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



					Tuesday,
					February 8, 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 D. BUSS
		CAROLE L. CRAMER
		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







I N D E X

									Page

Overview of report on the impacts of 		 4
agricultural biotechnology on American
agriculture and USDA over the next five 
to ten years and the reports						

Introductory Chapters, Discussion of		 5

Executive Summary, Discussion of			 24

Preparing for the Future, Review			 24

Rosy Scenario, Discussion of				 24

Continental Islands, Discussion of 		 24

Biotech Goes Niche, Discussion of			 24

Implications and Questions				 24

Discussion of process for finalizing 		 24
the Committee's reports, the Committee's
work plan, next steps and future work
topic

P R O C E E D I N G S 
									(8:00 a.m.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Good morning, and welcome to our 
second day of the lovely February meetings of the AC21.
		We had a very productive day yesterday.  We had 
a lot get done during the day on two of our various 
reports.  So we have a lot more to do today.  
		So I'm going to ask Michael to welcome you this 
morning, and then I'll think we'll probably have kind of a 
quick review of how we're going to get through the day. 
Thank you.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, as is frequently our 
habit, we departed a little bit from our stated agenda.  
Happily we were able to move I think quite, quite well on 
two documents, and we managed to make progress on both the 
traceability and labeling report, including a work group 
that went off and really did some fine negotiations I 
think, to bring back a new consumer section for the 
traceability and labeling report that I think was generally 
very well received by, by the full committee. 
		And, there was the decision to push as hard as 
we can to also now take the -- what was the scenario's 
chapter for the five to ten year report, and make that a 
separate proposed report going along on the same, on the 
same track as the traceability and labeling report, two 
documents that will be submitted under separate cover 
letters but pretty much simultaneously to the Secretary as 
two items -- outputs of the first two years of this 
committee's existence.  And, we established a process by 
which we should be able to finalize those documents without 
another plenary session. 
		We really very much appreciate everyone's hard 
work and cooperation yesterday.  We have a lot more to do 
today.  So I think that's basically the introductory 
thoughts.  I think at this point we want to -- 
		MS. DILLY:  We want to jump back into the market 
segmentation.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We're I guess going to turn, 
turn first to the traceability and labeling, if you want to 
work on that part of the report, and I'll turn it over to 
Abby. 
		MS. DILLEY:  Sure.  We thought we'd start with 
market segmentation which I think was the last piece that 
we hadn't discussed as our full committee, to finalize that 
with the new language.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And the policy concerns 
which we hadn't discussed.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.  And then we'll turn to the 
policies section, and then finally do the, the Executive 
Summary, and, and then complete that and then continue the 
discussion of the scenarios document.
		Before we shift to the scenarios document, we 
might just want to at least outline a cover note that would 
go with the traceability and labeling document from the 
committee to the Secretary and then hopefully have time to 
do the same with the scenarios document as well as cover 
note for the scenarios document.
		So that's giving an overall outline of the 
agenda for today.  
		So market segmentation, which is on page -- 
let's see here -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  30.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- 30.  On page 30.  Here we go.  
Section G, and just to remind everybody of my outline 
notes, but I wasn't sure everybody was in the room, that 
with the new language, that first line, line 23, 24, and 
then the next page at the top of 31 is also new language.  
		And I think everybody, at least when we first 
talked about this before, were fine with that first 
sentence, but we want to make sure that those of you who 
were out of the room had a chance to review that, and then 
we started talking about the other paragraph but wanted -- 
I think we wanted Ron in particular to be in the room to 
talk about the different options there before we close that 
out.
		So first of all, any comments on 23, 24 on page 
30?
		MR. OLSON:  The only question is about 
heterogeneous and homogenous, whether that accurately 
describes the process, should this be larger and smaller 
segments or something.  I don't know if smaller segments 
are necessarily homogeneous.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  More homogeneous?
		MR. OLSON:  Or just, you know, dividing the 
larger market into several sub-markets.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.
		MR. OLSON:  We don't need to define the specific 
-- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Whether they're homogeneous or 
heterogeneous.
		MR. OLSON:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So larger market into 
several sub-markets.  Are people fine with that then?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Smaller or sub?
		MS. DILLEY:  So just take out homogeneous.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  And then the next page is page 31, 
that's lines 5 through 9.  
		MS. SULTON:  We made the change yesterday, Abby, 
and they're likely to be substantially equivalent, the 
change yesterday, to very similar?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  But I think there was some more 
discussion and Greg had raised some issues about, about 
this piece.  So we should let him find where we are and -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Page 31, lines 5 -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  They're trying to describe the 
range of perspectives here, and so it's trying to find the 
right language to do that. 
		MR. OLSON:  And what did you change to 
substantially equivalent?
		MS. SULTON:  I think it was changed to very 
similar or likely to be similar to traditional products.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think we were trying to say that -
- I think we said that current products, the difference 
between the current and future products.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Current products are very 
similar.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  What did we take out?  
		MR. JAFFE:  That future products offer the 
promise of addressing future needs of -- that's one way to 
put it.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  And so omit future products 
until after and.
		MR. JAFFE:  Correct.
		MR. OLSON:  Just a question.  I guess I missed 
that discussion.  What was the reasoning of taking out 
substantially equivalent because that's a term that's kind 
of used today.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  There had been the thought that 
it's, it's a term that's freighted with a lot of baggage in 
some eyes and is not actually an endpoint in the U.S. 
regulatory system anyway, if I could capture the 
discussion.
		MR. MARYANSKI:  It's certainly more than it's 
more -- it's more inaccurate in the -- labeling than it is 
here in this context here, but because it's that term 
that's, that's evokes a lot of emotion in the debate, it's 
better to use something different.
		MR. OLSON:  Okay.  Thanks.
		MS. DILLEY:  Any other comments on that section?  
Greg?
		MR. JAFFE:  I would just delete the word 
unknown.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  In line 8?
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah.  
		MS. DILLEY:  And focus on potential long-term 
safety concerns or consequences to the environment.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Any other comments on that section.  
Mardi?
		MS. MELLON:  What page are you on?  I'm not 
looking -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  31.
		MS. MELLON:  Political system on page 31?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Up at the very top.
		MS. LAYTON:  The italicized section.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Any comments on that?  Okay.  So we 
can accept it as modified?
		MR. BUSS:  Does anybody see a change in the 
message by deleting unknown?  It sends the message 
that -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  We know what the long-term safety 
concerns are.
		MR. BUSS:  -- there are no long-term safety 
concerns, and when you take it out, it implies that you do.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.  I actually like the unknown 
in it.
		MR. GREG:  Why?
		MS. LAYTON:  Where you took out unknown, a focus 
on potential unknown longer-term safety concerns.  If you 
take out the word unknown, then it looks like you know what 
longer-term safety concerns are.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think potential suggests that it 
may or may not happen.  Unknown to me is somewhat 
derogatory.  It's suggesting people going after something 
that's nonexistent.  In this debate, all these people are 
sort of -- some are saying people are going after unknown, 
undocumented, unsubstantiated concerns as opposed to -- and 
so I don't think, I don't think it needs to be there.  It 
could be ascribing to points of view here I think that that 
gives an unnecessary negative tone to that point of view, 
suggesting they're going after something unknown as opposed 
to something that's potential long term.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah, I agree.
		MR. JAFFE:  I just don't think it's needed 
there.
		MR. GRANT:  The phrase is used a lot though, 
Greg.  I think we have to agree the phrase is used a lot by 
those who question the long-term viability of the 
technology.  You read it in the press constantly, you know.  
I've even heard the phrase unknown unknowns used.  We don't 
know what questions to ask yet.
		MR. MARYANSKI:  Well, here it's in the context 
of safety though.
		MR. GRANT:  Right, unknown longer-term safety 
concerns.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I think potential long term -- 
longer-term safety concerns covers it.  I just don't think 
putting unknown in there helps.  I think it does suggest -- 
		MS. MELLON:  I mean potential needs, that may or 
may not be there. 
		MR. JAFFE:  The whole point here was Ron wanted 
to put in two -- the main -- the two ranges of viewpoints.  
I think unknown adds a negative aspect to that.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Any -- can we leave it out?
		MR. OLSON:  Does it imply that there are coming 
ones though?  Potential sounds like to me that there's -- 
		MS. CRAMER:  So is there a weaker word for 
potential?  Is possible?  I mean I use potential all the 
time, you know, as it has great potential, and it's like 
it's going to happen.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Possible.
		MS. LAYTON:  Possible.  Are you comfortable with 
possible, Greg?
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Mardi?
		MS. MELLON:  Sure.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Possible longer-term safety 
concerns or consequences to the environment.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Nothing else on that page 
that had any questions?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Mardi.
		MS. LAYTON:  Mardi had something.
		MS. MELLON:  Yeah, on I guess it's line 34 in 
the political system, there's the use of this term science-
based which I don't think is appropriate.  I think it ought 
to be safety-based.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MS. MELLON:  This doesn't mean anything to -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  So change science-based to safety- 
based?
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Is everybody okay with that?
		MR. OLSON:  Which one?
		MS. LAYTON:  She's substituting -- where it says 
regulations on different approaches, which may be more or 
less safety-based or market-based and may blend in various 
"right to know" concepts, instead of science-based or 
market-based.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'd like to know the reason to 
change that, because this is black text and I thought this 
was out of scope for discussion.
		MS. LAYTON:  That's why I asked.
		MR. GIROUX:  And I want to know what the prime 
reason why.  We use science-based all the time.  The United 
States uses the term.  It's used internationally.  I want 
to know what would be the compelling reason, and actually I 
think it changes the meaning.
		MS. MELLON:  Well, I think it's just flat out 
inaccurate to say concerns are science-based.  That doesn't 
have any meaning.  The concerns -- the differential is 
between people who are concerned about -- who claim that 
there are safety-based or environment risks associated with 
technology and people who, who have other concerns about 
it.  The other concerns are often also science-based.  I 
mean we have a concern about, about putting an animal gene 
into a vegetable and serving it to people who don't know 
that an animal gene is in there.  That is a science-based 
concern.  It -- it derives from the science.  It's proved 
by the science.  It would be enforced by the science if you 
were to build it into some sort of a, or a regulatory 
scheme.
		So what differentiates concerns is the purpose 
of the -- what motivates people and the differentiation 
here I think is, is that some folks say, well, your 
concerns are not safety-based.  They are only values- based 
or social- and economic-based.  So I -- but I do agree that 
the term is constantly used and I think, of course, 
inaccurately.  It -- I'm not sure why, why it has been -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Can I suggest an alternative 
perhaps?  Either -- I share your concern that that word 
sometimes is misinterpreted.  How about if we use science-
based safety assessments?
		MS. MELLON:  I would be pleased with that?
		MS. ZANNONI:  But this is about different 
countries based -- based on safety except the U.S. which is 
not what we're -- not what this paper is talking about 
because this is talking about process-based labeling.
		MS. MELLON:  So you would argue we should just 
drop it.  We should have more or less market-based and may 
blend in various "right to know."  
		MS. ZANNONI:  I don't know.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think Randy's other point, Mardi, 
is the question if we start opening up black text then -- 
		MS. MELLON:  On that I was going to say I would 
yield.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes, I think we should -- 
		MS. MELLON:  This is a point that I think is 
important that I didn't catch earlier.  So -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  I think we should not go there.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  Especially with people not being 
here to discuss it, and it had already been discussion at 
the last meeting.  
		So if we can then -- that brings us to moving 
into the Section 4 which is the policy concerns issue 
raised, and that's what we call -- I'm sorry.  
		MS. LAYTON:  I was just going to say, Carole, 
there was a slight change on the H section that was -- 
showed you this morning.  Did you show her the one that had 
the change on it?  I just want to make sure Carole knows a 
change was made.
		They briefed her on it already.  Okay.  We're 
just going to give her a copy.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So on page -- that brings us 
to the Policy Concerns/Issues Raised section, and as you 
recall, we spent a fair amount of time in the December 
meeting going through this section, but then we had a, we 
had a rewrite that we didn't have a chance to really go 
through.  So I wanted to turn to that at this point, and 
see if there -- yesterday we talked about number 9 I think 
and we -- some language to -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Yes, we have some suggested language 
that we'll get to.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- come up with, but why don't we 
start from the top and see what -- if we can just work 
through these one by one.
		MR. GRANT:  It's page 33?
		MS. DILLEY:  That's correct.  It starts on 33, 
and let's start with the first one and just see if there 
are any additional comments on that.  I don't think that 
changed much really.  So -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The ones that changed are the 
ones that have bracketed text.
		MS. DILLEY:  That have bracketed text, right. So 
that starts with number 2 which has some different 
alternatives in there.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm the one who suggested that -- 
well, I think I was the one who made a comment and then 
Michael probably put in the language from the suggestion 
for number 2.  I felt that the first sentence read as if 
all three things related to certain countries as opposed to 
we're saying some tracing and labeling requirements are 
uncertain, are rapidly evolving and often lack 
specification at all.  All three of them have existed in 
one instance, whereas what I thought we meant was some of 
one, some of the other and some of the third.  And so 
Michael changed the language in the second part to try to 
address that concern because I think we meant that some of 
them were uncertain, some of them are rapidly evolving, 
some -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  As opposed to they all fall in one 
category.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right, they all have to fall under 
one category.  So we're clarifying -- it's an attempt to 
clarify.
		MR. OLSON:  Yes, I like the change.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Any, any dissent on the 
change?
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm okay on the red.
		MS. DILLEY:  So it's that second, second 
bracket, also number 2.  
		Okay.  How about number 3?  And there's a 
bracket, one at the beginning in terms of "Industry is 
grappling with the impacts of" or "There are inherent 
difficulties in."  
		MS. CRAMER:  I like "There are inherent 
difficulties in."
		MS. DILLEY:  Any disagreement with that?
		MR. GIROUX:  That's the first change, correct?
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MR. GIROUX:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  And then we're adding "and 
enforcing," I guess is the next question.  "With 
difficulties in complying with and enforcing."
		MR. JAFFE:  IÕm not inclined to include that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, that was, that was -- 
those were words from Terry.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Can we remove that?
		MR. GIROUX:  I would like to include it because 
there are inherent difficulties which I think we address in 
the paper around detectability of products no longer 
contained DNA protein and some of the other inner 
difficulties in testing.  So I would like to see that stay.
		MR. JAFFE:  But enforcement is a specific term 
that talks about Government taking action against somebody 
for noncompliance --  
		MR. GIROUX:  Correct.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- and I don't think it fits here.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Do you think it's a Government 
thing or is it more industry specific so it would be 
complying with and -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  To enforce traceability and 
labeling laws, you have to be -- you have to have some 
approach to execute it.
		MS. DILLEY:  You say complying and -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  And since a different part requires 
you to test the food, and because it's very difficult to 
test food, and in some cases, impossible to test the food, 
I think there are difficulties in enforcing these 
regulations.
		MS. DILLEY:  Could you just say implementing 
instead of enforcing because I think most people assume 
that enforcing is associated with government as opposed to 
industry.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.  This is a report primarily 
talking about the impacts of industry.  We're talking about 
industry here because industry is having compliance -- to 
put both of those in the same sentence doesn't make any 
sense.
		MS. SULTON:  How about interpreting in -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  I'll yield on that one.
		MS. LAYTON:  So leaving enforcing in or -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS:  Out.
		MS. DILLEY:  And then Government-imposed process 
certification requirements pose challenges for either the 
marketplace or industry.
		MR. JAFFE:  Just industry.
		MS. DILLEY:  So it was the original industry or 
was the original marketplace?
		MR. OLSON:  Marketplace.
		MS. DILLEY:  So it's changing it to industry 
versus the marketplace.
		MR. OLSON:  Industry is there.  They're just not 
grappling as much.
		MS. DILLEY:  So industry.  Okay.  Okay.  So then 
on 4.
		MS. LAYTON:  We're dealing with in or when one 
is.  
		MR. JAFFE:  The first two I suggested when one 
is and I suggested that are required to meet, and I thought 
those would make the sentence read better, the meaning more 
accurate.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So that's in the second 
sentence.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, they're both in the first 
sentence.
		MS. DILLEY:  I'm sorry.  Second line.
		MR. JAFFE:  First and second.
		MS. LAYTON:  So this is a more editorial and 
readability issue.
		MR. GRANT:  Abby?
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MR. GRANT:  Before we leave 3, I wanted to flip 
back and look and see if we defined industry as -- okay.  
Yeah.  Okay.  All right.  Never mind.  We can leave it be.
		MS. DILLEY:  You're okay with that?
		MR. GRANT:  Yeah.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So just editorial comments.  
If it changes the meaning, then obviously we need to revert 
back to the other language but are people okay with the 
editorial changes suggested?  So the first one would be -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  So the suggestion is in.
		MR. JAFFE:  The suggestion was -- no, in was in 
there.  I suggested saying "There are significant sampling 
and testing issues when one is supplying grain and grain 
products that are required to meet specific tolerances or 
thresholds as opposed to in compliance with and in.
		MS. DILLEY:  Any problems with that?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So we're accepting the 
change. 
		The last line in that section, there's a 
bracket.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, I added those words just 
because I thought it improved the meaning.
		MS. DILLEY:  The problem of variability?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.
		MS. DILLEY:  Does anybody have any problem with 
that?  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's probably among instead of 
between, I'm sorry, statistician that I am.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Between two tests or 
more.
		MS. CRAMER:  Yes, it is.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, but I think in that, when you 
don't know, I think it's safer to use among.  Is that okay?  
I'm sorry.  It wasn't in -- I didn't suggest.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's fine.  
		MS. LAYTON:  But it was in blue and not black.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  All right.  Can we move to 5 
or are there any other comments on 4?
		(No response.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Five.
		MS. CRAMER:  Here we're grappling industry.
		MR. OLSON:  We're grappling again.
		MS. MELLON:  Industry is grappling again.
		MR. GIROUX:  So this is new text or old?
		MS. CRAMER:  It's old text.
		MS. DILLEY:  No, it's old.  It moved up from -- 
it was 5, but then we deleted one -- another one at the 
last go around, and then it became -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  So it's just moved and that's why 
it's -- so it really isn't open.
		MS. CRAMER:  The question is whether grappling 
is still -- current industry.
		MS. LAYTON:  Industries don't struggle.
		MS. DILLEY:  But they grapple?
		MS. LAYTON:  They don't grapple.
		MR. OLSON:  I would say they do here.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MR. OLSON:  There's been a lot of meetings among 
the industry players about how we, how we get this done -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Grappling it is.  
		MS. DILLEY:  So we move to 6 then?  So the 
change here suggested is established as opposed to 
clarified.
		MS. LAYTON:  And we're adding which instead of 
the or something.  Michael has changed the to which?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  I had a couple of suggests that come 
up in the -- in the proposal, but that's okay.  Why don't 
we suggest which biotech test results because we're 
specifically biotech here, and the first sentence talks 
about the movement of goods, and the second sentence talks 
about grain and grain products.  So I propose putting in 
which biotech test results of a grain or grain product take 
precedence in the movement of goods needs to be clarified.  
Aren't we talking about test results of grain and grain 
products?  So -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Clarified I think is better than 
established because usually it's established.  When you 
make a contract, you establish which test.  Most people 
won't write a contract unless you agree which test takes 
place.  So it is established.  It's just that sometimes 
it's not clarified.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So use the word clarified.  
That's more technical.
		MR. JAFFE:  I had suggested that.
		MS. LAYTON:  And I think all of the testing 
we're talking about is biotech.  So that may be redundant.  
		MS. CRAMER:  Result should be plural.
		MS. LAYTON:  Test results.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Could you read, Greg, the rest 
of your change again?
		MR. JAFFE:  I suggested which biotech test 
results of a grain or grain product take precedence in the 
movement of goods needs to be clarified.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Are you okay with the 
suggestion that, that biotech was a little bit redundant 
since that's all the tests that are described in here.  
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  
		MS. MELLON:  I think we should just substitute 
grain and grain products for goods -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Goods.
		MS. MELLON:  -- because the next sentence talks 
about enabling downstream Parties to accept testing. 
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  So Mardi, what did you replace 
then?
		MS. MELLON:  I would strike goods and say the 
movement of grain and grain products.  
		MS. LAYTON:  So it would read as I understand 
it, "Which test results take takes -- precedence in the 
movement of grain and grain products needs to be clarified?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No, period.
		MS. LAYTON:  Period.  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Any other comments on that?  
		(No response.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Anything else on number 6?
		(No response.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Let's move to 7.  
		MR. JAFFE:  That was 7.  No, I'm sorry.
		MS. DILLEY:  This one is on the top of 34 -- 
page 34.  
		MS. MELLON:  I was going to -- back on page 33, 
is it really true that development and recognition of 
testing certificates would reduce commercial risks or is it 
like should reduce commercial risks?  Is there any 
uncertainty about that at all?
		MS. DILLEY:  The last two sentences?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where?
		MS. MELLON:  The last sentence on the page.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's what?
		MS. MELLON:  Is it really would or is it like 
should?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Or could.
		MS. MELLON:  But would is almost like it's -- 
it's a very complex system to say that a simply thing like 
a certificate without even common -- 
		MS. CRAMER:  I think would is appropriate.
