph in here that 
says, if an organization -- if you don't want to call it 
Wal-Mart, like a mega-retailer on a global level sets its 
own traceability requirements, that could be just as 
important and have as much of an impact as a government 
agreement.  Because I think your point is a very important 
point, which is there are going to be different things 
driving this, and it ain't just going to be government-to-
government, and it ain't just going to be formal treaties.  
I think we should acknowledge that in this report.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's in there.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's in the section on 
government --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  In the section, just --
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, we'll work on that.  All 
right, so --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think, I think we need to --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  adjourn?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- to adjourn for the day.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, now what we didn't -- before I 
got, before we leave, did we solve whether we were going to 
delete nine or not?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Keep nine.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- we would keep nine.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  What time are we starting 
tomorrow?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  8 o'clock.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  8 o'clock.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  If -- will you be okay with 
leaving that sentence in, in that other policy concern if we 
can fix this, this part to your satisfaction?
		MR. JAFFE:  Depends how it's written.  I think if 
it's written as --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Statement of facts.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- statement or --
		MS. ZANNONI:  That is not in agreement.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't want it -- no, it can't be 
linked to --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- thing.  If it's written as this 
report raises lots of issues that should be, should be 
addressed internationally via organizations multilaterally 
or trilaterally, I'm comfortable with it.  If it has a 
specific sentence that sort of says the U.S. Government 
should go for multilateral or trilateral agreements, I'm 
still concerned about the linkage.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  So if it's -- laundry list of --
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Of alternatives.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- of alternatives and we say the 
U.S. Government should pursue all of these, then I'm 
comfortable with it.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So we can work on number nine 
and have it back in.
		MR. JAFFE:  All right, I've got to go.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, bye.  We'll work on number 
nine and have it back in.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Why did I just agree to do 
that?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I dont know.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  You okay with that?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Number nine.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay, all right.  
		(Simultaneous comments.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Thank you all for your 
appearance.
		MS. FOREMAN:  Can we get excused for tomorrow 
now?
		MS. LAYTON:  We'll adjourn until 8 o'clock.
		No.  I'm sorry.  Lisa 
		(whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the meeting in the 
above-entitled matter was adjourned, to resume at 8:00 a.m., 
on February 8, 2005.)  


CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, Dan Hawkins, do hereby certify that the 
foregoing transcription was Electronically recorded on 
audiotape by me and reduced to typewriting under my 
direction; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor 
employed by any of the parties to the action in which these 
proceedings were transcribed; that I am not a relative or 
employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties 
hereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in the 
outcome of the action.

___________________________________
DAN HAWKINS, REPORTER
FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.



	







 
 
 
 
2

44

FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting  Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947

FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting  Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947
2

64

FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting  Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947

FREE STATE REPORTING, INC.
Court Reporting  Transcription
D.C. Area 301-261-1902
Balt. & Annap. 410-974-0947