Let me give members of the public a brief synopsis of the work of the AC21 over past year. At the first meeting, committee members discussed the, the Secretary’s charge in some detail, listened to several expert presentations, and in getting down to the business at hand, decided that four working groups should be established, to gather and organize materials for the committee to consider on four topics. First, size and scope of risks. Second, potential compensation mechanisms. Third, eligibility standards and tools and triggers. And fourth, who pays. The first two of these working groups started their discussions before the second plenary session, the other two after the second plenary. Each working group has, to date, met no less than four times. We’ll shortly hear report-outs from each group and meeting summaries from all the working group meetings that have taken place since the last plenary session are provided in the package at the door. I should mention that working groups are, as required by law, populated by individuals with a balanced range of perspectives. We have included both AC21 members and some outside individuals to achieve balance in these groups. A handout at the door lists the names of the individuals in each. There have also been several expert presentations to the AC21 on several topics, including past organized efforts relating to coexistence and on how farmers
So as each of you listen to those reports, please identify those areas you believe the committee has agreement on and where we need further discussion over the next couple days. We all need to keep our eyes on the end goal. And that is, constructive policy recommendations on coexistence, consistent with the charge and in the public interest. This is our collective challenge. It will not be easy, but I look forward to the next two days and the very thoughtful exchange and a productive meeting. Now I’d like to introduce Rob Burk, the designated federal official for the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council. I ask Rob to give us a few words on the progress of the council that has been named and is underway. The work is ready. So, Rob, welcome. MR. BURK: Morning. MR. REDDING: It’s good to see you. MR. BURK: You too. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for having me. So if, if it hasn’t been brought to your attention, which I believe the Chairman just noted, last month we officially announced to the public the appointments of the National Genetic Resource Advisory Council. If you haven’t seen the, if you haven’t seen the press release, there is one on the, on the back table there and I’ll make sure the people receive an electronic copy as well for distribution. It’s a very diverse and impressive group of
some cases, a fairly significant percentage of that cost. And we’ll structure it in such a way that the insurance company’s risk is also mitigated by providing some promise that if it’s really, really bad, the Government will step in and limit the exposure that the insurance company has. And that insurance company then provides re-insurance, and purchases, in a sense, re-insurance to protect it against risk. So, there’s a series of steps here that are designed not to necessarily eliminate it, but to minimize it to a point where it’s, it’s, it’s, you, you can survive. All right. Now, in addition to that, we also create these series of programs, where in the past, where we’ve allowed you to go out and borrow money on the crop and if the price goes below what the loan rate is, you get, you know, you, you, there are just a whole series of issues. In addition to that, to minimize that risk of, of surpluses really creating havoc with the price, we come in with nutrition assistance programs that help moderate that surplus and use, you know, provide assistance and help for people to be able to pay at the grocery store so that 14 cents of every nutrition assistance dollar that goes out the door comes back in the hands and pocket of a farmer. So, I mean, there’s a whole comprehensive system that we put in place that is in that Food, Farm and Jobs Bill designed to provide
something that we could get a lot further with if we were to reverse the, if we were to reverse addressing the questions in that order. So, I absolutely agree with Mary Howell on that one. And I think any recommendations that we have we want to make sure doesn’t divide agriculture as we’ve heard and also doesn’t undermine acceptance of any form of agriculture, whether it’s organic, whether it’s other IP, whether it’s biotech. And, and, and I think that Josette’s point as well, that she raised earlier, about economic benefit is something that we don’t want to lose sight of. That is a, that is a, a great benefit for folks that grow identity preserved crops, whether it’s organic or white corn or, or whatever it might be. And, and I think that we really need to think, we need to make sure as a committee that we are thinking holistically about these issues, including policy, potential policy implications. We can’t think about these in a vacuum. I also don’t think that we can guard against any risk, you, you know, one in a trillion, is the USDA going to make, for example, a policy decision to guard against a one in a million or whatever the risk might be? And, and I think that’s something that we, we all need to take into account as we, as we write our report. MR. REDDING: Thank you. Chuck? I’m sorry,
first block, first one out of the blocks. And secondly, I want those functional traits. But I think I can get those functional traits with respect for coexistence and choice. Right now, that’s pretty iffy. MR. CORZINE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add if you would pardon me, that as we look at functional traits in this section, I, I fear we’re going to focus on something that one particular product that is such a minute amount. That is not going to be the case of all functional traits. And, and so, I think it’s a misrepresentation that in this room or people that read our minutes, that we’re talking about a functional trait and this sensitivity. The sensitivities probably, I know of a lot of products that are not near this sensitive. So, I just caution as we look at things that, that we remember that aspect of it. MR. REDDING: It’s a fair, fair point. I guess, Lynn? MR. CLARKSON: No, that’s, that’s fair enough. There will be some traits that are universally accepted. My concern isn’t when everything works well. My concern is where something goes wrong. MR. REDDING: Yeah, I, I think, you know, what, what the, my take away is, listen the, the future is incredibly complicated. Right? By acres, by hybrids, by this trait, that trait, you know, so a we think about the
the current thinking? MR. SCHECHTMAN: I, I think there are, that, that kind of mixes a few things together. There, what we are talking about mitigation and we’re talking about compensation. He was very specific that the compensation mechanism refers to compensation for GE-related presence. And that, and that could apply, I think to all kinds of farmers. If there’s, if there’s an issue related to that. The question of whether or not that would have to be expanded in some way to reach an agreement, I don’t, I, I think, I think you’re going to have to make a decision as to what this committee is going to say and we will have to go back and bring it to the Secretary. And if you find a mechanism to address the questions that he’s concerned with, we’ll take them, we will take that back with us. I don’t think he was as specific in the second instance in talking about the mitigation portion, because the, the element of the charge on that one is broader. It’s helping coexistence. MS. OLSEN: And, thank you. And, and I should have been more focused in my question. I was referring to the, the actual compensation mechanism. I, I also want to make sure that as a committee we still have the same charge, looking at particularly the first, the first charge question, the if any. I want to make sure as a committee
poverty and better nutrition for third world countries. So, are we now admitting some kind of guilt? Greenpeace, Sierra Club, NRDC, et al. Were they all right all along? I never understood their reasoning and probably never will, but I truly hope the Foreign Ag Service and the U.S. Trade Representative has input on these discussions. Third, why, after all these years of proven technology, are we still even entertaining the idea of GMOs versus the old way of growing crops, is beyond me. In my 50 years plus on the farm, I learned a few things and most of them the hard way. I can remember saving our own seed stocks because we thought we had something special, only to find out a few years later that sacred strain had gone a race anyhow. I can remember variety trials, hundreds of them, cross-pollinating parent stock with little paintbrushes. Trying to get a new hybrid tomato or a pepper or sweet corn and then waiting years to get a viable, marketable variety acceptable to mommies everywhere. I also remember the years of hope of speeding up the process. Now we finally can build varieties with traits that not only sustain our agriculture but to continue to give us hope that there is a future for guys like me and my 13-year-old son. Finally, I was raised to believe agriculture was a dynamic profession. It’s ever-changing, constantly