		MR. OLSON:  Yes, it establishes a certainty.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So 7.  I think what was 
added is in the second sentence, even where specific -- 
Michael, are these your changes?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, these are just for -- to 
try to -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Grammatical.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- to make it read better.  
		MS. DILLEY:  So even where specific tolerances 
are provided by regulation, the marketplace often requires 
-- that's the additional language.
		MR. GIROUX:  I think often is too strong.  I 
think it should say may.
		MS. DILLEY:  May require.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  May require.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So take out the s on 
require.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Anything else on 7?  
		(No response.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Eight.  Can we do 8?
		MS. MELLON:  A comma after levels?
		MS. DILLEY:  Where?
		MS. MELLON:  On line 5, much lower, sometimes 
zero tolerance levels, to allow them.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.  To be consistent with may 
require.
		MS. MELLON:  Yeah.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So you put that comma after 
levels or after zero?
		MS. MELLON:  I would say after zero.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Number 8.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I have a question on this one, and 
that is -- and I didn't do an extensive search but I'm not 
sure there's much text, if any, in the document to support 
this policy issue.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There was at one point in 
time.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- insurance company exclusions.  So 
I read through the text, and I went onto the 
recommendations, and I didn't recall it.  I was at home.  I 
didn't have the ability to do a search for it but -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's still in the text.
		MR. OLSON:  I think when we talk about it, don't 
we include the actual clause from an insurance contract.  
We didn't want to put in the language.  We just left the 
concept in.
		MR. JAFFE:  Again, I'm -- we might -- these are 
big ticket issues which should be substantiated with a 
significant portion of text in the body to make it as a key 
recommendation or key issue.
		MR. OLSON:  This is a real issue for the grain 
industry.
		MR. JAFFE:  Then it should be substantial in the 
text.
		MS. DILLEY:  I'm just trying to find that page 
number where it's discussed because I know we reviewed 
this, and it was still there.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't, I don't think we brought up 
any issues the first time in the -- 
		MR. OLSON:  I don't think we brought up -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  That's what I'm asking.  I didn't 
recall reading it.
		MR. GIROUX:  Page 27.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Did you find it on 27?
		MR. GIROUX:  Yeah, it's in the -- just the 
paragraph or second paragraph before contracting liability, 
Section D.
		MS. LAYTON:  Mine is 26.  
		MR. GIROUX:  I have a different copy.  Under the 
paragraph ending may stop at the elevators.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, maybe that's not it.  
		MR. OLSON:  What's the title of the section?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It's in Section C, two 
paragraphs above Contracting and Liability D.
		MR. JAFFE:  Traceability Systems.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's 25 then?  25.
		MR. OLSON:  And the top of page 26.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.  And the version in the 
back, it's at the top of page 26.  
		MR. OLSON:  We talk about liability transfer, at 
the top of page 26.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, certain current insurance 
industry exclusions for unauthorized or illegal 
biotechnology-related presence. 
		MR. JAFFE:  That has nothing to do with this, 
this -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  There's another section of this -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  -- key issue here, and that's barely 
a sentence for a key issue.  So my proposal is to delete 
this one unless we have text to --  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.  No.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, then we need to put some text 
in to explain it.  We're dropping an issue here that we 
haven't explained in the text.
		MS. DILLEY:  It's in here but it must be in a 
different section because I remember that language.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  My, my recollection is that in 
the discussion there was in an earlier draft -- let me just 
finish what I'm saying here -- the thought that there was 
going to be a citation -- a specific citation of the actual 
language of the exclusion and then it was decided that 
rather than, you know, put the words in or name the 
particular company -- companies that are involved in that, 
that it just made sense to describe them briefly though 
certainly the people on the industry side thought this was 
a very big issue.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't doubt it's a big issue but 
we have lots of terms here, and we have no discussion in 
the text about it, biotechnology-related claims, certain 
portions of the supply chain.  All I'm saying is if we want 
to include this in, I think we need to go back to the text 
and add a paragraph or two somewhere, and I'm not sure the 
traceability system is the proper place for it.  I'll defer 
to Ron and others where it is, but my view is that if 
you're going to have a key issue, the first place we raise 
an issue shouldn't be in the key issue section.  This is 
sort of a summary.  This is -- the high points are coming 
out of the text and I don't see text that goes to explain 
this issue.  So I'm not against the language in here if 
there's appropriate text in it, but if we don't, then I 
don't think it belongs here.
		MS. DILLEY:  I know it's in here.  I just -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm happy -- like I said, I didn't 
do a computer search, but my recollection was there was no 
real discussion about insurance, lack of insurance, 
exclusions in insurance.  I know at one point we had it but 
we've taken it out.  So maybe we need to put it back in but 
there's no discussion of exclusions here, and this major 
thing is talking about exclusion, and I understand 
exclusions from insurance companies is a big issue.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, I mean it is, it is 
there, and it's just one sentence, but it's there.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, this sentence here is -- this 
sentence here in not related at all to exclusion.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  "This possibility accounts for 
certain current insurance industry exclusions for 
unauthorized or illegal biotech-related presence in 
insurance policies for claims by grain elevators as the 
blending trail may stop at the elevators."  
		MR. OLSON:  And the reason you get there is 
because the tracing -- because tracing allows you then to 
isolate the problem further back in the chain and implicate 
the elevator.  The elevator has a difficult time taking it 
to the farmer because of blending, and therefore the people 
that insurance the grain handling industry are putting this 
exclusion in insurance policies because that's the piece 
that's most vulnerable in this whole system.
		MR. JAFFE:  Then make the recommendation based 
on grain elevators because that's all this discusses.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I could do that.  And that's 
the issue, grain handling.
		MS. LAYTON:  For certain portions of the supply 
chain, you're saying for grain elevators?
		MR. OLSON:  Grain handling.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So how could we change that 
to where it works?
		MR. OLSON:  Grain elevators or grain handling or 
-- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Grain handlers.
		MR. OLSON:  Grain handlers.
		MS. MELLON:  We would delete for certain 
portions of the food supply and say for grain handlers to 
be more specific.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, Randy?
		MR. GIROUX:  Grain handlers and processors 
perhaps or grain handling would be fine.
		MS. LAYTON:  Which one?  The first one or the 
second one are we going to change?  Can we establish that 
so I can figure out which one I've got?  
		MS. MELLON:  Change number 8.
		MS. LAYTON:  As to whom -- uncertainties as to 
whom in the supply chain can be liable.
		MR. OLSON:  I think the first one is more 
accurate.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah, the second one is way too 
broad.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Let's stick the first one 
then.  
		MR. OLSON:  Certain portions of this we would 
just change that to the grain handling sector.
		MS. LAYTON:  Of the grain handling sector are 
having -- and not can have -- significant impacts on the 
marketplace.
		MR. OLSON:  I don't think if they've had it yet 
today.  It's just that -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Can have.
		MR. OLSON:  Can have.  We haven't had any claims 
at this point.
		MR. GRANT:  You know what?  I'm not real sure 
I'm comfortable with limiting this just to the grain 
handlers.
		MR. OLSON:  Include the farmer side as well?
		MR. GRANT:  Yeah.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Can we say growers and 
grain handlers.
		MS. LAYTON:  Growers and grain handlers?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Well, the corn growers 
are big on this issue, too -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  -- because they've been 
meeting a lot.
		MR. GIROUX:  I don't see a problem with the 
original text.  It says for certain portions of the supply 
chain, and so -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  It's not the whole supply chain?
		MR. GIROUX:  Right.  It's not the whole supply 
chain, and it doesn't say that, and, and nowhere in this 
document, nor did it, when I sat down and read it, did it 
say, if it's an important issue, it has to have a large 
amount of text.  That's a disconnect for me.  Just because 
it's one or two sentences, and we've pulled out significant 
issues in this section, that this is a significant issue, 
Greg -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Well -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  -- and just because we don't have a 
page or two of text describing the issue because it's an 
emerging issue, and there really isn't a lot to talk about 
at this point, it doesn't reduce the impact or the 
significance of this issue, and this is something that the 
Secretary can look at and understand, and just because it's 
an emerging issue, we don't have to have a page of text for 
it to be in here.  I don't understand, I don't understand 
why you say that.
		MS. LAYTON:  In fact we have pages of text for 
which there's not a significant issue.
		MR. GIROUX:  Right.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, it says here, and it says, these 
are some of the key policy concerns and issues that 
emanated from committee's discussions that are captured in 
the full report.  This issue is not captured in the full 
reports.  
		MS. MELLON:  I believe that it is.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, I don't think it is.  I don't 
think it is.  I think we should add a couple of sentences 
in the full report if we want to include this.
		MS. LAYTON:  If, if that's the case, then I 
think that it is incumbent upon you to figure out the 
couple of sentences and suggest how we might add them, and 
-- because I think that you can't -- I think that's what we 
need to do to make it constructively through the day, Greg.  
So if you feel that we need to add a few sentence, I've got 
some old versions on my computer that you can take a look 
at, but I don't think we can just say no when others in the 
group are saying it is here, and there was substantive 
discussion on this and part of what you just said is, that 
it was discussed by the committee and they are -- and it 
was for an hour at least or more on two occasions, 
discussed by the committee.
		MR. SLOCUM:  It is captured in the full report.
		MS. LAYTON:  And it is captured by a couple of 
sentences in the full report.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't disagree that it's an issue, 
but I can't write it because I don't know the issue.  I'll 
be happy -- if Ron will sit down with me or somebody will 
sit down with me, I'll be happy to add some text in the 
traceability and work with somebody to do it.  For me to 
write it, I'm not a grower.  I never read the exclusions.  
So I'm deferring to people that this is an issue.  I don't 
doubt it's an issue but I am uncomfortable putting 
something in this key section at the end that doesn't have 
any explanation of it in the text.
		MR. GRANT:  One of the reasons it's hard to 
really write a lot about this is it's a pretty concise 
issue, and you're either covered or you're not, and if 
you're covered, it's no longer an issue.
		MR. OLSON:  It's black and white.	-- the 
insurance policy, there's not.  So the only thing is we 
didn't quote the specific phrase from the insurance policy 
because we didn't feel that was appropriate.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. OLSON:  That's the only thing that's not in 
there.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Absolutely.  And at one time that 
quote was in there, and I think it was even in a footnote 
at one time.
		MR. OLSON:  Right.  We just took it out because 
it -- it's like Ron says, you either have insurance or you 
don't.
		MS. LAYTON:  Now maybe it needs to be moved into 
a separate paragraph in that section, so it highlights it.  
Maybe that's a bigger issue that it's not -- it's at the 
end of a paragraph and not in some paragraph but I don't 
think that it's an issue.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I'll work on the proposed text at 
the break.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Let's move onto number 9.
		MR. GIROUX:  Should we be adding additional text 
at this point?  We have the whole committee here.  Are we 
going to -- what's going to happen if we start adding 
additional text?
		MR. OLSON:  It doesn't go the process.
		MS. LAYTON:  It has to go through this process.
I think if we're going to add it at the black stuff, 
because we agreed we wouldn't touch the black stuff.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think we're in somewhat the same 
situation with number 9 from Dick's comments yesterday.  So 
-- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually we have some suggested 
language on number 9.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.  So if we can add that 
language this day, I think we can add this language this 
day.  I mean these are things related to open text.
		MS. DILLEY:  Well, why don't you take a run at 
adding a sentence that you think helps clarify it, and then 
the committee needs to deliberate on that.  I do think 
taking it out at this point is not the question.  It's more 
see if there's additional text that will give more 
information on that particular issue.  
		MS. LAYTON:  But I do think, Abby, that in 
taking Dick's comments, we did it only because he was not 
at the last meeting.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, we were talking about number 9.  
The issue -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  I understand.  
		MR. JAFFE:  -- was on number 9.  Nobody had gone 
through the, the -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Right, but that one had 
specifically been his issue when he was leaving.  So that 
was, that was particularly why I wanted to make sure that 
one was raised before he departed.
		MS. DILLEY:  Well, I could be wrong then where 
the status of that is but I thought we were getting text in 
the body of it, not just in number 9.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually we just moved things 
around.
		MS. DILLEY:  We did.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We're doing both.  We're 
offering -- we'll have some suggestions for altering the 
actual text of the portion on the trilateral arrangement 
and a suggestion for number 9.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.  And we took that out 
because he had not been here at the last meeting to get his 
comments in.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  That's why we did that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And that's why we took up 
number 9 and that in fact reflected Greg's concerns on the 
text on the trilateral arrangement.
		MS. SULTON:  Which was a question of fact.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  And it was a question of fact.  
Okay.  So do you want to hear what to hear what we've 
proposed?
		MR. GIROUX:  One point of clarification on I 
guess what is 8.  Are we using the bracketed text or the 
unbracketed text?
		MS. LAYTON:  The first text.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The unbracketed.
		MS. LAYTON:  Uncertainties as to liability, 
transfer and exclusions for biotechnology-related claims by 
some insurance companies for certain portions of the -- now 
I still had growers and grain handling sector -- can have 
significant impacts on the marketplace.
		MR. OLSON:  Actually, I was wondering, too, why 
-- I guess I prefer the existing text, for certain portions 
of the supply chain.  I think it is very adequate.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think that's too ambiguous.
		MS. MELLON:  It's straightforward.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, they're not allowed to create 
the text.  So -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  We are or we are not going to 
create the text?  Now I'm confused.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, they told me, and it may not 
be agreed, but the text has to go through the -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Are you people comfortable with 
having Greg create text today and entertain it?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think, I think what we're 
talking about doing here now is a possible combination of 
using the first sentence that's here with some additional 
text that, that perhaps can be agreed on at this meeting 
today to add earlier in the report, and that would be part 
of the draft that would go out.
		MR. GIROUX:  That's my -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Then in that case are we 
comfortable with certain portions of the supply chain can 
have significant impacts on the marketplace.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  If that's, if that's described 
a little bit better earlier on.
		MS. LAYTON:  Early on in that thing -- that 
section on page -- which is under traceability -- 26.
		MR. JAFFE:  We're going to add those sentences.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Which we'll talk about later 
after they come back to the group.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Moving on.
		MR. JAFFE:  Sometime later.
		MS. LAYTON:  Today.  Today.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah.  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  And you're taking the lead on 
making sure we get those sentences?
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Other than that, are you 
okay if we move onto number 9?
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Abby.
		MS. DILLEY:  I was out of the room when this was 
discussed.  So -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Michael has some suggested text we 
worked on this morning because I agreed and Michael agreed 
to help me to come up with a solution to the number 9 
issue.  So Michael, do you feel comfortable reading or -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Sure.  I think again this, this 
piece is going to be linked to the discussion of the piece 
in the earlier piece in the text.  So let me read the 
revised version of number 9, and then we'll probably have 
to go back and look at the revised version describing the 
agreement.  
		If I can read my writing, "There is a role for 
international organizations, as well as bilateral and 
multilateral efforts, to address some of these impacts and 
implications.  The U.S. should continue to creatively 
explore different venues and approaches for the resolution 
of each."
		MS. LAYTON:  Now this refers to the section on 
page 14 under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
		MR. JAFFE:  Can you read that back again?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.  I'll just preface it by 
saying this was the attempt to say that -- to respond to 
your desire that, you know, the various kinds of things can 
be listed without showing particular preference for one 
kind or another.  So, "There is a role for international 
organizations, as well as bilateral and multilateral 
efforts, to address some of these impacts and 
implications."  And then followed by the last sentence 
except to be added to the last sentence, the words, "for 
the resolution of each."
		MS. CRAMER:  What does each refer to?
		MS. LAYTON:  Impacts.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Impacts and implications, yeah.
		MS. MELLON:  So we're going to delete that 
second clause about it is unclear?  We're just going to 
make the statement that there is a role for the 
international organizations, as well as the bilateral 
and -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Uh-huh.  
		MS. MELLON:  -- and multinational efforts or 
arrangements?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. MELLON:  And addressing some of these 
impacts and implications.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  For the resolution of each.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay.  
		MS. LAYTON:  How did it end again?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  "The U.S. Government should 
continue to creatively explore different venues and 
approaches," I said, "for the resolution of each," or it 
could be, "for their resolution if you prefer."  
		MS. MELLON:  Okay.  I think you can just say 
different venues and approaches.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  
		MR. GRANT:  Creatively explore?  How did you 
have that worded?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The last sentence as it reads.
		MS. LAYTON:  As it reads.
		MR. OLSON:  Just a question.  There is some lack 
of clarity on who's got the right to accept these.  There's 
an International Grain Council.  There's CODEX.  There's 
different groups of the media.  Who sets the, who sets the 
roles in the tolerances because the U.S. isn't  -- so it's 
unclear as to the responsibility for negotiating those 
cross-boundary type agreements.  Whether it's private 
industry or contracts or -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, the U.S. is involved in many 
of them.  CODEX is one of them.  I assume ISO, and those 
international, they're Parties to most of these.  That 
would be one exception to -- 
		MR. OLSON:  And that's what's driving this, is 
the traceability coming through that, through the European.  
Can we just live with the roles of the -- and that's it or 
is there a role for organizations to figure out how to 
define those trade roles -- or is that the marketplace's 
decision as opposed to government's?  That's what I think 
was meant by it being unclear as Mardi has alluded to that.
		MS. JAFFE:  I don't have a problem keeping that 
language in there.  
		MR. OLSON:  I kind of like it in there because I 
think it is -- there are situations, not on everything, but 
there are situations where it is unclear who -- how is this 
going to get handled or who is responsible for handling, 
whether it's government's or industry or contacting.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The only reason that I had 
crossed it out was because, because I added the bilateral 
and multilateral efforts to attempt to put them all in 
parallel and then organizations didn't fit.
		MR. JAFFE:  You could say what mechanism or 
which approaches.  It's unclear which approach could be 
best suited for the resolution of each particular issue or 
something.  I mean -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's fine.  
		MR. JAFFE:  That's a way to keep it in.
		MS. LAYTON:  So period after implications.  New 
sentence, it is unclear which organizations or mechanisms 
are -- could be suited for the resolution of each.  
		MS. ZANNONI:  Which approach.
		MS. LAYTON:  Which approach instead of 
organization. 
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MR. MARYANSKI:  Now there's some organizations 
where it's very clear what is appropriate.  Like CODEX for 
food safety.  There's no question about that.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. OLSON:  It's not on everything. 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Right, but -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Instead of each -- some?
		MR. GRANT:  But it's sometimes unclear.
		MS. LAYTON:  It is sometimes unclear.
		MR. GRANT:  It may be unclear.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Even in CODEX it's unclear where the 
traceability goes, does it go to this committee or that 
committee.  
		MS. LAYTON:  It is sometimes unclear which 
approach can be suited for the -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  No, I think it's unclear, not 
sometimes unclear.
		MS. MELLON:  It is unclear which approach is 
best.
		MS. LAYTON:  Is best for the resolution of each.  
It is unclear which approach is best for each.
		MR. GRANT:  It is not always clear.
		MS. LAYTON:  Is not always clear.  It is not 
always clear which approach is best suited for each -- for 
the resolution of each.
		MR. JAFFE:  You say not clear or unclear.  Not 
always clear is changing the meaning. 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Can somebody make a stab at 
that one?  I can't read my notes anymore.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, I think not always clear 
was intended to say that for some of them, it may be clear 
and for others it's unclear.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's unclear.
		MS. DILLEY:  So it is not always clear which 
approach is best suited for resolution of each.
		MS. LAYTON:  Which approach -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Now it says, "There is a role for 
international organizations, as well as bilateral and 
multilateral efforts, to address some of these impacts and 
implications, but it is not always clear which approach is 
best suited for the resolution of each."  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN: Yeah.  Is that one sentence or 
two?
		MS. DILLEY:  It's not poetic but --
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Is that with a but or without a 
but?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I think make it two.
		MS. DILLEY:  That's fine.  And then take the 
middle sentence out and then -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  The U.S. Government should continue 
to creatively explore different venues and approaches.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  Do you want to go back 
and look at the other text related to it?  We have -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  And this comes up with -- Mardi had 
a concern on this issue which was starting at line 27.  
Michael, I'm trying to save your voice.  Page 14, line 27.  
We're in the section on Biosafety Protocol.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  If I had a little more time, I 
would have printed this out so that you could have seen it.  
What we will do is this.  What we suggest is this.  Keep 
the first sentence, "The Protocol often allowsÉ;" take the 
last paragraph or the paragraph in lines 40 through 43, 
move those 4 lines after that first sentence, and then add 
a new sentence.  So let me read you the -- let me read you 
how it would read.  
		"The Protocol also allows for Parties and non-
Parties to enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements 
to implement requirements of the Protocol consistent with 
the Protocol's objectives.  The documentation requirements 
that will be established under the Protocol for shipment of 
LMOs from a country, Party or non-Party, to a Party will 
play a major role in dictating how easy or difficult it 
will be for exporters to comply with Protocol requirements 
depending on how much information will be required on 
documents accompanying shipments."  Then, a new paragraph.  
		"Consistent with the objectives of the Protocol, 
the U.S., Mexico and Canada recently developed an 
arrangement to address documentation needs for commodity 
shipments."  Then continuing with the text, that which 
would replace, "To that end" sentence, I'm on 29 and 30, 
the text would then continue, "This arrangement allows for 
the continued use of the 'may contain' language for 
affected commodity shipments in trade.  It also establishes 
that a shipment that has 95% non-LMO content does not 
require the 'may contain' language, provided that this does 
not conflict with the regulations of the importing 
countries.  Of particular importance to commodity trade is 
the stipulation that, under the arrangement," now, 
"adventitious presence should not be considered to be a 
trigger for the LMO documentation requirements.  The 
adoption of this type of arrangement to facilitate trade 
between Parties and non-Parties will likely be influenced 
by the success of its implementation in North America and 
the strength of commodity exporting countries in the 
continuing negotiations around implementation of the 
Protocol."  
		MS. LAYTON:  And it stays among and not between.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.  Shall I read it again?  
Does it -- do you want to see -- I presume people will want 
to see -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I'd like to see it.  I have some 
initial -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Thoughts.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- comments and thoughts.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.  
		MR. JAFFE:  And I would delete the first 
sentence.  The Protocol also allows for Parties to enter -- 
I mean I'm not sure why we need that in this sentence.  
We're not discussing that in any way.  So I would just 
delete -- I mean the Protocol allows a lot of different 
things, and if we were to keep that, then the next two 
sentences don't flow from it. 
		MS. LAYTON:  They aren't connected.
		MR. JAFFE:  They aren't connected.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Bear with me.  The Protocol 
also asks Parties and non-Parties to enter into bilateral 
and multilateral agreements to implement requirements of 
the Protocol consistent with the Protocol's objectives, is 
the finish of, is the beginning of the finish of the 
section on the Biosafety Protocol.  It's about the 
Cartagena Biosafety Protocol period.  
		And then the last paragraph is also a finish of 
the BSP which was the documentation requirements.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, no.  I think -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  That's the way I read the whole -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  The only reason we talked about that 
was because that was -- there's lots of requirements in the 
Protocol.  I'm suggesting that we eliminate discussion of 
this requirement -- this thing.  If we -- it's not related 
to labeling and traceability.  This is not, and so I don't 
see any need for this sentence.  It doesn't -- the way that 
-- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Which sentence don't you see the 
need for?  I'm sorry.
		MR. JAFFE:  The Protocol also allows for Parties 
and non-Parties to enter into bilateral and multilateral 
agreements to implement requirements of the Protocol, 
consistent with the Protocol's objectives.  Then you have 
the other sentence which talks about -- I'm comfortable 
with the next sentence about documentation requirements.  I 
think that's a good way to start the discussion into this 
arrangement.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm just saying delete the first 
sentence.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think there's any need for 
it.
		MR. GIROUX:  I disagree.  I disagree because 
this, this bilateral arrangement, we could enter -- the 
Protocol allows for Parties or non-Parties to enter the 
bilateral or multilateral agreements for the documentation 
of labeling and traceability of shipments to implement the 
requirements of the Protocol.  There's labeling of 
shipments.  So this does apply to labeling and 
traceability.
		MR. JAFFE:  But it's not an agreement.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'm not saying that this is an 
agreement but the Party does -- the Protocol does allow 
Parties and non-Parties to enter into agreements, bilateral 
or trilateral agreements around the requirements for 
documentation and labeling of shipments.  So it does apply 
to this report, and as such, the -- we're not -- and we're 
not saying in this section that this is an agreement under 
the Protocol.  We're saying we -- there are arrangements 
that are alternative arrangements also made.  We're not, 
we're not saying that we're using the Protocol to do this.  
We're saying -- we're making sure that the Secretary 
understands that there are opportunities, there are ways or 
arrangements that can be made to meet the needs of the 
Protocol that don't necessarily follow the Protocol.  I 
think that's all this section is saying.  It's not saying 
it's the best way or the right way.  It's just stating a 
fact of what is occurring in the marketplace.
		MR. JAFFE:  Then let's put that sentence as the 
last sentence of the first paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. JAFFE:  So the Party -- the U.S. is not a 
Party to the Convention and thus cannot be a Party to the 
Protocol, and then you could say, although we're not a 
Party to the Protocol, the Protocol allows Parties and non-
Parties to enter into agreements to implement -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  All right.  
		MR. JAFFE:  -- their extents.  
		MR. GIROUX:  Fine.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Thank you for the suggestion.
		MR. JAFFE:  Move it up there.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So done.  I'll read the text a 
second time.
		MR. GIROUX:  Please do.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  I'll start by not 
reading the four sentences from 40 to 43.  They were just 
moved up.  Then, "Consistent with the objectives of the 
Protocol, the U.S., Mexico and Canada recently developed an 
arrangement to address documentation needs for commodity 
shipments."  Then the text continues with the following two 
sentences that are, that are here.  "This arrangement" 
sentence and the "It also establishes" sentence, and the 
following sentence, "Of particular importance" is exactly 
the same except for agreement changed to arrangement and 
then the following sentence is changed this way.  "The 
adoption of this type of arrangement to facilitate trade 
between Parties and non-Parties," et cetera.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm comfortable obviously with 40 to 
43.  I would delete the introductory clause that you 
proposed, and just say the U.S., Mexico and Canada.  I 
don't think we need to say whether it's consistent with the 
Protocol or not.  That's an opinion, not a factual 
statement.  There are a lot of people that don't think it's 
consistent with the Protocol, and so I just think we need 
to say, "The U.S., Mexico and Canada recently" to address 
documentation requirements, "The U.S. and Canada recently 
agreed to this arrangement."
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, I know you haven't seen 
the text of the arrangement, but the arrangement states 
that it is intended to be consistent with the objectives of 
the Protocol.
		MR. GIROUX:  Mexico is a signatory to the 
Protocol.  So whatever we establish must be consistent with 
the Protocol since they need to -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I think a lot of Mexicans are 
unclear whether it is consistent, and it's an interim 
activity when things are finalized.  I think it's an open 
question on that.  What do we need that sentence for?  Why 
can't we just say, "To try to address the documentation 
requirements, U.S., Canada and Mexico recently set forth 
this arrangement -- the negotiated arrangement."
		MS. DILLEY:  So you're changing it to address 
documentation requirements did you say?
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think you need a clause 
there at all.  You can have this -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Just, "The U.S., Mexico and Canada 
recently -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I forget the way the sentence went 
but it just seems that those six words don't need to be 
there.
		MR. OLSON:  Well, wasn't there an intent -- 
there certainly was an intent to be consistent.  Whether it 
is or not, would be debatable but -- under this arena.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Intending to be consistent 
with.
		MR. GIROUX:  I wasn't at the negotiations 
quarterly, but there was -- my understanding that the 
intention to make sure that this arrangement was consistent 
with the Biosafety Protocol.  So the intention was there, 
and I think it's important that we maintain that there was 
an intention to be consistent with the Protocol.  Maybe 
just make an arrangement outside of, trying to make sure 
that it was consistent with the Protocol.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And I think it's also probably 
worth pointing out that Mexico as well as the U.S. and 
Canada have brought this to the Protocol, to the 
negotiations saying that this is our attempt to do this.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.  It's their attempt, but 
haven't the Parties -- the Protocol having said this is 
consistent yet.  They said this is our attempt.  
		MS. SULTON:  This is our attempt.  
		MR. JAFFE:  If you want to write something 
that's no -- if you want to say after the first sentence, 
they set this arrangement, those negotiators believe it is 
consistent with the Protocol, I'm comfortable with that but 
to put a clause there the way it's written, it's just that 
we were saying it's consistent with the Protocol and I 
don't want to say that.  I don't have the comfort of saying 
that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  How about, how about 
something like this?  In an attempt to address 
documentation needs for commodity shipments consistent with 
the objectives of the Protocol, the U.S., Canada and Mexico 
-- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I'd like a separate sentence.  I'd 
like it after.
		MS. DILLEY:  Can't you say the U.S., Mexico and 
Canada recently developed an arrangement to address 
documentation -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  That they believe is consistent.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- intended to be or -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  That they believe or that they 
intend to be consistent -- that they intended to be 
consistent with the Protocol.  I'm comfortable, in the 
latter half of the sentence, related to those governments, 
not to our -- not to the inclusion of ours.
		MS. DILLEY:  So they intended to be -- so the 
U.S., Mexico and Canada recently developed an arrangement 
to address documentation needs for commodity shipments.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That the three governments 
intended -- was intended to be -- 
		MS. SLUTSKY:  I believe it's a little fuzzy as 
to -- I mean it's not a government to government agreement.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Just say the U.S., Mexico and 
Canada recently -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That was intended to be -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  -- recently developed an 
arrangement to address documentation needs for commodity 
shipments that was intended to be consistent with the 
Protocol.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The objectives of the Protocol.
		MS. DILLEY:  With the objectives of the 
Protocol.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  
		MR. JAFFE:  The other sentences are all fine.  I 
have a problem with the last sentence but I don't have it 
in front of me.  It's very difficult to make proposal 
changes to that but I don't like the adoption -- I don't 
think you can use Parties and non-Parties there because 
it's not an agreement for trade among Parties and non-
Parties.  It's an agreement for trade by private Parties.  
So -- it's not an agreement between the U.S. and Mexico.  
It's an agreement that allows Cargill to ship in stuff.  
It's not an agreement -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, I mean governments don't 
trade.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, but then usability -- that's 
why I'm uncomfortable with the Parties and non-Parties, 
that it relates to the Protocol and the Protocol 
specifically -- I have to seen the sentence but -- it's 
hard for me to pose anything different, but I'm telling you 
why I'm uncomfortable with it.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I, can I -- there are only 
really few changes.  I'll just read the most of it so that 
you can see the sentence if I may.  
		The adoption of, and then this type of 
arrangement -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  But this type -- it hasn't been 
adopted.  That's what I guess I'm saying is it's not 
adopted by anybody because the governments -- it's an 
arrangement.  It's not adopted.  If -- the U.S. Government 
hasn't adopted it, so you can use that word adopted.
		MR. GIROUX:  That's a forward looking statement.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  Either -- use either -- use the 
conclusion of this arrangement or -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Why not call it this arrangement.
		MR. GRANT:  This type of arrangement to 
facilitate trade among Parties.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, no.  It's talking about 
here whether others are going to use it.  
		MR. GIROUX:  It may be used in the future as a 
model
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't have a problem with saying 
this type of arrangement could be used in the future as a 
model for trade period -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  Could also be used.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- for trade with -- for biotech 
commodity products.  I don't have a problem with saying 
that.
		MR. GIROUX:  As a model for trade between 
Parties and non-Parties.  That's the fact of why they're 
taking it to the biotech Protocol.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  I don't understand why you, why 
you don't like Parties and non-Parties in that sentence 
because that's what this is.  It's an arrangement between 
Parties and non-Parties to -- the arrangement is in fact 
between two non-Parties and a Party.  So I -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  It isn't an arrangement.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  It is.  Trade goes between, 
between countries and those countries -- two of those 
countries are non-Parties and one country is a Party.  So 
Parties and non-Parties are being used in a different 
context in this sentence.
		MR. JAFFE:  They're not being used in the sense 
of the Protocol you're telling me.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  They're not being used in the 
sense of them entering agreements.  It's being used in the 
sense of trade between those countries.
		MR. JAFFE:  Can we get rid of the large P then 
because I mean what we're suggesting here that it's the 
Parties of the -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think the Protocol refers to 
-- and movement between Parties and non-Parties even when 
that exchange is carried out by private entities.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  I mean that exchange is always I 
mean carried out by private entities.  I mean the 
government -- the U.S. Government is not sending commodity 
shipments.
		MR. GRANT:  I think, if I'm hearing right, I 
think the only way that the U.S. could make an arrangement 
or an agreement as you have defined it, would be to be a 
Party to the Protocol.  Otherwise, they can't -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I haven't defined any of this.  The 
Protocol talks about agreements between Parties and non-
Parties.  The USDA and FAS, the woman who spoke at the -- 
this is not a Government document.  It is not in the 
Federal Register.  It's not a regulation.  The Government 
hasn't published it.  It doesn't sign it.  It is not a 
Government document.  It is an arrangement that the U.S. 
government effectuated with Mexico.  They negotiated it.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  But, Greg, this sentence isn't 
talking about that.  This is talking about trade between 
Parties and non-Parties.  It's not talking -- it's not 
referring to the arrangement.  If I understand what you're 
saying correctly, but I would agree with you if, if the 
sentence were referring or somehow implying that this was a 
formal agreement between governments of the U.S., Canada 
and Mexico, because you're correct, it was not a formal 
government-to-government agreement.  I guess I would 
characterize it as an arrangement that the Government 
helped facilitate in conjunction with private entities.  
		But this sentence if I understand correctly, 
what you're saying, what this sentence now reads as, this 
is trade between Parties and non-Parties, and that's a 
fact.  I mean trade does go between Parties and non-
Parties.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.  So what is the beginning now 
again?  If we don't have the word adoption in there, maybe 
it works.  
		MS. DILLEY:  I thought it was this type of 
arrangement -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No, I think a substitute for 
the word adoption may just do the trick.  How about the 
usefulness.  The usefulness of this type of arrangement to 
facilitate trade between Parties and non-Parties.
		MS. CRAMER:  All we're trying to do is say this 
could serve as a model to facilitate trade.  
		MR. OLSON:  This arrangement.
		MS. CRAMER:  So why don't just say this 
arrangement -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Can serve as a model.
		MS. CRAMER:  -- can serve as a -- has the -- 
could serve as a model to facilitate trade between Parties 
and non-Parties.
		MS. SLUTSKY:  To facilitate trade.
		MS. CRAMER:  I mean we're not trying to make a 
profound thing here.  We're just saying it may be useful.
		MS. DILLEY:  So that this arrangement can serve 
as a model to facilitate trade.
		MR. JAFFE:  Could.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  This type of arrangement -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  Could serve as a model.
		MS. CRAMER:  To facilitate trade between Parties 
and non-Parties.
		MS. MELLON:  We could modify -- we could say 
this type of government facilitated arrangement just to 
make it clear that it's not -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think we need that.
		MR. SLOCUM:  So who wants to read the last 
sentence to us?
		MS. CRAMER:  Well, actually just to get a little 
more -- I mean I think it's true that it's excessive doing 
that.  It's going to be facilitated by the rest of the 
sentence.  So we may want to say -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  You said this was simple.
		MS. CRAMER:  I mean we could stop there or we 
could say that the ability of this arrangement to serve.
		MR. BUSS:  Right, or the extent to which this 
arrangement will -- could serve as et cetera, et cetera, et 
cetera, and then just run the rest of the sentence.
		MS. CRAMER:  Yes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The usefulness of this 
arrangement.
		MS. CRAMER:  The extent to which -- I like that.  
The extent to which this arrangement serves as an effective 
model to facilitate trade between Parties and non-Parties.  
		MS. SULTON:  That's not the sentence.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me, let me read that and 
see what people think.  
		The extent to which this arrangement could serve 
as a model to facilitate trade between Parties and non-
Parties will likely be influenced by the success of its 
implementation in North America, et cetera.
		MS. MELLON:  What about just stopping the 
sentence that you use read after North America?
		MS. DILLEY:  Is there a real heartburn with that 
rest of that or not?  Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  I guess you could think about the 
rest of it is that it does, it does imply that it's 
basically a Ð whoÕs got the most power type of issue and 
that that probably accurately foretells, foreshadows the 
debate -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't have a problem with that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Keep it then.
		MR. JAFFE:  Can I ask you, Michael, just to read 
over that first sentence again, the one right after line 
43.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  The U.S., Mexico and 
Canada recently developed an arrangement to address 
documentation needs for commodity shipments that was 
intended to be consistent with the objectives of the 
Protocol.
		MR. JAFFE:  I'm just thinking about the word 
developed and facilitated, and I'm just trying to -- 
		MS. SLUTSKY:  Well, I think it's fair to say 
that the governments developed the arrangement.  I mean I 
don't really -- I don't know how the government formally 
articulates its role in this.  So -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The governments -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  The governments were there. I don't 
know who the three signatures are on the final document.
		MR. JAFFE:  Were there -- 
		MS. ZANNONI:  And at the Protocol meeting, 
Mexico had a meeting specifically on this.
		MR. GIROUX:  Three governments signed the final 
document.
		MS. ZANNONI:  And the Government pushed it 
forward.
		MR. JAFFE:  It's fine.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  So that brings us to the last one, 
10.  Ron, you guys didn't take a run at language for this 
did you?
		MR. OLSON:  No, we didn't.
		MS. DILLEY:  Do you all want to take a 10 minute 
break?  I guess what would be helpful is if the same people 
who did the language, because it should be consistent with 
the language you drafted, if you have -- if you could do a 
sentence that could be pulled from that for 10, and I don't 
-- this was not -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Right now the whole thing is in 
brackets.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.  So it might be best just 
-- because that point was obviously to be consistent with 
the language that you generated yesterday.  Maybe it would 
be worth it in the 10-minute break trying to take a run at 
that before we launch in there as a group.
		Okay.  So why don't we take a 10 minute break 
and reconvene at 10 of, and Ron and Duane, you guys can 
help, and obviously Carol, but she's not here, so we could 
finish number 10.
		(Whereupon, a 10 minute break was taken.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So we had Ron and Duane and 
Mardi as a surrogate Carol, and taking some of the -- and 
so taking some of the language that was in the original 
number 10 as well as building up of what the group did 
yesterday to reach an agreement on consumer language, we 
came up with this sentence.  So let's run it past the 
group. 
		And that is, "Variability in retail labeling 
requirements in different countries and associated debates 
regarding safety environmental and general acceptability of 
biotech crops stimulates consumers' interest in seeking 
additional information about their food."  That's it.  Take 
a minute to read it.
		Again some of the language echoes what the group 
worked out yesterday.  Any comments, questions, concerns?
		(No response.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Is everybody okay with it?
		MR. SLOCUM:  All consumers or some consumers.
		MS. MELLON:  We just left it at consumers.
		MR. SLOCUM:  So read into it what you -- is it 
meant to imply all consumers?
		MS. MELLON:  No.  Usually if you don't say all, 
it doesn't imply all.
		MR. JAFFE:  Is there a reason why it say about 
biotech content of their food?
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes, because I think it was to echo 
the language from -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Because the content is also how it 
was processed, how it was handled, all those issues.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Any problem?
		(No response.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Great.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Good work.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I did come up with a paragraph.
		MS. DILLEY:  You did come up with a paragraph.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Were you able to run it past Randy 
and 
		MR. JAFFE:  No, they were working.
		MS. DILLEY:  Do you want to go to that now or do 
you want to go to the Executive Summary and then come back 
to this or -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Let's finish it.
		MR. JAFFE:  Carol suggested putting it in the D 
Section.  Me, I don't care where it goes.  She thought it 
would go better in Section D than in Section C under 
contract and liability.  She sort of mentioned that to me 
but I'll defer to people on that. 
		"The introduction of biotech grain and grain 
products and their potential liabilities has affected the 
insurance that members of the food and feed chain can 
obtain for business related risks.  Certain insurance 
industry members have recently added exclusions to their 
policies for unauthorized or illegal biotechnology related 
presence."  And that's just taken from that other -- that 
phrase was taken from another place in the document.  "With 
these new policies, there is uncertainty about who in the 
food and feed chain will bear the liability for 
biotechnology related claims, which could have significant 
impact on the marketplace."
		MR. GRANT:  The word was, was it attained or 
obtained.
		MS. MELLON:  It should be obtained.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I had obtained.  It should be 
obtained.
		MR. GRANT:  Yeah, obtained.
		MR. JAFFE:  O B T A I N.
		MR. GRANT:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Greg, can you read it one more 
time?
		MR. JAFFE:  "The introduction of biotech grain 
and grain products and their potential liabilities has 
affected the insurance that members of the food and feed 
chain can obtain for business related risks.  Certain 
insurance industry members -- "
		MR. GIROUX:  Let's do it a sentence at a time.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.  
		MR. GIROUX:  Can we have in some cases because I 
don't believe it's in all cases.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Just use the word may.
		MR. GIROUX:  May.  That's fine.  Because it's 
only specific insurers.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.
		MR. GRANT:  So far.
		MR. JAFFE:  So may affect instead of has 
affected.  "Certain insurance industry members have 
recently added exclusions to their policies for 
unauthorized or illegal biotechnology related presence." 
		MR. GIROUX:  It's just a technical point.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, I took that, again, I don't 
know, I took that directly from the clause.
		MR. OLSON:  That's exactly the language in the -
- that's the language of the policy, but it wouldn't be 
insurance members of the insurance companies.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Certain insurance industry 
companies.
		MR. OLSON:  Certain insurance companies.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.  Certain insurance companies.  
Okay.  "With these new policies, there's uncertainty about 
who in the food and feed chain will bear the liability for 
biotechnology related claims, which could have significant 
impacts on the marketplace."
		MS. MELLON:  I think we need to change these to 
such if you're just going to have these kinds of things 
could -- may be out there.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.  
		MR. OLSON:  Is it better to say grain handling, 
part of that sector of the industry.
		MR. GIROUX:  Specific section -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Growers are getting this also.  So, 
so that's why I -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  Could we say a specific segment 
because really I don't believe it's a food company issue.
		MR. SLOCUM:  No.
		MR. GIROUX:  Certain segments or specific 
segments.
		MR. GRANT:  That would work all right.  Uh-huh.  
		MR. SLOCUM:  But it affects processing 
companies, too.  Anybody who takes direct delivery from the 
farmer is exposed to it.  
		MR. GIROUX:  Right.  If it's written in their 
insurance -- in their contract or their insurance policy.
		MS. DILLEY:  Greg, do you have that written 
down?  You can write it up on the board so everybody can 
look at it.
		MR. GIROUX:  You can choose your insurer.
		MR. JAFFE:  I have it written down here.  I mean 
-- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- and go -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Go write it up on the 
board.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I apologize.  I'm just trying to 
figure out where to put stuff people are saying.
		MS. SULTON:  Michael, why don't I read it to you 
and you write it. 
		MR. GRANT:  Abby -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MR. GRANT:  -- before you go to the Executive 
Summary, we need to go back to terms.  So if I could just 
put that marker in there.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  In the introduction you 
mean?
		MR. GRANT:  Yeah, page -- I guess terms are 
actually part of the introduction.
		MR. JAFFE:  Do you want me to write it up on the 
board?
		(Pause.)
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  Here are the words up 
here now with a few abbreviations.
		MR. OLSON:  The exclusion is for claims 
unauthorized.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  For claims.
		MR. OLSON:  Yes.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So exclusions for claims.
		MR. GIROUX:  Is that correct or should it say 
added exclusions for claims to their policies for damages 
created by -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  They just exclude coverage is what 
they do.  A claim that is related to an unauthorized event 
is not covered in the policy.
		MR. OLSON:  Maybe we can spell it out a little 
cleaner.
		MS. DILLEY:  Say it again.
		MR. OLSON:  You can't buy coverage for 
unauthorized contamination by an unauthorized -- 
		MR. BUSS:  Say exclude coverage for claims that 
are unauthorized.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Just exclude the coverage.
		MR. OLSON:  You don't need to say to their 
policies.
		MS. DILLEY:  Just exclude coverage.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Actually have added exclusions to 
their policies for unauthorized or illegal biotech -- 
presence.  That's probably as good of words -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Leave out the claims.
		MR. GRANT:  Yeah, claims is implied.
		MR. SLOCUM:  You can't buy coverage for it which 
in effect in a grain handling system means you don't have 
any stocks coverage period.  It's all commingled.
		MR. JAFFE:  Unauthorized or illegal is 
redundant. It's redundant in the original text also.
		MR. GRANT:  I just took a little bit there -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I know you did.  
		MR. GRANT:  For unauthorized biotech.
		MS. MELLON:  I would say unauthorized.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  All right.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  Section D.  Did you say Section D 
is where you want to place this?
		MR. JAFFE:  That's what Carole suggested as 
opposed to putting it in the traceability put it in the 
contract and liability section.
		MR. GRANT:  It seems a logical place.
		MS. DILLEY:  Anybody have a problem with moving 
that to contract and liability?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I don't see how removing the 
other part -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I wasn't removing what was there in 
the other part.  I was leaving that there.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Oh, okay.  
		MR. JAFFE:  This is an independent stand-alone 
paragraph.
		MS. SULTON:  So maybe before the 5 paragraph 
that is on page 27, before number 6.  Make it the second to 
last paragraph.
		MS. DILLEY:  Add it between the two final 
paragraphs on E which would, if you have one of the 
handouts here, at the top of page 27.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So before "Unlike the 
conditions."
		MS. SULTON:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Correct.
		MR. GIROUX:  Actually, it may belong one 
paragraph further up because the one that's further is on 
liabilities.  This one talks about minimum quality 
selection.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.  That's what Carole had 
suggested, the last -- between the -- on page 26 between 
the third and fourth paragraphs there.		
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  That makes sense.
		MR. JAFFE: That's what Carole had suggested.
		MS. DILLEY:  This is right after the elevator.  
The other sentence stays intact where it is and this is a 
new paragraph up here that goes into this section.
		MR. GIROUX:  That's correct.  
		MR. BUSS:  Where did this wind up now?
		MS. DILLEY:  This one goes -- what's up on the 
board goes on page 26, between the third and fourth 
paragraphs.  So between the paragraph that starts, "At the 
next stage," and further down, "The supply value chain."
		MR. BUSS:  Okay.  It seems somewhat redundant 
with lines 2 through 5 on 26.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MS. CRAMER:  Yes, they are.
		MS. DILLEY:  That's okay.  Redundancy is good.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It becomes doubly important.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah.  Then it's clearly mentioned.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Duane requested that we come 
back to the definition of grain and grain products on page 
5 before we move to the Executive Summary, and I think 
yesterday you were bouncing back between having a specific 
definition for grain and grain products as far as 
acknowledging -- will we be referring to it in that context 
versus a broader context.  So Duane?
		MR. GRANT:  Right.  I guess IÕm not exactly sure 
where we left this.  I know there was a proposal to add 
wheat onto the list there.  So did we end up with a list or 
did we not?
		MS. DILLEY:  I think where it stood at that 
conclusion was it was still broadly defined which is grain 
and grain products refers to wheat, corn, and soybeans, and 
products or ingredients derived from them.
		MR. JAFFE:  Et cetera.
		MS. DILLEY:  Et cetera, sorry.  
		MR. GRANT:  So that's where I've got an issue.  
It says refers to the majority of current biotechnology 
products and wheat is not a current biotech.
		MS. DILLEY:  No, we took that out.  So now it 
says grain and grain products is broadly defined as not 
being defined with as only grain and grain biotech 
products.  It's -- so now it reads, "Grain and grain 
products refers to wheat, corn, soybeans, et cetera, and 
products or ingredients derived from them."  
		MR. JAFFE:  No, ", including finished foods."
		MS. DILLEY:  All right.  "Including finished 
foods," right?
		MR. GRANT:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  And that's all.
		MR. GRANT:  All right.  All right.  I'm okay 
with that then.  Thank you.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Now we can move to the 
Executive Summary.
		MR. OLSON:  I have one other, on page 7, and 
maybe it was covered yesterday afternoon, about the middle 
paragraph, it talks about, in the last sentence, 
participants in these markets capture the values and 
importers are able to maintain low costs.  Is that 
importers and exporters?  Should that be 
exporters/importers or just importers?
		MR. JAFFE:  What page are you on?
		MR. OLSON:  Page 7, line 30.  Because typically 
it's the exporter that pays for the inspection process.
		MS. DILLEY:  I don't know, but if it prompts any 
discussion, then it's -- unless it's just a quick -- 
		MR. OLSON:  It's also line 44 down below.  It 
just refers to importers.  We're talking about participants 
of the market.  I just didn't know if it should be 
importers/exporters or just importers.  It's more of a 
question.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's importers into the country 
that have a regulatory or labeling framework, right?
		MR. GRANT:  I think just as it's written, I 
think -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Because the exporters bear some of 
the cost of bringing it into a country.  It's not just the 
importer that covers the cost.
		MS. DILLEY:  So where are we?  Keep it as it is 
or --
		MR. OLSON:  Leave it as it is.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Let's leave it as is, and 
then turn to the Executive Summary.  
		MS. MELLON:  Just one discussion, I'm assuming 
all of the issues that are -- conform to the descriptions 
of the issues at the end of the chapter.
		MR. JAFFE:  There are no issues in the Executive 
Summary.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The current version doesn't 
have -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Doesn't have any.
		MR. JAFFE:  They wouldn't be put in.  We talked 
about that.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay.  
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Are we ready for the 
Executive Summary?
		MS. MELLON:  These are not other issues, and 
these are not the issues that were raised.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't understand what you're 
saying?
		MS. MELLON:  Page 2.
		MR. JAFFE:  You're talking about the bulleted 
things?
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  Those are not related to Section 4.  
They're related to Section 3.  
		MS. DILLEY:  That's basically the outline of the 
chapter.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- performing with Section 3, but 
that's what we need to do now.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  Not to the -- which was the policy, 
not the nine items we just identified.  Those are different 
sections.  Section 3 is commercial implications.  The 
bullets relate to those sections.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  So turning to the Executive 
Summary, page 1, and we're seeking out the bracketed text. 
		On line 21, "Although most countries have 
sanitary and phytosanitary regulatory requirements."
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And the other new words.  Since 
this section hasnÕt been gone over yet -- 
		MS. SULTON:  We haven't gone over it yet?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  None at all.  Everything that 
is underlined are new words.
		MS. SULTON:  New text.  So it begins at the 
beginning, paragraph one.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I'll just make a point about 
why the changes in line 10.  Given that the report is 
future focused but is also talking about some implications 
in the policy concerns section, we moved current -- current 
was moved from in front of implications to after -- to 
before different mandatory labeling requirements so that it 
captures sort of -- the focus and future implications of 
it, current focus and future implications.
		MS. SULTON:  That in addition to the word 
"United States" and the word "supply."  They're all 
clarifications.  Everybody okay with paragraph 1?
		(No response.)
		MS. SULTON:  No changes in paragraph 2.  Changes 
in paragraph 3 begin on line 21.  It's just a clarification 
of what we're talking about there, plant-based products of 
modern agricultural biotechnology, followed by question of 
whether we should put in the text that says, "Although most 
countries have sanitary and phytosanitary regulatory 
requirements."
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And those were suggestions from 
Terry who is not here.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't have a problem with it.
		MS. SULTON:  Is it accepted?  And those few last 
words beginning on line 25.
		MS. MELLON:  I think we need to get rid of 
other.
		MS. SULTON:  What line are you on?
		MS. MELLON:  On page 25.  Shouldn't it just say 
in the many countries that have mandatory -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Is the rest of this 
paragraph okay with the changes and the suggestions, since 
they are mostly grammatical?
		MR. GRANT:  I guess on page -- or line 26, do we 
need many or can we just say in the countries.
		MS. SULTON:  In the countries that have or is it 
true for all countries that have them.  This is saying that 
it's in many of them.  That means that it's not true in 
all.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No, it's in all of the 
countries that have and there are lots of those countries 
is what that says.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's what it's saying.
		MS. SULTON:  In the many.
		MR. GRANT:  I guess the question would be 
whether many implies plurality or just, you know, a 
majority or just about you or -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Many have -- in the countries?
		MS. SULTON:  Yeah.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  In the countries.
		MS. SULTON:  In the countries.
		MR. GRANT:  That's fine.  
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  That's clearer there.  Okay.  
Nothing in paragraph 4, paragraph 5 beginning on line 38.  
Actually on line 42, there is a choice between having to 
label and labeling, and it suggests the new text is 
labeling.
		MR. BUSS:  That's more accurate.
		MS. SULTON:  I would suggest that we delete the 
"have been evolving."
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The words are just moved in the 
sentence.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.  From "Supply chains have 
been evolving" to "Supply chains that source non-biotech 
grain and grain products have been evolving."
		MS. SULTON:  Correct.  Everybody okay with that?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Page 2, the second paragraph on 
that page, line 12, eliminate the word regulatory.
		MR. GIROUX:  Could I have an explanation for 
that?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I don't recall, I don't recall 
who suggested that.
		MR. OLSON:  It seems appropriate.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think it should stay in.
		MS. SULTON:  So let it stand.  Then line 15.
		MR. JAFFE:  I would say we stick with may.
		MS. SULTON:  Is everybody okay sticking with may 
as opposed to going to the change?
		(No response.)
		MS. SULTON:  Line -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let's make sure on that 
before -- 
		MS. SULTON:  All right.  The documentation and 
the challenge of supplying products that are exempt from 
labeling in the United States may or will -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  In the EU.
		MS. SULTON:  -- in the EU, may or will have 
significant impact on the ability of U.S. producers to 
compete in the EU market?
		MS. CRAMER:  Don't they now?  Don't they do it 
now?
		MR. GIROUX:  Will.
		MS. SULTON:  Is it will or is it would?
		MS. LAYTON:  Just have.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Will is future.
		MR. SLOCUM:  We could say do.
		MS. LAYTON:  The documentation requirements and 
the challenge of supplying products that are exempt from 
labeling in the EU are having or have significant impacts 
on -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Cross out both may and will.
		MR. JAFFE:  Are we saying we're not competing in 
the marketplace now because that's what that would suggest?
		MS. CRAMER:  It says impacts.
		MS. LAYTON:  Have significant impacts on the 
ability of U.S. producers to compete in the EU market.
		MR. JAFFE:  It says we're not competing very 
well in that market.
		MR. OLSON:  That's right.
		MR. SLOCUM:  There are certain segments we're 
not competing in at all.
		MR. BUSS:  I don't think it says value judgment 
on the quality of competition.  It just says that it has an 
impact.  It doesn't make a value statement.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So we're dropping may and 
will and we're just saying have.
		MS. SULTON:  It just says have.  Line 19, forums 
changed fora.
		MR. OLSON:  The last sentence of that paragraph, 
it says even though the U.S. is not a Party, you know, 
shipments provide additional challenge for exporters, but 
if the U.S. was a Party, that means that shipments would -- 
in light of the first sentences -- first part of the 
sentence, the way it is related to the second part of the 
sentence. 
		MS. SULTON:  Is it a heartburn there because 
it's not in -- it's not a change.  It was the original 
proofs.  Is that a correction?
		MR. JAFFE:  This is a new section.  No, this is 
a new section.  We have not gone through this section as a 
committee.  We didn't bring up any points and -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  And I think this goes back to that 
text that we just changed on page 14.
		MS. SULTON:  No.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, I don't think so.  
		MR. OLSON:  I suggest we cross out "even though" 
and just make "The U.S. is not a Party to the Protocol."  
And then start the sentence, requirements relating provide 
additional challenge.
		MR. GRANT:  Okay.  That works.
		MS. SULTON:  Is everybody okay with that?
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.
		MS. SULTON:  Very good.  Okay.  The paragraph 
beginning on line 29 -- sorry -- 28.  Did you have a point 
to make?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where are we?
		MS. SULTON:  We're on the sentence that 
introduces bullet 1.
		MS. LAYTON:  Instead of this report also 
addresses, it says, the following are other issues that are 
raised by the labeling and traceability requirements in the 
food and feed chain's efforts to implement them in 
practice, instead an effort to attempts.
		MS. SULTON:  Because it follow -- because there 
were some issues mentioned above I presume, like the one in 
the last sentence about an additional challenge.
		Then we go to the definition of adventitious 
presence, with a question about whether we use the word 
risk or real challenges.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think that might have been my 
correction, and that had to do with the commercial risk 
issue, and so I attempted to not use the word risk, and I 
wrote real challenges.  I'm open to any other suggestion 
but I know there was a sensitivity of using the word risk 
because it had other meanings other than -- we had to 
either modify it to commercial or we had to do something.
		MR. JAFFE:  But later in the sentence it is, 
because it says both in terms of regulatory compliance and 
consumer/commercial expectations.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  I can back off if you're 
comfortable with the word risk.
		MS. CRAMER:  I like challenges better than 
risks. 
		MR. JAFFE:  I wouldn't say real.  I would delete 
real. 
		MS. CRAMER:  Just say challenges.
		MS. MELLON:  Just challenges.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So now it says challenges 
both in terms of regulatory compliance and 
consumer/commercial expectations.
		MS. SULTON:  Then in the next bullet we add the 
word commercial to modify risk.
		MR. JAFFE:  I had another comment in that bullet 
though.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.
		MR. JAFFE:  In the phrase, control unapproved 
products, I'm not sure what that's referring to.  I mean I 
would suggest either saying control -- control experimental 
crops or otherwise control products for non-food uses but 
there isn't such a thing as an unapproved product.  It's 
approved if they have a permit to grow it, but it may not 
be for food use.  I don't like using the word unapproved.  
If we're talking about experiments, we could say control 
experimental crops.  I think we're talking about 
pharmaceutical use and other kinds of things, and in this 
case, we may want to say control products not for -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Could you use regulated there?  That 
doesn't capture everything, does it?  That's only -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I mean we could take control 
regulated products.
		MR. GIROUX:  We could use the word manage 
instead of control.
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.
		MS. SULTON:  Manage regulated products.
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.
		MS. SULTON:  Is that okay?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's fine.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  The third bullet.
		MR. GIROUX:  The only word I'd like to see 
stricken in this one is may because -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  That they also impose new cost and 
commercial risks.
		MR. JAFFE:  I propose to leave out the word new.  
Just impose costs and commercial risks.
		MS. SULTON:  Is everybody okay?
		(No response.)
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Now it reads, "but they also 
impose costs and commercial risks."
		The next bullet, tracing and testing are 
interrelated tools for origin or process certification.
		MR. JAFFE:  I had a question in the second 
sentence.  It says for many uses, they have evolved 
independent of transgenic product.  I didn't know if the 
they there, is it referring both to tracing and testing or, 
or not?  It's a simple factual question for Ron or somebody 
else?
		MR. OLSON:  Tracing is what is meant.
		MR. JAFFE:  It sounds to me like tracing 
not -- so maybe we should -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  It should be tracing has evolved.  
Is that clear?  Is everybody okay with that one.  We're 
leaving in for many uses.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah, it was just the they.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can you just repeat what 
happened?
		MS. LAYTON:  For many uses, tracing has evolved 
independent of transgenic product labeling requirements.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Thank you.  
		MR. JAFFE:  That fits better with the text.
		MR. OLSON:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Page 3, first bullet we did 
yesterday.  We accepted Juan's position.  I can't remember 
what we did.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, we accepted Juan's position.
		MS. SULTON:  And I don't have the notes on -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  I do.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We got rid of assumptions 
about.
		MS. LAYTON:  Assumptions about and it was 
contract terms relative to liability transfer.
		MS. SULTON:  So it now reads, however -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Contract terms relative to 
liability transfer.
		MS. SULTON:  -- contract terms relative to 
liability transfer with the transaction are not uniform 
along the chain.
		Okay.  And then the next bullet, a variety of 
tests.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah, I have a clarifying question 
here.  A variety of tests have been developed to detect 
specific biotechnology-derived products, but no test works 
for all products or for all genetic events.  My question is 
should it say test or test methods, and is that an accurate 
statement.  I mean the ELISA, does it -- I mean a 
particular ELISA only works for one but the ELISA itself 
could work for all of them.  That's why I'm -- should it 
say test or test method here.
		MS. CRAMER:  I think test is right.
		MR. GIROUX:  Test methods but say no single 
test.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.
		MS. SULTON:  No single test.  No single test or 
no single test method.
		MR. GIROUX:  Single test.
		MS. SULTON:  Single test.
		MR. GIROUX:  Let's say, a variety of test 
methods have been developed to detect specific biotech 
products but no single test works for all.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.  Okay.  That's what I -- 
that's better.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  Anything else in this 
bullet?
		MS. MELLON:  I'd like to have some -- in the 
Executive Summary, some mention of the consumer issue.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think there needs to be a consumer 
bullet.
		MS. MELLON:  And I was going to suggest that we 
have this, a consumer bullet that we developed up here, be 
included up here along with these other -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  It's the last one.  So can we wait 
until we get to the and -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Okay.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- locally it would be the last 
bullet.
		MS. MELLON:  All right.  
		MS. SULTON:  So then it moves to the bullet that 
begins, when food manufacturers and ingredient suppliers 
comply with labeling requirements.  There is the 
recommended addition of the word commercial to modify risk 
again.
		MR. GIROUX:  The only question I have on that 
one is do we define IdP as identity preservation.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  We have.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Up on top.
		MR. JAFFE:  Line 13, page 2.
		MR. SLOCUM:  We don't define identity 
preservation.
		MR. GIROUX:  No, no.
		MS. SULTON:  Then the final bullet before the 
one we may add, again commercial is modifying risks.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.  And I have two questions on 
that bullet.  It says increasingly stringent product 
requirements with respect to the parameters discussed 
above.  I don't know what we're talking about when we say 
parameters discussed above.  I don't think there's any -- 
		MS. SULTON:  Right.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- parameters discussed in this 
Executive Summary.  So I'm not proposing language because I 
don't know what to propose there.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'd say we just erase that.
		MS. SULTON:  So with respect to the parameters 
discussed above is erased?
		MR. GIROUX:  Increasingly stringent product 
requirements could lead to lead to market segmentation.
		MR. JAFFE:  And then I would just propose 
deleting the word dramatic and just say a narrowing of the 
group of suppliers.
		MS. SULTON:  Is everybody okay with that?  
		MR. GRANT:  Sure.
		MS. SULTON:  It's gone.  So we're removed 
dramatic and with respect to the parameters discussed 
above.
		Now, Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  I propose we add the language on 
the board as -- I'm almost -- I just said that I don't feel 
like formally recommending it, but I mean we're having it 
as the last bullet.  That kind of makes it seem like it's 
not as important as the other parts of it.  In some ways 
you could argue that it should be -- could be part of the -
- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Isn't it following the outline of 
the report?
		MS. MELLON:  I withdraw that, but I would 
suggest that it be included, I think that a bullet on 
consumer concerns should be included in the Executive 
Summary.
		MR. JAFFE:  I agree with Mardi that there should 
be a bullet concerning consumer concerns.  I have no 
problem using that language.  We also keep in mind though 
that we do not put the key policy issues in it, and this 
would be the one case where the language would be 
identical.  On the other hands, we all want to negotiate.  
		MS. SULTON:  Juan?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I just wanted to get back to the 
point that I made yesterday, that I would propose a 
paragraph which is, "We wish to note that it is not just 
countries that could have significant input and impact on 
labeling regimes.  Mega-retailers and mega-consumers of 
food could also drive rapid change in labeling."  All you 
want to note in here is that we're talking about countries, 
but we had presentation I think in the session two of this 
thing, that basically said -- Wal-Mart says you're going to 
label this.  It's just doesn't matter what countries are 
saying but we have a whole report that simply doesn't 
address the reality of business.
		MS. LAYTON:  That segment though it in there, 
the mega-reality retailers is in there somewhere because we 
saw it yesterday.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I make, can I make this 
suggestion, that maybe that be additional text that goes 
into the -- first off into the document to expand, you 
would make that recommendation but I don't know that the 
text made it into the report, that we maybe see where the 
Wal-Mart thing is, where Wal-Mart was in the report and 
stick in the little expanded text there and then come back 
and look at it again here.
		MR. GIROUX:  I think that text was not in this 
document but in the document we discussed yesterday around 
-- 
		MS. SULTON:  Scenarios.
		MS. DILLEY:  No, it's in here.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MS. DILLEY:  He's right.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I think it's a big enough issue 
that if you pull up 40 pages on labeling and traceability, 
you don't happen to mention that -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Could it be rolled together into the 
consumer section?
		MS. CRAMER:  Well, that's what he just -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Not in the section but in the 
consumer bullet.
		MR. JAFFE:  In the market segmentation bullet, 
of the market segmentation section because that's where 
it's discussed.  It ought to be put in there.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  We're discussing governments in 
this thing but there happens to be this other thing that's 
sitting out there.
		MS. CRAMER:  Would you read your statement one 
more time?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  We wish to note it's not just 
countries that have significant input and impact -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Commercial realities.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  -- on labeling regimes.  Mega-
retailers and mega-consumers of food could also drive  
rapid change in labeling regime.
		MS. CRAMER:  What's a mega-consumer?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  McDonald's.
		MR. JAFFE:  I wouldn't call it consumers.  I 
think you need to call it something else?  Buyers -- mega-
customers, or something like that.
		MS. SULTON:  Wholesale buyers.
		MS. LAYTON:  We had two terms that we defined 
yesterday, consumer and customer, and I think they're a 
customer.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  But just out of 40 pages, you 
want to say something similar, that it isn't just 
governments who are going to decide labeling.
		MS. LAYTON:  And IÕm trying to decide if it's G, 
H, I under Section 3, commercial impacts and realities and 
it's Section I, after market segmentation and after 
consumers, and we would just call it customers.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Sure.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Do we want to make it a 
separate two segment section or does it go somewhere else?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Put it anywhere you want to.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, I'm just trying to see 
what -- trying to see what everyone -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  I don't know the answer to that.
		MS. MELLON:  Which page is the commercial 
realities on?
		MS. SULTON:  It begins on page 16 and I have 
Sections A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I.  Looking at F.
		MS. LAYTON:  Let's see.  Discrepancy between 
regulatory and commercial requirements.
		MR. GIROUX:  No.
		MS. LAYTON:  It could be that we actually need 
it to go there right after that
		MS. SULTON:  Originally when these were laid 
out, they were laid out without any sense of priority but 
rather in alphabetical order.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Why wouldn't it fit inside of F?
		MR. GIROUX:  Because even a Wal-Mart has to work 
inside the regulatory framework.  They may choose their 
labeling but they still -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Demand their own commercial 
requirements.
		MR. GIROUX:  They may very well.
		MS. SULTON:  And it could fit within F?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  As a last paragraph in F.
		MR. GIROUX:  I would be okay with that.   
		MR. SLOCUM:  Does it fit there?  I think it fits 
under the title but does it fit in the discussion.
		MR. BUSS:  Alternatively, it could fit under the 
first paragraph in F.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. GRANT:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually it could.  So -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  -- minimum contractual 
specification.
		MS. SULTON:  So page 29, suggesting it be the 
second paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  Or mega-customers.
		MR. BUSS:  Follow on line 37, if we continue 
that first -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  But then that sort of breaks up 
the discussion of countries.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The first paragraph is 
countries and then the next paragraph is countries.
		MS. MELLON:  Well, but if you use the we wish to 
note -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  It isn't -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Or put it under -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. OLSON:  The third paragraph talks about food 
manufacturers doing tighter specs than a country does.  So 
I would put manufacturer or it could be mega whatever you 
want to call it, an impact right in there.
		MS. LAYTON:  So after the third paragraph?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  The latter half of that paragraph 
starts to allude to it but not as explicit as Ron is 
pointing out.
		MS. SULTON:  Yeah.  So on page 30, top of the 
page, the first paragraph on page 30 -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Lines 4 through 9 start to get at 
it.
		MS. SULTON:  So could you put it as a new 
paragraph between the, the last paragraph and the second to 
last paragraph?
		MS. LAYTON:  Or within that paragraph.
		MR. GIROUX:  I don't think it belongs in the 
paragraph.  The original sentence talks about companies 
that are striving to exempt from labeling and having 
conditional or more stringent requirements.  In this case, 
I think it's more general than that.  I think it's a stand-
alone.
		MR. OLSON:  I think it's important -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Stand-alone paragraph.
		MR. OLSON:  I think it's a stand-alone 
paragraph, yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right after that, and then finishes 
up, the same variability exists -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It breaks the variability 
concept.  I think if you add some industry standards exceed 
the legal requirements, then you could move into this 
specific impact.
		MS. MELLON:  You could also use it as the 
introductory paragraph and say -- you know, it's called 
discrepancy between regulatory and commercial requirements, 
I can't recall the language but make the point that it's 
going to be driven by countries and by, by these big mega-
consumers and retailers, and then just go on to say that 
the regulatory framework and do all the regulatory 
discussion after that.  It would remain in a block.
		MR. GIROUX:  So this would be the second 
paragraph?
		MS. LAYTON:  No, she's saying it would be the 
first paragraph.
		MS. MELLON:  I'm saying the first paragraph -- 
		MR. OLSON:  First or last.
		MS. CRAMER:  I like it last actually because 
you're doing all of this sort of discussion but then the 
end is, you know, there's a lot more than just countries 
and various companies.  These really big conglomerations 
are having a huge impact -- ends the section with -- you 
guys need to look at this.
		MS. SULTON:  Is everybody okay with it as the 
last paragraph?
		MS. MELLON:  That's fine.
		MS. SULTON:  There's nodding around the table.  
Last paragraph.  Juan, can we get your language please?  
Did you write it out, I hope?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  We wish to note it is not just 
countries that have significant input and impact on 
labeling regimes.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Countries that can -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Could.  That could have a 
significant input.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  It's not just countries that 
could have a significant input and impact on labeling 
regimes.  Mega-retailers and mega-customers could also 
drive rapid change in labeling.
		MS. SULTON:  And having ended that paragraph at 
the end, you logically have a statement -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  Is it the impact or labeling or 
should it be impact of market?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  The labeling regime because it 
doesn't matter what the Government asks you to label.  If 
Wal-Mart asks you to label, you're going to label it.
		MR. GIROUX:  But nobody's ever done that, have 
they, asked to label?
		MR. JAFFE:  McDonald's does.
		MR. GIROUX:  See, that's the conundrum.
		MR. JAFFE:  So they're not really asked to 
label.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I guess the question that I 
would have is whether the word regime suggests that it's a 
government thing as opposed to a market thing.  So labeling 
and practice.
		MR. SLOCUM:  So maybe we could say submit input 
and impact on labels or labeling period.
		MS. SULTON:  Period.  Not regimes.
		MS. LAYTON:  I agree.  Regime sounds like it's a 
government issue.  And so -- we wish to note it is not just 
countries that can have a significant input and impact on 
labeling.  Mega-retailers and mega-customers could also 
drive rapid change in labeling.
		MS. SULTON:  In labeling marketplace 
requirements.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Or just in marketplace 
requirements.
		MR. JAFFE:  That gets away from the point about 
labeling and traceability.  I mean it is true that 
McDonald's can say we don't want biotech potatoes and so 
nobody grows -- it's different than -- this report is not 
about that.
		MR. SLOCUM:  It's labeling and trade, isn't it?
		MS. DILLEY:  I thought it was traceability.  
Isn't it one of those things, like the scanner things that 
you have to be able to trace things.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, but they already have that.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Their decision in Europe is to 
label their meat products as non-biotech-fed would have a 
major impact on trade.  That label and that impact on trade 
caused new traceability schemes to be adopted -- 
		MS. SULTON:  So you want to add labeling and 
trade.
		MR. SLOCUM:  I'm fine with labeling but that 
label, that label -- their desire to label it that way had 
major impacts.
		MR. GIROUX:  Labeling in the marketplace.  Maybe 
we can say in the marketplace instead of trade.
		MR. OLSON:  Labeling and other market impacts.
		MR. SLOCUM:  It suits me.
		MR. OLSON:  It's much bigger than labeling.
		MR. GIROUX:  It influences the marketplace for 
sure.
		MS. LAYTON:  We wish to note it is not just 
countries that have or can have -- could or can?
		MR. GIROUX:  Could.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- could have a significant input 
and impact on labeling.
		MR. GIROUX:  And the marketplace.
		MS. LAYTON:  And the marketplace is what I 
heard.  Mega-retailers and mega-customers could also have -
- could also drive rapid change in labeling.  And it's 
implied that it would impact the market from what we said 
before.
		Is everybody okay with that?  Do you want me to 
read it again, Randy?
		MR. GIROUX:  No.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay. 
		MS. SULTON:  Do you want me to read it again?
		MR. GIROUX:  No, I understand it.  
		MS. SULTON:  That brings us back to the phrase 
that we need to add to page 3.
		MR. BUSS:  I have a question for clarification.  
We had added the bullet -- not bullet, but we've added that 
point earlier as point number 10 in the policy concerns.  
Is that right?  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MR. BUSS:  Okay.  The section that we're talking 
about now in the Executive Summary begins, the following 
are issues raised by labeling and traceability requirements 
in the food and feed chain's efforts to implement them and 
closes with the report also highlights in a separate 
section, the series of policy concerns and issues.  Are we 
going to add all of those bullets?
		MS. SULTON:  No.
		MR. JAFFE:  None of them.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Except for possibly that one 
that has a summary of the consumer -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Above that sentence though?
		MS. LAYTON:  Above that sentence.
		MR. JAFFE:  Not as -- right.  It's just a 
summary of the -- it will have to look the same and be the 
same but it's a summary, not as a -- it's not here written 
as a policy.
		MS. SULTON:  And how would that read?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Just like that.  
		MS. DILLEY:  And the reason to do that is as 
Greg said, it's practicality unless somebody else wants to 
take another round at figuring out that language because I 
think Ron and Duane have done theirs.
		MR. JAFFE:  Now as I just check my voice mail, 
and Carol said that she woke up sick this morning, it's 
nothing bad, and if there's something, I do know her cell 
number, if there's something we need to run by her.  I'll 
probably do the lunch time call and run this by her but if 
there's other things she said, I could call her. 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Give her our sympathies.
		MS. LAYTON:  And I'll change that policy to 
policy concerns to reflect the title. 
		MS. SULTON:  So that concludes the Executive 
Summary, right?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think we needed to ask the 
question of whether or not there was to be an additional 
sentence relating to Juan's -- 
		MS. SULTON:  That's what I just asked.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Did that just happen?
		MS. SULTON:  That's what we just asked and then 
you all pointed to this one.
		MR. SLOCUM:  No, no, that's a different one.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  My question was based on the 
paragraph that Juan just added, do we need to have another 
bullet in the Executive Summary?  I believe that's where 
this discussion began.
		MS. LAYTON:  But it's around that food 
manufacturing, ingredients suppliers, complying with the -- 
isn't that where it's in?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  For consistency, we wouldnÕt put a 
new bullet.  The question is whether you add a sentence to 
the bullet of the summary of that section.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I would suggest that the last -
- the second sentence that Juan suggested would be -- would 
do as an addition to that -- the end of that bullet.
		MS. LAYTON:  Mega-retailers and mega-customers 
could also draw rapid change in labeling, as a final -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  Where is this?
		MS. SULTON:  This is the second to the last 
bullet on page 3.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Of the Executive Summary?
		MS. SULTON:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's line 23.  In some cases, the 
contractual specifications can be far greater than actual 
regulatory requirements.  Now what we're saying is we wish 
to note that it's just not countries as the last paragraph.  
Does it warrant coming up to the Executive Summary in that 
section?
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  And is the last sentence 
then acceptable as an addition to that last bullet?
		MS. DILLEY:  For me.  I mean it seems like what 
we're talking about is what the report highlights here.  I 
thought in the spirit of Juan's note, we just wish to note, 
we don't address the stuff in the report but we're also 
acknowledging that it has a big influence.
		MS. MELLON:  I would say put it in there.
		MS. DILLEY:  I'm not arguing about whether to 
have that in the Executive Summary but whether it goes in 
the last part of the introductory -- of the Executive 
Summary before you put it in the bullet.
		MS. SULTON:  Does it stand alone do you mean or 
it's just a sentence there?
		MS. LAYTON:  We're adding it to a bullet.  We're 
proposing to add it at the last sentence of the bullet on 
line 24.
		MR. OLSON:  I don't know if it's needed.  I 
don't think it's needed.  I think we've kind of got it 
there in broad case and fix it up in the text.
		MS. SULTON:  Juan?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  As long as the point's in there.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  
		MR. GIROUX:  It's important for -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  It is important, and I think that 
contractual specifications are actually hinting at it.
		Okay.  Done?
		MS. SULTON:  Done.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Are people saying okay, this is 
the final temperature-taking on putting this in as the 
final bullet?
		MR. JAFFE:  I'd like to try to run it by Carol.
		MR. BUSS:  I'd ask Ron about this sentence, and 
as I was reading it, it says that variability in retail 
labeling stimulates consumer interest in seeking 
information.  I was wondering if that was a true statement 
implying that if you had uniform retail labeling, it 
wouldn't stimulate consumer interest?
		MS. MELLON:  One of the things as I understand 
it, a point that Carol was making, was that -- is that not 
only the kind of debate around biotech foods but also the 
fact that some parts of the world have a job -- stringent 
regulations.  That too stimulates debate in -- among 
consumers in interest in their food.  It's something they 
would note.
		MR. OLSON:  It could just reverse the whole 
thing, and say consumersÕ interest in seeking additional 
information is stimulated by associated risks and 
variability in labeling regimes.
		MS. LAYTON:  That way it wouldn't look the same.
		MR. OLSON:  But it disconnects it because the 
issue of the debate is seeking additional information as 
the issue.  So if you put that at the top, that's what the 
issue is.  I mean it's stimulated by the associated debates 
of safety and environmental and general -- and variability 
of labeling.
		MR. BUSS:  I think it's a little clearer, the 
subject and the verb are coming a lot closer together.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  The ability to reverse it 
then?
		MR. OLSON:  No, just taking the words and 
switching them.
		MR. JAFFE:  The consumer's interest in seeking 
additional information about their food is stimulated by 
variability in retail labeling requirements of different 
countries and the associated debates -- and associated 
debates regarding safety and environmental concerns and 
general acceptability of products.
		MS. MELLON:  That's a good suggestion.
		MR. OLSON:  And it reads a little better.  It 
starts with consumer.
		MS. SULTON:  It starts with consumer.  So it 
will start here.
		MS. LAYTON:  And then -- and after biotech crops 
and -- so it stops here, and this whole thing to here.
		MS. SULTON:  Does that conclude the Executive 
Summary?
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Okay.  
		MS. CRAMER:  I have one little thing since I 
wasn't here yesterday in the black text way back on page 22 
that I just -- page 22, line 23, which says no one size 
fits all.  I don't think that adds and it sounds -- 
processors and food companies.  Page 22, line 23.  
		MS. LAYTON:  As such, IdP systems and 
requirements vary across geography, among importing 
companies, and all the way to specific end-use customer 
requirements.  And then the statement comes, no one size 
fits all.
		MS. CRAMER:  It just sounds a little -- 
		MR. OLSON:  I can tell you where it came from.  
There was a second group that I was also involved with -- 
foundation did a traceability which I think some of you -- 
I have the website, if you want to go read it.  That was 
the core conclusion of their report because they wanted to 
say, should governments step in and start dictating what 
the traceability system should be, and what they found out 
is that depending on the makeup of the plant, the 
manufacturer, the type of products, it wasn't a way to get 
to define one size fits all comment.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So you just want a more elegant 
way to say it?
		MR. OLSON:  We can say it differently but that 
was the reason for having it in there, that there isn't a 
common traceability system that exists -- for the IdP 
system that exists for all situations.  In fact, the 
variation is greater than the similarities probably.
		MS. SULTON:  Carole, do you -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Do you want to approach this from 
all situations?  So no one approach fits all situations or 
something like that, Carole?  Is that what you're looking 
for so it doesn't sound like a -- commercial or something.
		MR. OLSON:  There's just a wide variability 
of -- 
		MS. SULTON:  Right.-- 
		MR. OLSON:  -- in the marketplace or something 
like that but -- 
		MR. BUSS:  You could say no system or set of 
requirements in all circumstances.
		MS. DILLEY:  All circumstances, right.
		MS. LAYTON:  I like that.  No system -- 
		MR. BUSS:  Or set of requirements -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  -- or set of requirements -- 
		MR. BUSS:  -- that all circumstances -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  -- that fits all circumstances.
		MR. OLSON:  It's grain language.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Carole, any other issues?
		MS. CRAMER:  No.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can we take a moment just to 
-- for everyone to peer through and make sure that we've 
done everything, that we've gone through everything?
		MR. OLSON:  Are you open for any page, for any 
sort of comment?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Not at all.  I'm asking if 
there are any pieces that are unresolved -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  To make sure that we -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- that we missed going back 
to.
		MR. JAFFE:  Michael, if we see typos or little 
things like Section 2 and it should be Section 3, are you 
talking about things like that?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Tell me now.  
		MS. CRAMER:  I started making a little list.  I 
caught the 2 and 3 one.
		MR. JAFFE:  Page 8, Section 3-A(1).  I have the 
different page numbers.
		MS. CRAMER:  Page 8, line 5.  It should be Part 
3 and not Part 2.
		MR. JAFFE:  Part 3, not Part 2, right.
		MS. CRAMER:  I have a little list of typos that 
I caught. 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I have one on page 6, 
line 22.  Okay.  Additional requirements impose additional 
costs on producers and suppliers.  And it's also 
manufacturers and retailers, the whole supply chain, not 
just stop with suppliers.
		MS. LAYTON:  So can we just say for the supply 
chain?
		MR. OLSON:  We could.  Then on page 8 -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Hold on a minute.  Let me make 
sure everyone's okay with that.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. OLSON:  On the top of page 8, line 2 -- the 
first line actually, number 1.  
		MR. SLOCUM:  Which page, Ron?
		MR. OLSON:  Top of page 8.  It's the bottom of 
page 7, where it talks about a food manufacturer, may give 
a specification of identity preservation and/or sourcing 
from conventional grains, it would be sourcing through 
segregating from conventional grains.  
		MS. SULTON:  What line?
		MR. OLSON:  There may be a specification of 
identity preservation and/or sourcing from conventional 
grain.  You would source to segregate it from conventional 
grain.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, I think that depends on 
whether by conventional grain you mean -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Just a commodity crop.  Non-biotech.
		MR. GIROUX:  Convention a lot of times is used 
as non-GM.
		MS. SULTON:  In the U.S., it would be a GM, 
right?
		MR. GIROUX:  Conventional and commodity are not 
the same.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Conventional in the U.S. would 
imply non-traditional.
		MR. GIROUX:  Yeah, correct.
		MR. OLSON:  And I was just wondering if that was 
clear enough terminology.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Why don't we just say sourcing from 
non-biotech.
		MR. GRANT:  That would be more clear.  That 
would be more consistent.
		MR. SLOCUM:  That's what that is.
		MS. LAYTON:  So it's just going to read -- 
you're going to strike conventional and put non-biotech.
		MR. OLSON:  Correct. 
		MS. LAYTON:  Or non-GM.  Which is it?
		MR. SLOCUM:  Non-biotech.
		MS. LAYTON:  Non-biotech.  
		MR. OLSON:  It's also on page 11, line 17, the 
same.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Page 11, line 17?
		MR. OLSON:  Correct.  There's conventional grain 
again.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Non-biotech.
		MS. LAYTON:  This is, you know, this is a good 
last opportunity for us to make sure that we've got that. 
So should we do a search on conventional grain to make 
sure.  Let me just make sure to the editors take -- do a 
search on conventional grain.
		MR. OLSON:  I think the grain industry 
understands it but I don't know that everybody understands 
it.
		MS. LAYTON:  And if so, substitute it with non-
biotech grain.  And then we don't have to worry about that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Assuming that it's used in the 
same meaning throughout the document.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Anything else for the good of the 
order?
		MR. BUSS:  I just have a question on format.  
The section on policy concerns on 33.  We list policy 
concerns numerically.  Everywhere else we've used bullets.  
Does the numbering imply priority?  I know it doesn't but 
I'm asking from the standpoint of -- 
		MS. SULTON:  So are you suggesting that we 
change it to bullets?
		MR. BUSS:  Well, I don't know.  That's what I 
was raising.  Does everybody else want to use bullets?
		MS. SULTON:  Does everybody want to change it to 
bullets?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. SULTON:  Bullets.
		MS. LAYTON:  Bullets.
		MR. BUSS:  The other point about that is 
actually throughout the text, we use four different kinds 
of bullets.
		MS. LAYTON:  We'll fix that.  Fix bullets.
		MR. OLSON:  I have one just for clarification, 
too, on page 26.  We talk about -- line 11.  This was 
software costs often range from 150 to 400 depending on the 
depth of the data.  And right before we talk about farmers.  
That's not a cost to the farmer.  And I don't know if we 
need to clarify that?  Where that number came from, was 
people approaching companies such as us to say you pay for 
the software and then you implement it all the way.  So you 
pay the $4 million or $2 million or whatever the number is 
because it's all different prices, and then they want you 
to pay for it and then you give it away free to the 
elevators and farmers that supply you grain because the 
farmers aren't going to pay for it.  It's alluded there 
that the farmers won't pay for it in there, but the farmer 
is not going to pay $150,000 or $2 million for a software 
system and neither is the country elevator.  
		MS. SULTON:  So you want to say initial software 
licensing cost to manufacturers.
		MR. OLSON:  I mean that's where it came from.  
So I guess the question is should we leave it in there or 
do we want to -- because that's what they talk about the 
cost of establishing the software to do a traceability 
system from end to end.  It doesn't say who pays for it 
here but it kind of implies that the farmers might be asked 
to pay for it and -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  If you read the next three 
sentences, is it not clear.
		MR. OLSON:  I didn't think it was quite clear 
enough.  I just put not to farmers and put a circle around 
it.  That's an indication to me that it's not quite clear 
enough, and that we should make it clear enough.
		MS. SULTON:  Can we say to whom the costs -- who 
incurs the costs?  Is it manufacturers or others.  In this 
case, we could say initial software licensing costs for 
manufacturers.
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually, we go back down -- it is 
generally difficult to get upstream players to pay for 
these systems.  So it contradicts that.
		MR. OLSON:  So it picks it up later on.  I just 
wanted to make sure it didn't imply that that was the 
farmer's costs.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think it's okay.
		MR. OLSON:  Okay.
		MR. SLOCUM:  That's a confusing paragraph 
period.
		MS. MILEWSKI:  Could you just write a sentence 
that says who pays for these costs?
		MS. LAYTON:  Right now I think you're saying 
nobody is paying for them.
		MR. OLSON:  There's several of them out there 
but they're coming primarily from the software companies or 
maybe a few larger players or something like that.  So they 
kind of got this Holy Grail of the software traceability 
and want you to pay for it.  They want somebody to pay for 
it.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Nobody's paying for it.
		MR. OLSON:  That's right.
		MR. GRANT:  So, Ron, when I read that paragraph, 
I agree with you, it does -- I mean it's -- I know that if 
I take this back to the growers and they read this, they're 
going to say, we're expected to pay $150,000 for -- 
		MR. OLSON:  That's why I questioned it.
		MR. GRANT:  So I guess I would suggest that you 
maybe add just a little, on line 12, so it says range from 
$150,000 to $4 million, depending on the depth of data 
needed, and initial costs would be borne by the who?
		MS. LAYTON:  That's the issue.  Nobody's willing 
to bear the initial cost.
		MR. OLSON:  Maybe as Jerry said, this whole 
thing reads a little -- we didn't spend the time on this 
one.
		MR. SLOCUM:  No, we didn't.
		MR. OLSON:  I wrote it, and that's the first 
draft.  I donÕt think it's ever been edited by anybody.
		MS. SULTON:  Well, how can you say initial 
software licensing -- initial software offered.
		MR. OLSON:  I would say, yeah.  I haven't 
seen -- 
		MS. SULTON:  Offered software having initial 
costs -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Maybe something like software 
systems are being offered at or -- 
		MS. SULTON:  Yeah.
		MR. OLSON:  It's implied that nobody's paying 
it.
		MS. CRAMER:  If you say often range, it makes 
the implication that -- 
		MR. OLSON:  And that's, that's the point.  
		MS. SULTON:  So software being offered have 
licensing costs that often range -- 
		MS. CRAMER:  Being offered to institute 
traceability.
		MR. BUSS:  The previous sentence begins with 
such farm level systems.  Would it work to separate the two 
-- 
		MS. SULTON:  For this report.
		MR. BUSS:  -- to start that sentence as saying, 
system designed for handlers and processors, include 
initial software licensing costs ranging from -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  No, because then that suggests that 
that's the costs that should be borne or the ones who are 
using it.
		MR. SLOCUM:  The way this reads it's, "Such farm 
level systems are being marketed on a cost-per-bushel or," 
and that or ties it back to farm level systems who license 
the software.  Initial software license is $154 million.  
It means that the farm software licensing.  That's the way 
it reads.
		MR. OLSON:  Yeah, that's where the disconnect 
is.
		MR. SLOCUM:  And that's not what it's supposed 
to read.
		MR. BUSS:  I understand.  That's what I was 
trying to separate.
		MR. GRANT:  Well, the way I read it is it's the 
same system but it's a system that's owned by the end user 
or the mills, for example, it goes right down to the farm 
level, but it's managed and controlled by the end user and 
the farmer provides his inputs into that system. So it goes 
to the farm level.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  How would it be if you moved 
the initial software licensing cost sentence, and made it 
the second sentence of the paragraph.
		MS. SULTON:  Right.
		MR. OLSON:  That would disconnect it better.
		MS. SULTON:  So several traceability systems are 
evolving today from both ends of the supply chain.  The 
costs of offered software systems often range from $150,000 
to $4 million, depending on the depth of the data.  Then -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Hold on.  Costs of offered 
software systems.
		MS. SULTON:  Yes.
		MR. OLSON:  Proposed I would say.  
		MS. SULTON:  Proposed.  
		MR. OLSON:  I mean you can't say nobody's paying 
because some companies have developed systems and have 
spent the money to do that.
		MS. LAYTON:  Then all you have to do is say 
proposed software licensing costs often range from -- you 
don't need often -- range from $150,000 to $4 million 
depending on the depth of the data needed.  Those are 
designed from the farm level, capture all detail from type 
of seed, blah, blah, blah.  Such farm level systems, blah, 
blah, blah.  These systems thus far are costly, require 
entry and are focused on sectors of supply chain that 
cannot or will not pay due to small margins.  I think that 
really works.  So it really is costs -- 
		MS. CRAMER:  Proposed.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- proposed software licensing 
costs range from blah, blah, and move it up.
		MS. MELLON:  Good solution.
		MR. OLSON:  That makes it clear.
		MS. LAYTON:  So all we did was move the sentence 
and change initial to proposed.
		MR. SLOCUM:  But we're not defining what the 
software does.
		MS. LAYTON:  We do in the next sentence, from 
the farm level -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  When we say that software -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  This software -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  Can we call it traceability 
software.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Yeah, let's call it traceability 
software.
		MR. OLSON:  That's what it is.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Traceability software designed 
from the farm level.
		MS. DILLEY:  Proposed traceability software.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Proposed traceability software is 
being developed and offered.  It's not proposed.
		MS. SULTON:  That's being developed and offered 
at the farm level capture.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Now I'm completely confused.  
		MR. SLOCUM:  You should be.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  I think we're changing the 
second sentence to be or we're adding -- we're moving that 
sentence from down below and it is going to be traceability 
software being developed and offered -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Ranges in price -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  -- range in price from $150,000 to 
$4 million, depending on the depth of the data needed.  
Those that are designed from the farm level capture all 
details blah, blah, blah, and then it goes on.  And so 
traceability software being developed -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Most are being developed from the 
farm level up.  The latter part of that paragraph captures 
the other end of the -- there are systems coming out from 
manufacturers going back.  It's like Wal-Mart saying, I 
don't care what you spend to develop your system, we're 
going to use mine.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. OLSON:  It's that concept. 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Is it okay to say 
traceability software being developed and offered ranges in 
price from $150,000 -- okay.  And then it goes those that 
are designed from the farm level can't -- and it talks 
about how it does it.
		MR. OLSON:  Right.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Is everybody okay?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Is those -- should those be 
changed to those systems or -- 
		MS. SULTON:  Those systems that are designed, 
yes, from the farm level.
		MR. OLSON:  Just systems.
		MS. LAYTON:  Systems that are designed.  We 
don't need those.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Anything else for the good 
of the order?  Randy?
		MR. GIROUX:  I don't like that we're going down 
the road changing black text.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay. 
		MR. GIROUX:  And we can do this -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Forever.
		MS. LAYTON:  And we really do need to finish 
this up because it's 11:30.  So that's done.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  May I just ask, I was given a 
little list of typos.  Rather than talk about them -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Deal with them.  Clean up the 
document so things look good.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I just wanted to the blessing.
		MS. LAYTON:  We still have another document.
		MR. GIROUX:  So that concludes this document.
		MS. LAYTON:  That concludes this document.  I 
really appreciate all the hard work and the -- and 
compromise.  Thank you very much.
		MR. GIROUX:  Can we just reiterate for the 
people who were here yesterday, the process -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, at the beginning of the day.
		MS. SULTON:  We'll do a follow-up memorandum 
from this meeting. 
		MS. LAYTON:  It's here, and I think you did 
mention it in the very beginning.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, I mentioned it at the 
beginning of the meeting.  We can do it at the very end.
		MR. JAFFE:  We'll have both documents.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes, we'll have both documents.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Now at that, early lunch.  
We want to be here working at 12:30, okay.  And we have 
12:30 to 4:00 to finalize the other document, review and 
hopefully actually initially capture some language for 
cover letters.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  If we don't in fact have time 
for the actual text of the letters, we'll get some of the 
ideas down.
		MS. LAYTON:  If you want to do something over 
lunch, we'll be happy to -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  If anyone wants to work on 
cover letters over lunch -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  But don't take longer than 12:30.
		(Whereupon, at 11:27, a luncheon recess was 
taken.)


A F T E R N O O N   S E S S I O N
(12:37 p.m.)
		MS. LAYTON:  All right.  They can come in but 
let's talk about how we're going to go through today -- 
this afternoon.  Abby, do you want to give us the overview 
of what we're going to do?
		MS. DILLEY:  Well, we're going to briefly go 
over the changes made yesterday to the second section which 
is what we're less certain of -- what is much less certain.  
		MS. LAYTON:  There was one change in the first 
section.
		MS. DILLEY:  So just in terms of broad outline, 
we're to go over those real quickly and just make sure that 
people who weren't here didn't have any additional comments 
on those and then move into -- walk through the scenario 
descriptions, and then come back and talk about the 
introduction as well as where in the text to put the 
questions that are not currently part of the chapter but 
are in the conference call summary.  
		And I guess if there are any other additional 
comments.  We didn't think we wanted to start there because 
that had been revised and reviewed and revised accordingly 
already.  So we're hoping that that goes a little more 
quickly.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Now I believe Mardi and Lisa were 
both here with us yesterday afternoon during these 
discussions.  So I think it's okay to proceed with walking 
through where we did yesterday -- what we did yesterday.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Randy.
		MR. GIROUX:  So does the draft that we have 
incorporate Mardi's and Michael's comments?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No.
		MS. LAYTON:  To some extent.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Partly, yes.  
		MS. LAYTON:  All right.  Mardi and Michael both 
had a copy of their comments and I thought we got a lot of 
Mardi's in the first section and the second section. 
		MS. DILLEY:  There were kind of two things.  One 
is that the work group considered their comments and did 
all the appropriate changes that they thought at the time, 
helped work the document, except for the third scenario.
		MR. JAFFE:  So the work group reviewed their 
comments, incorporated what they thought were appropriate 
for everything except for the third scenario.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yesterday, Michael and Mardi raised 
any additional comments they still had regarding what we -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  What we know and what we don't 
know.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- what we are much less certain 
about and up to where we start, we didn't get -- we got 
into the scenario, and that's as far as we got.  So if they 
raise anything else.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I would suggest that it might 
be nonetheless useful -- in my judgment from Michael's 
comments is that he had a particular number of comments 
about the second scenario, so it might just be useful for 
the group to -- if we have some time, to just look at those 
as we, as we go through.  We have -- those comments were 
distributed yesterday.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Now I don't know if everybody -- 
are they on the back?  If you don't have a pack -- because 
the small group was out.  So if you don't have Michael's 
comments and Mardi's comments, we did pass those out, and I 
think they may be in the back
		MR. GIROUX:  So what do we need to accomplish by 
the end of the day?
		MS. LAYTON:  Complete the document.
		MR. GIROUX:  What does that mean?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Formulate the questions.
		MS. LAYTON:  There's a draft of the questions 
here.
		MR. JAFFE:  Add any changes to this -- I assume 
any changes to this document that people feel strongly 
about without getting heartburn, and then figuring out what 
we do about these questions, and if we have an introductory 
paragraph or sentence or something.
		MR. JAFFE:  Where do we stick them?  How do we 
put them in?  I assume we stick them in the back.
		MS. DILLEY:  But that's open to debate.
		MR. JAFFE:  Where we stick them will be attached 
with explanatory text around them.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I just want to make sure I know 
what we're doing.
		MS. DILLEY:  So just to review quickly the 
changes that were made yesterday, we started on page 5.  We 
don't have lines obviously on the document but it was the 
first bold section that starts, "Enormous new agricultural 
commodity production areasÉ" and what we changed was that 
third sentence.  This could have implications on the U.S. 
export of soybeans.   And then just took the rest of that 
sentence out.  So that the third sentence now reads, "This 
could have implications on the U.S. export of soybeans."
		MR. GIROUX:  And the rest was deleted?
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.  And 6, page 6, on demographic 
uncertainties, in the e.g. section which is in the third 
sentence, we just took out the current popularity of and 
just put e.g. low carbohydrate diets and also impact demand 
for key agricultural commodities.  So it's just taking out 
current popularity of.
		MS. LAYTON:  And the comma needs to come out, 
too.  I didn't do that but I think it should.  For example, 
low carbohydrate diets could also impact the demand for -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  Dietary preferences also.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  I just want to make sure.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  There are a couple of style 
things there that would just make it a bit easier.  The 
first paragraph, third line from the bottom.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The first paragraph on page 6.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Page 6, third line from the 
bottom where it says one could as easily expect -- just one 
could expect.  Take out as easily.  
		The next paragraph down, uncertainties, 
political developments and political or economic decisions.  
You could just make that political and economic decisions 
by key trading partners.  
		MS. LAYTON:  So it's political and economic.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Decisions by key trading 
partners.  It's repetitive.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  On page 1 -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.  Before you go past that 
one, we made another change.  Can we mention that?
		MS. DILLEY:  As well the European Union, that 
sentence, that starts in the middle, it says instead of 
granting it's increasing access.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Sure.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Just to reflect the current 
changes, and let's go on.
		MS. LAYTON:  And the next one had some changes 
also.
		MR. BUSS:  With the change that was made in the 
first paragraph of striking as easily expect to, and we 
should strike as in the following.
		MR. GRANT:  It actually doesn't read -- if you 
take that easily out, I don't think, Juan, unless I'm 
reading it wrong -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  One could expect to see increased 
demand for new health improved products.  
		MR. GRANT:  As to see -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  That's why I was suggesting 
taking out the second as.  
		MR. GRANT:  But then it's still -- it's worse.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think it should be one or the 
other.  That's why the one -- 
		MR. BUSS:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It's not going to be expect 
this and this.  You could expect to see this or you could 
expect to see this.
		MR. BUSS:  That's right.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Sorry.
		MS. LAYTON:  So leaving as easily?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Sure, leave it as it reads.
		MS. LAYTON:  Technology and -- did you have a 
change or can we go through the changes that we did 
yesterday?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  There's one change on page 1 that 
may make a difference.  It says what we know or think we 
know.
		MS. LAYTON:  Uh-huh.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Under one of the key drivers 
likely to influence the next decade into the future.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'm still on the demographic 
uncertainties.  I don't understand the last sentence.  
What's the point of the last sentence?  Is it to say that 
health improved products and organic based products are the 
same?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No.
		MS. DILLEY:  You may see shifts in those two 
directions, or no particular net shifts.  
		MS. SULTON:  That second comment is confusing.
		MS. DILLEY:  That is.  
		MR. HOISINGTON:  The issue -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Is aging population dietary.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Right.  There will be a change 
in dietary, and I guess the question is are we saying that 
food products are different from organic based products?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, I think that's what we are 
saying.
		MS. DILLEY:  Is the health improved, is that 
supposed to be like the nutra -- type products.  Is that 
what -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It could be.
		MS. LAYTON:  Or it could be like the Vitamin D, 
C orange juice, whole grain cereals.
		MR. GIROUX:  Right.  I think there's lots of 
health improved products coming out on the market.
		MS. LAYTON:  And we see organic products and we 
see people who don't shift at all.
		MR. GIROUX:  So it is or?
		MS. ZANNONI:  -- health improved.  It looks like 
they should be labeled organic.
		MR. JAFFE:  We could see more vegetarians.  I 
don't see more meat eaters.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  There's not a contrast at all 
between the two.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, it's not really a contrast.  
It's just that the range of things -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  So health improved products.  
We could see more organic products.  We could see more of 
this or we could see nothing.  I think it should be or as 
opposed to as.
		MS. SULTON:  And the comma in front of it kind 
of makes it continuous.  One can expect to see a demand for 
new health improved products or -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  It could be and/or.  There's no 
reason why it's one or the other.
		MR. GIROUX:  That's correct.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And/or.  So is that going to be 
at the very end?
		MS. DILLEY:  It's going to product, and/or to 
see a trend toward consumption of organic-based products, 
or to see no particular net shifts.
		MR. GIROUX:  And/or a trend towards consumption 
of organic-based products.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MS. CRAMER:  Should we say and/or or do we need 
to say or see no particular shifts.  Is that redundant?
		MS. DILLEY:  No because what you're trying to 
say is there's lots of different shifts or there's no 
particular net shift.
		MS. LAYTON:  So you've got two phrases that are 
connected by and/or and then the opposite or the 
alternative is the or at the end.  No shift.
		MS. SULTON:  To see the demand for new -- 
		MS. SULTON:  I'm not the good English person 
here.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I don't think it's worth -- if 
we have one and/or in there, I think -- if we have the 
and/or in there, I think we're safe.
		MR. OLSON:  I guess a shift in current 
popularity of low carb diets could also impact -- low carb 
diets are kind of -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  We took that out the words, the 
current popularity of.
		MR. GIROUX:  Okay.
		MR. BUSS:  It's been stricken.
		MR. OLSON:  It's been stricken.  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  And technological and regulatory 
uncertainties portion, yesterday we deleted the 
notwithstanding the information presented in Chapter 2, and 
just started that sentence with which.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  In the second sentence, we 
deleted the word will on -- near the end of the second 
line.
		MS. DILLEY:  Those were all the changes we had 
yesterday.
		MS. SULTON:  What about will additional 
cases -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The next to last sentence in 
that section, in that paragraph -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think people heard what you 
just said.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We deleted the next to last 
sentence in the first paragraph, the sentence dealing with 
organic stuff.
		MS. LAYTON:  Will additional cases of food 
safety issues with organically grown produce continue or 
expand with the expanding organic market and will consumers 
demand other agricultural products, has been stricken.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  In the logic of?
		MS. MELLON:  The logic is that there isn't a 
shred of evidence that organic -- I mean this implies that 
there somehow is some -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Odwalla in the -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Odwalla wasn't certified organic. 
It wasn't organic.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  If it had been what would have 
happened?
		MS. MELLON:  It doesn't matter.  Food safety 
things arise in connection with all kinds of food 
production systems, conventional and otherwise.  The 
implication here is that something about organic is, is 
more susceptible to food safety incidents, and that simply 
isn't the case.  I mean that is -- like I said, there isn't 
one shred of evidence.  So to say continuing implies that 
something -- there just aren't any cases.  There are a few 
cases of people -- of food safety incidents and they're 
arising across the country.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  So you haven't had issues with 
organically pressed cider?
		MS. MELLON:  I really wouldn't know, but in 
order for it be a meaningful statement, you have to some 
comparison between the organic products and conventional 
products.
		MS. DILLEY:  Isn't the point there not the food 
safety issue but whether the organic market or other 
markets expand and contract?  It doesn't state the issue.  
		MS. MELLON:  It doesn't belong in this section 
at all.  I mean it is -- I mean what it really is, is an 
attempt to kind of raise some questions about organic that 
somehow balance out concerns about biochemistry.  
		MS. LAYTON:  It was deleted yesterday.  So 
unless somebody has a real reason to bring it back.
		MR. GRANT:  So we should take out the first 
sentence of the next paragraph then as well.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  That is a major concern.
		MR. GIROUX:  The same logic would apply.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  There's a whole lot more concern 
about launching plant-based pharmaceuticals in the world, 
even on the part of regulatory agencies, than there is 
about -- organic food in the supermarkets.  You haven't had 
a market that has PMPs and you've some of the issues that 
are being discussed on that, particularly about the 
terminator dates.
		MR. GRANT:  So my point I guess, Juan, and I was 
being a little facetious, and I failed to recognize that -- 
my point is that this document is not grounded in hard body 
interpretations over where the lines are drawn today, but 
rather this is a little bit looser look, if you will, if 
you characterize it that way, at the state of the debate 
and where we think it might go in the next 10 years, and, 
you know -- so I hope that we've got a little bit of 
latitude to leave some of these issues in. I do think there 
are concerns, Mardi, specifically around organic products, 
and I think the UK has demonstrated examples of health 
concerns that have arisen through organic systems and, and 
Juan's examples also illustrate that point.  It's not a big 
issue.  I agree it's not near as big as the issue of 
pharmaceuticals and has near the potential that the 
pharmaceuticals issue has but nonetheless it's, it's real 
and it's out there.   
		MS. MELLON:  Well, if you're going to use 
Odwalla as your example, then you have to say natural 
foods.  That was not -- they never even claimed to be small 
organic.  The incident occurred before the organic rules 
went in.  So it seems to me, and like I said, there have 
been plenty of incidents that have concerned juice makers.  
They got a bigger rap because they were claiming to be, you 
know, natural or something at one of these meaningless 
labels.  If they're -- I'm not aware of data from, from 
Britain, you know, but if there are studies, they need to 
be reviewed very carefully, and I would say they're very 
hard to do, you know, to make -- it just, you know, the 
implication here is that these are less safe, that there 
are more safety concerns than with conventional products 
and it just -- I just am not aware of certainly in the U.S. 
of any, any data that that's true.  Well, if we would want 
to say that there would be continuing food safety problems 
associated with conventional dairy production, you know, we 
could cite last week's outbreak with or last year's 
outbreak in the northeast with contaminated hamburger that 
came from dairy.  It doesn't -- I just -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Start with the logical chain.  
First, first notion, food can hurt you -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Sure it can.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  -- whether it's organic or not 
organic because we have a lot of cases of -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Sure.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  The second thing is the reason 
you use preservatives is because spoiled food and food that 
is mishandled can really hurt you -- you have to be more 
careful with organic standards and tighter with organic 
standards than you do with food that has been canned or 
with the use of preservatives, precisely because it's 
harder -- 
		MS. MELLON:  To have canned organic food.  
Plenty of canned organic food that has to meet food safety 
standards.  You don't have to put in a preservative in 
order to -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  If the sentence was taken out -- 
take it out, but the notion that organically grown produce 
can't hurt you is, is an interesting notion.
		MS. MELLON:  No one is claiming that organic 
doesn't have -- could not hurt someone and I'm sure that it 
has and it will in the same way as conventional can and 
will.  If organic lettuce is contaminated with an animal 
product, you're likely to see E. coli on it, but it's no 
more likely to happen in an organic system than in a 
conventional system or, you know, it's a reasonable 
question to ask perhaps, but you need to actually go out 
and actually do some studies, and you need to come up with 
conventional systems defined in some way, organic systems 
defined in some way, and see whether in fact if you -- 
whether there are food safety differences between the two, 
and I would say both systems are both complicated that it 
would be, it would be a multi-variant analysis and it would 
be very difficult to do.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I agree with that but the 
headline on CNN was organic food hurts X person, and the 
problem here is a lot of people perceive that organic foods 
are healthier, they're better for you, et cetera, et 
cetera.  This is the first case.  As this system expands, 
what's going to happen is the organic food market is going 
to have to answer those same questions that a biotech food 
market answers.
		MS. MELLON:  Right.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  If more and more people are 
eating organic and 1 out of 10,000 gets hurt, the headline 
isn't going to be 9,999 were safe.  It's going to be a 
person got hurt eating organic food.  I don't know if 
organic food is more safe, less safe.  I'm simply saying 
because the standard has been set where this stuff is 
supposed to be healthy and good for you, which usually is, 
if you have a case in this stuff, it's going to be -- or 
the cases you get in this stuff is going to be -- but maybe 
this doesn't belong in a scenario.
		MS. LAYTON:  Is it technological or regulatory 
uncertainty?
		MR. GRANT:  No, I disagree with that.  If it 
gets so -- IÕm not interested solely in the reputation of 
organic food, and if that's what this implies, then we need 
to change it.  Neither am I interested in organic food 
getting a bye when earlier up on this same page, organic is 
held up as a counter to health improved products, almost as 
an alternative to health improved products, therefore 
implying that it has, has a place in the market that is 
comparable to or a reasonable alternative to health 
improved products.  So if we're going to hold it up as an 
alternative to highlight the marketing pull that it has, 
then we also have to hold it accountable on the food safety 
side, and it's conspicuous by its absence if we don't have 
it included in here somewhere if we are going to tag 
transgenic and conventional food at the same time.
		MS. ZANNONI:  So can that just be changed -- a 
sentence changed?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I make a suggestion?
		MS. MELLON:  Delete it in both places, that 
would be fine.  I don't think it needs to be in here at 
all.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Could I make a suggestion, and 
just run it by you?  If it doesn't do any good -- flipping 
the sentence around a little bit, and it says with the 
expanding organic market, will there be increases safety 
scrutiny on organic products?
		MS. MELLON:  There's no increasing.  There's no 
demonstrated level right now.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Will there be food safety 
issues arising due to expanding the organic market?
		MS. MELLON:  What's the implication for biotech?  
What's the implication?  I agree with Duane's point.
		MR. GIROUX:  One of the scenarios that we play 
out in here is that there's a major, or it's written 
somewhere in this document, I'm not sure where, is that 
biotech is major food safety issue and that is a catharsis 
for biotech, and so the food safety risk or the failure to 
protect the consumers will be a way to bring the tide of 
people over from biotech food.  I believe that's one of the 
questions that we ask in this document.  So my gut tells 
me, well, the same thing could happen with organic.  If at 
some period a group of the population -- we might want to 
say if there was a major scare in the organic market, then 
will the same thing happen to the organic market, and it's 
unfortunate that we hear people say if you don't want GM, 
you can buy organic or if you don't buy organic, you know, 
somehow people are trying to tie them together.  So -- but 
I think they are tied unfortunately or fortunately but I, I 
agree with Duane.  We can't give organics a bye and then 
say there's all these potential risks around biotech 
because there are risks on all food.
		MS. LAYTON:  Is the big issue the additional 
cases?  I mean is it will food safety issues -- will food 
safety issues with organically grown produce occur or 
arise, arise -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Arise with the expanding 
organic market.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Will food safety issues with 
organically grown produce arise -- what else did you say 
David?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  With the expanding -- you don't 
need with organically grown produce.  It's just -- will 
food safety issues arise with the expanding organic market.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  That's to me what I hear is the 
issue.
		MS. LAYTON:  Will food safety issues arise with 
the expanding organic market?
		MS. MELLON:  We have to figure out why that 
makes a difference.  Is it because organic is a surrogate 
label, a de facto non-GM label.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MS. MELLON:  So then the argument which I think 
we ought to lay out, if the de facto no-GMO label in the 
U.S., you know, is in some way tainted, then what?  Then 
people will be more likely to accept the fact that they 
don't have a choice in the marketplace?
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm just trying to find situations.
		MS. MELLON:  I mean I don't think it really 
belongs here at all.
		MR. JAFFE:  Can we move it to page 7, the second 
paragraph be made into a -- uncertain section.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. JAFFE:  I mean because it is talking about 
expanding organic market, consumer demand for other food 
products.  It might fit better in the issue -- in this 
section on the consumer uncertainties.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. JAFFE:  Than in the regulatory -- 
		MS. MELLON:  But this is an issue that arise in 
connection with conventional agriculture.  Where does that 
leave us?
		MS. CRAMER:  Why not broaden in the 
technological and regulatory uncertainties section, there 
is a, there is an uncertainty that if we have additional 
new food safety issues, they could then subsequently change 
the overall regulatory framework in such a way, whether 
it's organic, biotech or conventional, this is looking at 
the uncertainties and so we may just want to say something 
in the order of -- where did it go.  
		MR. BUSS:  Actually, Carole, I was thinking 
along the same lines but mine in a more neutral way was 
will food safety issues arising in organic, biotech or 
conventionally produced foods lead to a need for additional 
regulation of any of the three sectors?
		MR. GRANT:  That's fair.
		MS. MELLON:  Organic is not a sector.  You know, 
it's a government sponsored label.  I don't know that you 
can say that it stands in -- whether you can have 
conventional, organic and biotech and that they all meet -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, those are modes of production, 
really they are.
		MS. ZANNONI:  Well, they're seen as three 
different sectors.  So I understand that it's different 
than biotech because this puts them all together, and, and 
that issue is how do you help someone choose what they want 
putting the sectors together.
		MS. CRAMER:  There's some issue -- 
		MS. ZANNONI:  It's not a fixed issue.
		MS. CRAMER:  It's not specific for one or the 
other.
		MS. MELLON:  If there are food safety issues 
that arise, you know, new food safety issues that arise in 
the future, it could, you know, have implications for 
biotech.
		MS. CRAMER:  Except that on the same side, Mardi 
-- 
		MS. MELLON:  But I would take out -- I agree 
with Duane.  I think that to the extent that we've set 
organic up as some sort of a standard consumer 
desirability, I think we would take that out so that it 
would simply -- I mean I do have problems with what organic 
is.  Do we mean -- we've already seen some people, you 
know, believe that Odwalla was organic when it wasn't even 
close, and do we mean certified organic?  Do we mean people 
are using the word -- do we mean natural foods?  Do we mean 
-- there are other green labels of all kinds that are out 
there.  Maybe we should just say conventional green labeled 
and, and biotech.
		MS. ZANNONI:  I think people think organic -- I 
mean I think that green label -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Can we take part of what Carole is 
saying, I think where Carole and Daryl were going with 
additional food safety issues require changes in 
regulation.  Isn't that the main point that's trying to be 
made.
		MR. GRANT:  Yeah, but I still would argue -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can we have one conversation?  
		MS. DILLEY:  Go ahead, Duane.
		MR. GRANT:  Yes.  I think that we could take -- 
I like Daryl's language.  I would argue in favor of 
retaining the segments just because I think they're 
recognized in the marketplace and they're recognized 
consistently throughout our document as well.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think the other thing you could 
add to Daryl's that might expand on this and give Mardi 
-- and give some alternative is country of origin because 
we've already seen Chilean produce walk off the shelf one 
time.
		MR. GRANT:  I would be very comfortable with 
that as well.
		MS. LAYTON:  You could add a country of origin 
issue in there.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Or you could conceivably 
instead of have -- instead of listing the three systems, 
you could say various production systems.
		MS. MELLON:  Or we could just say natural.  That 
would be fine with me.  I mean that covers the 
whole --
		MR. GIROUX:  No, because natural -- correct me 
if I'm wrong but organic has a government standard.
		MR. GRANT:  Sugar -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  So if something were to occur in 
the organic system, then the government would likely 
respond with regulation, and the same if it happened in 
biotech, same if it would happen in country of origin 
labeling, that there may be some regulatory impact of a 
large problem, and so natural, I don't know whether natural 
is a government regulation, but organic does have 
regulations as well does biotech, country of origin 
labeling.  So I think -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Those are labels, and we don't have 
a biotech label system.  I mean there is nothing to label 
biotech.  So it's not equivalent in that sense.  You know, 
it is a -- there is a general notion that there is 
something out there called organic, but it's very confused 
about what it is, and -- all right.  So I'm not sure that 
we should feed that confusion.  I would certainly, I would 
certainly -- I mean I would agree that we could say, you 
know, if there are food safety incidents that arise in 
connection with different production systems and those 
could have an impact, but I do think it's hard to know what 
we mean by organic unless we -- we could be certified 
organic, but why? 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  As opposed to what we mean by 
biotech?
		MS. MELLON:  Well, we're talking about biotech 
and we do have a lot of context for what we're talking 
about here.  We've defined it.  We didn't define organic.
		MS. DILLEY:  Can we go with, will additional 
food safety issues arise with various food production 
systems requiring a change in regulation?  I mean isn't the 
main point that changes in regulation or not?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. GRANT:  Uh-huh.  
		MS. ZANNONI:  Uh-huh.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Can we just go with that instead of 
continuing a conversation about whether we know what each 
of these terms mean?
		MR. GIROUX:  So we didn't use the word organic 
and biotech each as well.  So we're going to use the word 
organic talk about -- organic and organic system.  So 
either organic food production, those consist of six 
percent of the total food production.  So, you know, you 
can't -- it's in or out.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think we can do the scenario 
without having the word organic in there.  
		MS. DILLEY:  I think it's the association with 
food safety issues I'm guessing.  So if it's here, you 
don't have to be specific.  I don't know if it matters or 
not.  I think in other parts of the document, it seems that 
people are more comfortable with the terminology organic 
when it's not linked to food safety issues.
		MR. GIROUX:  So I don't feel comfortable talking 
about food safety issues or potential food safety issues in 
biotech -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Anymore than you could organic.
		MR. GIROUX:  -- or in organic.  We can't do it 
in either one.  There has to be compelling evidence to show 
that there is a food safety issue.  Then that same metric 
should be held for biotech, and so we can't talk about 
potential food safety issues and biotech if we can't talk 
about potential food safety issues.
		MS. DILLEY:  That's why we're using various food 
production systems as opposed to biotech.
		MR. BUSS:  This is a forward looking question in 
the future.  So, so there can't be documented evidence of 
something in the future.
		MS. CRAMER:  Yeah, it seems to me that the whole 
-- 
		MS. DILLEY:  We either have it all in there or 
we don't have any of it.
		MS. CRAMER:  -- is the concept that not just 
what -- that country of origin, that some incident that has 
nothing to do with biotech could in fact wag this dog, and 
so that is the whole point.
		MR. JAFFE:  We've seen that.
		MS. CRAMER:  It's not just what happens in 
biotech.
		MR. JAFFE:  In Europe, mad cow disease.
		MS. DILLEY:  I'd offer we get out of this box 
which is just going with food production systems.  Why do 
you have to name them particularly if you're projecting in 
the future.  Maybe there are other food production systems.  
So if we just take the particular food production systems 
out of it, it seems that it gets to your point of 
increasing regulation should something happen in particular 
food production systems which raises the whole issue of 
additional regulation.  It's only in this piece I think 
where we run up against organic or transgenic in the 
document and we need to deal with it there, but that's just 
in one section.  It just seems like the -- a particular 
type of food production system is being called into 
question, and therefore may be more regulation.  I don't 
care what -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, food safety issues associated 
with a food production system -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Require changes in regulation.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- that require changes in 
regulation.
		MS. DILLEY:  Which is basically I think what 
Daryl suggested.  It just takes out the particular example 
of food production systems.
		MR. GRANT:  So we have an uncertain statement or 
a statement of uncertainty, that is somehow appropriate I 
guess.
		MS. CRAMER:  No, I'm not comfortable with it.  I 
think it's too weak the way it is.  It doesn't have any 
teeth.  Why bother putting the sentence in.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Because any food production system 
called into question is to potentially increase regulatory 
scrutiny and therefore additional regulation.  Does it 
really add to particular food production systems that occur 
now as opposed to looking into the future and saying any 
kind of food production system.
		MR. BUSS:  -- to me in the context that if not 
specified, given the documents about biotech, implies 
you're talking about.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can you, can you read your 
original sentence?
		MR. BUSS:  Will food safety issues arising in 
organic, biotech or conventionally produced foods lead to a 
need for additional regulation in any of these production 
systems?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  You could say organic -- 
conventional, biotech, organic or other new food production 
system.
		MS. CRAMER:  Or say whether using this, this or 
this.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, just sort of indicate 
that there's a whole range of possible places where it 
could come up.  Does that diffuse it enough, Mardi?
		MS. MELLON:  I don't know why you would -- I'm 
just -- I do feel very uncomfortable with this, you know, 
and this does depend on where you stand.  There is, you 
know, people are out there saying over and over that there 
are food safety issues associated with organic and there 
isn't a shred of evidence that that's the case.
		MS. ZANNONI:  That's the same as biotech.
		MS. MELLON:  No, it is not the same as with 
biotech in the sense that there is no -- I mean we're not -
- this isn't addressed to the food safety concerns that one 
has about biotech.  We were very careful to craft a 
statement that said that there were no demonstrated food 
safety risks associated with biotech.  I would say there 
are, I mean I don't see any evidence that there's concern 
about -- of anywhere near the level that we see around 
biotech, about organic except coming from Alex Avery.  I 
mean that -- he's the only person who seems to be out there 
concerned.  
		Now we're talking a lot about concerns that are 
based on potential safety risks, and I agree with that and 
I would, you know, I've never -- I certainly -- I wouldn't 
say that there are demonstrated safety parts associated 
with biotech but this just doesn't -- there isn't even 
enough to get to the presumption that this is a problem.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The sentence was just listing 
all different kinds of possible -- of production systems.  
		MS. MELLON:  Then all I would say is that we've 
got to hold this stuff, then let's just not use that one 
but use all the other ones.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Is food 100 percent safe?
		MS. MELLON:  Food is not 100 percent safe.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  If there is an accident in food 
produced under this method, do you think that there could 
be push for a change in regulation.  Forget about what the 
method is.
		MS. MELLON:  It depends.  If it's under -- it 
could happen if there, if there is a food safety risk 
associated with anything, associated with natural, 
associated with country of origin.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  That's what Daryl's saying.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.  All right.  All I'm 
requesting is that we provide a list and that organic not 
be on it.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Because organic is 100 percent 
safe.  So it's intellectually honest to say -- 
		MS. MELLON:  No, no, it is not.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  -- we're going to exclude -- 
		MS. MELLON:  I'm just saying there's no -- if we 
have a list of 10 things, we can -- and we've got 10, we 
can pick 5.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Because organic is 100 percent 
safe.
		MS. MELLON:  No, it's only 1 of 10, and it's 
not.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Then we'll list it as 1 of 10.
		MS. MELLON:  All right.  And then I'm asking 
that it not be listed.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Because it's intellectually 
honest to -- 
		MS. MELLON:  No, because it's confusing and it 
feeds into an unfair and not widely shared view that it is 
less safe.
		MS. LAYTON:  But there are others here who are 
willing to list biotech.
		MR. GIROUX:  We're going to have a problem with 
the final scenario if you take that position, Mardi, around 
the use of the term organic.  If you say we should use 
organic in this section because it's, it's unclear, it's 
difficult to deal with, how are we going to rationalize 
this discussion when we get to the scenario that talks 
about organic production growing, using organic, organic 
growth.  So I'm just cautioning you that if you're -- if 
we're going to go down that road, we're going to have a 
problem with that third scenario.
		MS. MELLON:  I'm listening.  I'm listening.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think again, Mardi, they're not 
asking you to put up organic in this list without 
listing -- 	
		MR. OLSON:  Anything else.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- anything else.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Add as many things as you want.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  And we're not saying organic is 
more safe.
		MS. LAYTON:  Or less safe.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  We're simply saying if there were 
to be a problem in any one of these food production 
systems, it would probably lead to increased regulations.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay.  I will, I will probably 
yield on this but I just want to hear from Juan why it 
should be include.  Why of the 10, 10 production systems 
out there -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  It's a major market.  
		MS. ZANNONI:  It's a growing market.
		MR. JAFFE:  Because a growing market.  It's a 
big issue. 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  That's what people are buying.  
They're paying a premium for this stuff in supermarkets 
right now.
		MS. MELLON:  Right.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  It's a reasonably growing -- fast 
growing sector, and I think going forward in all food 
systems, you're going to have safety issues, and by the 
way, I think if I were in the organic market, I'd watch the 
stuff very carefully because I think the organic market 
along with the biotech market, the most vulnerable to 
accidents.  So that's not a place where people expect to 
see it or they expect this food to be 100 percent safe.
		MR. JAFFE:  The reason to put it in here is not 
because it's more or less safe.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.
		MR. JAFFE:  It's a big market.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  It could be 99 percent safer.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Should we add country of 
origin to his list or is there any other thing -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Michael?
		MS. LAYTON:  Michael?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Daryl, it was your sentence.
		MS. LAYTON:  Read it.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I don't have it written.
		MS. LAYTON:  Reread it.
		MR. BUSS:  I'm not sure I have a good suggestion 
on how to add country of origin.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Keep going.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Just read the sentence.
		MR. BUSS:  For food safety issues arising in 
organic, biotech or conventionally produced foods lead to a 
need for additional regulation in any of these food 
production systems.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Arising in conventional, 
organic, biotech or other new production systems -- then 
what?
		MR. BUSS:  Lead to a need for additional 
regulation.
		MS. LAYTON:  What's that one where you grow it 
in water?  Hydroponics.  You could list hydroponics as one 
of them.
		MR. GIROUX:  So the only difference is that one 
doesn't include -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  But he had new, so I just thought 
we'd be broad.
		MS. MELLON:  You don't need to go to hydroponics 
for me.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Delete hydroponics.
		MS. MELLON:  But I am going to -- I mean the 
reason I think that I will yield on this is, is, you know, 
is because of what Duane said.  We used it in some ways as 
an exemplar of a health conscious -- of a production system 
that is being driven by consumers interest in the 
environment and health.
		MS. LAYTON:  And whoever thought we would have 
arsenic on grapes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Now is that sentence going in 
the consumer section or -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Now that it's written, it's 
regulatory.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So the next change is a the 
top of page 7.  It's under the section of environmental 
uncertainties and I think it was will serious effects of 
global warning become pressing in the next decade instead 
apparent.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'd like to back step one, to the 
one that talks about PMP's, and I'd like see us drop the 
word safe.
		MS. LAYTON:  Where are we talking about?
		MS. DILLEY:  The first sentence.  
		MR. GIROUX:  Will concern regarding the 
deployment of transgenic plants instead of safe.
		MS. DILLEY:  Does concern have an s in your 
master?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It needs an s.
		MS. ZANNONI:  I have an issue.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We have to add this somewhere 
on -- 
		MS. ZANNONI:  Well, to back up on that aging 
population with the consumption of organic-based products, 
can you drop the aging because it looks like older people 
will go toward organic based products.  To me that doesn't 
make sense.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's under demographic 
uncertainties.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It's saying that, you know, as 
people get older, they may choose one, one or the other or 
nothing, and that sentence is supposed to say that they may 
decide to live forever, they're going to do A, B, C or 
nothing.
		MR. GIROUX:  the other addition I'd like to see 
to the regulatory uncertainty one is there's one statement 
that just needs some additional language.  It says, or make 
it -- same sentence -- "Or make it economically impractical 
-- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Which sentence?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Bottom of page 6.
		MR. GIROUX:  Why?  Because it's in the 
regulatory sections because I'm assuming what the author 
meant was if there was increasing amounts of regulations 
and requirements around this crop, that would make -- that 
would make it impractical to grow, not the concern doesn't 
make it impractical to grow but -- and so maybe the team 
can help me here.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  The regulation can be so tight -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  So I'd like to see that, so we 
explain why that is, because the way the sentence reads, it 
says, "The concern will make it economically impractical," 
and that's not the case.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  So we should change concerns to 
regulations or regulatory.
		MR. GIROUX:  No, I think you can make it a 
separate sentence.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Okay.  So if we can put just a 
question mark after -- restrict their cultivation?  Will 
tightened regulations make it economically impractical to 
grow them in the U.S.?
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, tight.
		MR. JAFFE:  Increased regulations.
		MS. LAYTON:  Increased.
		MR. GIROUX:  I guess it's increased.
		MR. JAFFE:  The regulation now, so -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Increased regulation.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Fair enough.
		MS. LAYTON:  Regulation market it -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Impractical.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- economically impractical to grow 
them in the U.S.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  To grow PMPs in the U.S.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  To grow these crops.
		MS. LAYTON:  Plant-based pharmaceuticals.
		MR. GIROUX:  Because that leads directly to the 
second one.
		MS. CRAMER:  Will you read that sentence again?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Will increased regulation make 
it economically impractical to grow plant-based 
pharmaceuticals in the United States?
		MS. CRAMER:  Doesn't that have the same 
implication?  Do we need the second sentence?
		MR. BUSS:  Yeah, it seems redundant.
		MS. LAYTON:  One is concern and one is 
regulation.
		MS. CRAMER:  But we've taken the concern 
sentence and made it into concerns and a regulation.
		MS. LAYTON:  No, we didn't.  We said -- will 
concerns regarding the deployment of transgenic plants 
producing plant-based pharmaceuticals and food crops 
inhibit or severely restrict their cultivation?  We didn't 
say what kind of concerns.  The next thing is -- will 
increased regulation make it economically impractical to 
grow plant-based pharmaceuticals.
		MS. CRAMER:  which would push products to move 
offshore to avoid economic or regulatory considerations.  
So why not ask the new sentence number 2 and go right onto 
3.
		MR. GIROUX:  Fair enough.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. GIROUX:  Now onto the environment piece.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.  And Abby has given you the 
first change, the first sentence become -- instead of be 
apparent, it's become pressing.  Next Abby?
		MS. DILLEY:  I think the next was public 
receptiveness to increasingly novel products such as 
transgenic animal-derived products, plant-derived food 
products engineered to offer specific health benefits to 
consumers and plants and livestock producing pharmaceutical 
and industrial compounds.
		MS. CRAMER:  But why is that in the 
environmental section, that statement.
		MR. BUSS:  As opposed to under uncertainties.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Because we missed an entire 
consumer -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Randy?
		MR. GIROUX:  I feel like we're racing through 
these sections, and I think, you know that we have to make 
sure before we move onto the next section we're 
comfortable.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. GIROUX:  Back in technological and 
regulatory uncertainties -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. GIROUX:  -- there's -- in the middle of that 
paragraph says -- notwithstanding the information presented 
in chapter 2.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  That sentence was 
crossed out.  We mentioned that I think.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'm sorry.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And then it starts -- which 
products will make it to the U.S. or global marketplaces.
		MR. GIROUX:  Sorry.
		MS. DILLEY:  Anything else, Randy?
		MR. GIROUX:  No.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Maybe we're going too fast.  We'll 
slow down.  So back to Carole's question.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Maybe let's talk a little bit about 
that.  We split out environmental uncertainties and 
consumer uncertainties and we did not add at that first 
paragraph to go back and check if there were consumer 
uncertainties mixed up with environmental uncertainties, 
and that may have been a mistake on our part.  So the 
global warming and -- certainly is an environmental 
uncertainty.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Can we just title that whole 
section environmental and consumer uncertainties or do we 
need two separate sections?
		MR. JAFFE:  I think separate them.  I mean I 
don't think -- I mean -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Keep them separate.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  So really stops after global 
warming.
		MR. JAFFE:  The first three sentences -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  It says environmental, and then 
start a new section -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Just put the headline consumer 
uncertainties -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Just before the public 
receptiveness.
		MS. LAYTON:  And then I think everything is 
right in that first paragraph.  The second paragraph also 
had a change.  Abby?
		MS. DILLEY:  I'm sorry.
		MS. LAYTON:  The next paragraph also had a 
change?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Did people caught that 
rearrangement to sentence of the receptiveness?
		MS. CRAMER:  I wouldn't mind hearing that again?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  Basically what happened 
is that all of the examples, transgenic animal-derived 
products, plant-derived food products, et cetera, et 
cetera, was moved up into the sentence so that it was the 
public's receptiveness to increasingly novel products that 
may come to market, such as all of these unknowns.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Can't we just say is unknown, 
such as.
		MS. LAYTON:  That's what we had is unknown.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  There's a lot to put in between 
this.
		MR. JAFFE:  Unknown, and say those products 
include.
		MS. MELLON:  You don't need as discussed 
earlier.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That was gotten rid of -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  That's gone.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- as it was being combined 
into one sentence.
		MS. LAYTON:  Is unknown.  
		MR. OLSON:  Is there something that shows what 
was changed.  You keep saying that was gotten rid of. When?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yesterday afternoon.
		MR. OLSON:  All right.  Thank you.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Basically the intent was to 
combine those two sentences, the public's receptiveness and 
the as discussed earlier in the report into one sentence 
that says -- the public receptiveness to increasingly novel 
products that may come to market -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Is unknown.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- bunch of examples, is 
unknown.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, then I think it would go 
before or after the word products.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.  Novel products 
such as -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Such as da, da, da, da, that may 
come to market is unknown.
		MS. DILLEY:  No, it's got to come after market.
		MR. SLOCUM:  It probably should come after -- 
		MS. MELLON:  I think it has to come after 
market.
		MR. JAFFE:  These products could include animal-
derived products, plant-derived products -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So just note products such 
as and unknown, these products include -- those products 
include -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Could include.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- could include -- 
		MS. MELLON:  What about such products, novel 
products, such products.
		MS. LAYTON:  Such products could include -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Such products could include 
transgenic animal-derived products.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Such products could include.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And just to clarify this 
is now under a new heading.
		MS. LAYTON:  Consumer uncertainties.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Where did we split it?
		MR. SLOCUM:  We split it after warming.
		MS. LAYTON:  After the warming and before the 
public.
		MR. SLOCUM:  No, no, no, that sentence where we 
put the -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We made it a separate sentence 
that these -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  We gave up on that.  The other 
changes we had under consumer uncertainties including 
changes in the word malleable to changeable, and that it 
ends at hardened.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Regarding the technology -- 
regarding biotechnology.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.  Good pickup, Juan.
		MR. GIROUX:  I've got a question about the next 
sentence.  Are we there yet?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. GIROUX:  What does consumer backlash against 
large corporations or conglomerates affect biotech?
		MR. GRANT:  It's like Cargill, you know.
		MR. GIROUX:  I want to why it's in this 
document.
		MR. OLSON:  I have the same question.
		MS. LAYTON:  Monsanto.
		MR. OLSON:  But it implies that it's consumers 
against Cargill and General Mills and people like that. It 
doesn't say Monsanto.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's also against Wal-Mart and 
McDonald's.
		MR. GIROUX:  How's that got to do with biotech?  
That's what -- I'm trying to -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Here -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  It needs to be in some context.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. GIROUX:  And so maybe the work group who put 
this together -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Juan.
		MS. MELLON:  I think Juan drafted this one.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I think that there's a whole 
series of ways that this thing could go.  I think there are 
increasing concerns about groups like Wal-Mart, you know, 
there are certainly concerns about groups like Monsanto, 
and then the question becomes if those become issues, what 
does that do to these folks?  And it can go in either 
direction.  I mean one of the ways that these corporations 
could go is to say we are more environmentally friendly, we 
favor organics, we're not going to produce biotech, you 
know, they can adopt a key strategy of saying we're a green 
oil company or they can be companies that go the other 
direction and say we are bringing you the most efficient 
food or doing this, that or the other, but as there's an 
attack on these companies, I think biotech and organic are 
going to become issues as far as food concerns within those 
conglomerates.
		MS. LAYTON:  Can I just point out that not every 
question in this section has anything to do with biotech 
beginning with the first question under environment -- will 
serious effects of global warming become pressing within 
the next decade -- has absolutely zip to do with biotech.
		MS. CRAMER:  I disagree.
		MS. MELLON:  I think it has a lot to do with 
biotech.
		MS. LAYTON:  I don't think it has.
		MS. CRAMER:  No, because it basically says 
something like cold tolerance or warm tolerant biotech 
crops may have an advantage that would drive the way things 
could go.
		MS. SULTON:  It's an outside source.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's an outside source that affects 
biotech, and that's same kind of thing with would a 
retailer have a problem, would a consumer have problems 
with mega-retailers.  We already recognized yesterday that 
there are many places where consumers already have problems 
with mega-retailers and it could have an outside impact on 
biotech.  So that's my issue.
		MS. CRAMER:  I agree that -- 
		MS. MELLON:  I mean I'm more than comfortable 
taking that out.  I agree with what Juan said, I mean 
actually I think, you know, there are lots of ways that, 
that -- feelings about big companies, you know, could play 
out even in the biotech.  I think one of the things, you 
know, that we might see for example is big companies 
adopting non-biotech technologies, and the question is 
whether the same sets of -- whether, whether a Monsanto, 
you know, using conventional breeding is still going to be 
a target or not, but I think it's almost so complex that 
it's -- it may not -- I mean either we can put it in kind 
along the line that Patricia is alluding to, you just kind 
of raise these issues.  They are going to be, you know, 
they're going to have lots of different impacts on a lot of 
other folks, figure it out.  But I'm comfortable making the 
list a little bit shorter and the connections a little bit 
more direct.
		MS. DILLEY:  Well, if you take that -- we've 
already added some other stuff.  I thought part of what you 
were trying to get to there is maybe not so much the 
backlash against large conglomerates specific only but just 
consumer -- they're just not looking at the technology.  
They're just not looking at other technologies but there's 
a myriad of different considerations that go into consumer 
behavior and so that just being one of them, and maybe 
there's a way to -- instead of using the word conglomerate 
which I think maybe is -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Well, it puts all of them in there.  
I mean if you have to, I think you should put some large 
conglomerates.  I mean this implies all big companies are 
bad.
		MS. LAYTON:  Why don't we put mega-retailers or 
mega -- because consumers are only going to deal with mega-
retailers.
		MR. OLSON:  Yeah, but then you're implying -- if 
you look at the history of Wal-Mart, just pick on Wal-Mart 
because that's what we talk about, their performance and 
their record shows that consumers are endorsing the 
concept, not rejecting it at this point.  Now I know this 
is a future looking thing but that will have discontinued.  
If you look at their long range plans, that growth almost 
accelerates because consumers -- 190 customers a week, 
their prices are 14 percent cheaper than anybody else in 
the market, and consumers are endorsing that concept.  
		Now the question is should we say will there be 
a backlash against that?  Maybe, but it may also go the 
other way.  I mean -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Or will they become more 
powerful.
		MS. LAYTON:  Or will this not be an issue for 
the majority of consumers which is the second half of that 
sentence.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Right.  And we took it 
out.
		MS. LAYTON:  And we took it out.
		MR. GIROUX:  It would be consumer 
backlash/endorsement.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  We're citing the worst.  That's 
the opposite.
		MR. GRANT:  You know, to me this issue speaks, 
and it's not really clear, but it speaks to the control 
that the large conglomerates have, significant control.  If 
I was going to change it, I would pull that point out, so 
will it be consumer backlash against the significant 
control or the -- 
		MR. OLSON:  I would add the word some.
		MR. GRANT:  Some control.
		MR. OLSON:  If you're going to leave it in 
there, I would qualify it with the word some.
		MR. GRANT:  Sure.
		MR. OLSON:  Because it implies everybody that is 
big is bad.
		MR. GRANT:  I would agree with that.  It's the 
control issue that needs to be -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Can somebody give me what is sounds 
like now?
		MS. DILLEY:  I think it's -- will there be 
consumer backlash against some large -- do you want to 
switch that to corporate control or -- is it specifically 
directed towards an entity or is it a control issue that 
Duane raised.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's a control issue.
		MS. ZANNONI:  It goes to -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Duane's point is one that's well 
taken but what seems to me like happened is that, is that 
there will be a reaction -- possibly a reaction against the 
enormous control that Wal-Mart in particular is going to 
have over the food system, and what really could be 
interesting for the future is that it won't be -- I don't 
think it will be consumer-led.  I think it will actually -- 
what actually may happen is more like -- it's in the food 
system part.  It may be that some consumers, some growers, 
some food retailers, I mean that other sectors in the food 
system may combine to try to undermine the power that Wal-
Mart appears to be amassing and putting itself, because 
like I said, it is, you know, it is the world's largest 
company and now it is allied with our largest competitor 
which is China.  I think people are going to wake up one 
day and say, this isn't good for U.S.A. to have Wal-Mart 
and China sitting on top the world's food system.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  May I -- I'm just sort of 
recognizing that we have a limited amount of time here, and 
rather than make it perfect, will it be close enough just 
to say against some large conglomerates so that we can just 
get -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Let's just take a consumer and say 
will there be reactions against -- 
		MR. OLSON:  I would add the word market power.
		MS. DILLEY:  Will there be consumer backlash 
against -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  Some large conglomerates.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Against the market power of -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Yes.  The issue is market power 
rather than the company itself.  That way you don't have a 
company.
		MS. MELLON:  And I agree, that it isn't going to 
be against, you know, it isn't going to be a company thing.  
It is going to be a sense of too much power.
		MS. DILLEY:  So is there a -- do we still have 
some in there or is it just -- will there be consumer 
backlash against the market power of some large 
conglomerates.
		MR. OLSON:  Yes, I think that hits the issue 
square on the head.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  And we have deleted that.  
We deleted like Wal-Mart.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, we deleted like Wal-Mart.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We deleted the like Wal-Mart.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  And then envisioning a few 
possible futures, we made a couple of changes to that 
including -- I think we took out a few -- a few and just 
have to provide examples of possible futures.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The fourth line.
		MS. DILLEY:  The fourth line.  And then started 
the next paragraph with each scenario is intended as a 
coherent description of what the world might look like.  So 
that sentence -- we didn't make any changes to that 
sentence.
		The next bolded sentence or paragraph, and then 
the next paragraph was going to be all in bold instead of 
just part of it.  Is that right?
		MR. OLSON:  Where are you, Abby?
		MS. DILLEY:  I'm sorry.  On page 8.  
		MS. SULTON:  Abby, you missed on page 7.  We 
took the word all out and replaced it with these.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No, it was all the scenarios.  
All the scenarios.  Not all three.
		MS. LAYTON:  I thought we had three because we 
took three out of.  So these three scenarios share the 
uncertainties but how the uncertainties play out influence 
how the scenarios are shaped.  And then in the next one 
when we talk about we hear the titles of the scenarios, and 
we took three out.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No, I thought the three -- I 
thought the three went out because we, we then moved the 
names of the scenarios to the very end of that whole 
discussion.  So I thought it was all the scenarios and then 
here then are three scenarios we have created -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  And we never used -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- that we have titled. 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Sorry.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Randy, go back to page 7, right?
		MR. OLSON:  Under agricultural food system 
uncertainties, we list only two innovations, crop 
production for bioenergy or industrial feed stocks.  I'd 
like to see it say and other uses, as not to confine it to 
just those two uses.
		MS. LAYTON:  Where are you?
		MR. OLSON:  Starting middle of the paragraph for 
agricultural and other novel uses.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It should be or.
		MR. GIROUX:  Or.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Sounds good.
		MS. DILLEY:  And so as has been mentioned, that 
the titles of the scenarios have been moved down, and it 
says -- we have entitled them -- last time it said -- here 
then are three possible visions for the future we have 
created.  We entitled them and then Rosy Future, 
Continental Islands and Biotech Goes Niche.
		MR. BUSS:  I suggest we use scenarios rather 
than visions.
		MS. DILLEY:  Scenarios.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Three scenarios that we have 
created.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  How about here are three possible 
scenarios for the future . . three names.
		MS. LAYTON:  You came up with the word created 
yesterday.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah, there was -- the point 
for that was that most people think that they increased the 
hypothetical list.
		MR. OLSON:  So -- was changed to created.  Is 
that what happened to those?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Any other comments on that 
piece?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I have one suggestion that I 
was just going to run by you which is in a further effort 
to let the users of the document know that this -- that 
these are not the predictions, make some sentence that to 
the effect that other scenarios -- that these are not the 
only three possibilities.  Other scenarios might be 
developed.
		MR. BUSS:  Actually I would have a section to 
think about saying something to the effect of -- I don't 
remember how we had that worded, but essentially saying we 
have chosen three among many possible scenarios or 
something to that effect.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  The paragraph take it out to that 
effect actually.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  But we didn't choose anything 
in developing it.
		MS. SULTON:  We created three.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  We created three among many.
		MS. LAYTON:  Here then are three scenarios we 
have created among the many possibilities -- among many 
possibilities.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Actually, on page 7 we should 
say, nor do these represent the full range of conceivable 
outcomes, and what we deleted out of there was accidents, 
military as opposed to trade wars because these outbreaks 
for example, do not carry out these scenarios.  Although 
certain other scenarios could be envision, these are the 
key words.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think we need that.  I think 
just putting a few words at the section here would be fine.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Among the many scenarios that 
could have been created, we have chosen three as examples.
		MR. GRANT:  Don't we kind of say that already on 
page 7, unless I've missed that or deleted it.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  This is just an emphasis 
though.
		MR. GRANT:  Fair enough.
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think it hurts us to repeat 
it.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  How about using or adding to our 
list of certainties and uncertainties, you can build your 
own scenarios.
		MR. GRANT:  That's good.
		MS. LAYTON:  Using the list of certainties and 
uncertainties, one can build -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  You can built.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- you can build your own set of 
scenarios.
		MS. MELLON:  And obviously just to that concept, 
we come to the transmittal letter.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MR. GIROUX:  Using and adding to, the first time 
you mentioned it, because these aren't all.  These were 
just a list, right?
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's the additional value 
of -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  You don't like our certainties or 
uncertainties.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Both that and illustrating the 
usefulness of this as a tool.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  You need a statement to 
indicate what we need -- we're doing with the scenarios at 
this point?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, afterwards we'll -- I 
think we -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Because the people who read 
these, I mean they're actually something concrete as 
opposed to a tool used to answer the implication questions.
		MS. DILLEY:  To answer the question.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  It might be useful at this 
point to indicate why you have scenarios.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  How about a sentence that says as 
you read through each of these scenarios, you might wish to 
consider how it would impact your distribution channel 
replacing your -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  That's what these are.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  -- regulatory regime.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Well, we have that whole list.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I mean I think it's going to 
relate to where we put this list.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right, the list.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Because in many ways this list 
should come before the scenarios.  You should know about 
the implication question as you go through the scenarios.  
The scenario is not the end of the point.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.  What David I think is 
saying is that before you start doing that, is to preface 
the concept of why we build scenarios which I -- is not 
necessarily as clear in the first part of the document as 
one might hope because I went back and reviewed that.  So 
we built the scenarios so that we could look at possible 
futures and examine implications from those possible 
futures.  We have presented -- we are presenting a list of 
questions that will draw you to those implications.  Do 
that sound exactly it?  
		MR. HOISINGTON:  And you should know these 
questions before you start reading the scenarios.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  It leads to very different 
answers for some of these questions.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I think it would be useful for 
them to know what those questions are.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  You could actually put that at 
the end and say, so what, after the three scenarios, the 
reason why you should consider these and alternate -- of 
the world is under each of the worlds the answer to the 
following questions are very different.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Let's -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  We still need something here 
that describes that process.  I agree.  You could put the 
questions either place.  I think you need something here 
that describes why you're having these scenarios laid out.
		MR. OLSON:  I would cast that the value of this 
tool would expand our thinking and get us thinking -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Think out of the box.
		MR. OLSON:  -- about the process, and there's a 
value to doing this, and we should state that there's a 
value to doing this somehow.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. OLSON:  What is the value that we're 
capturing here?
		MS. ZANNONI:  To prepare for the future.
		MR. OLSON:  To help evaluate possible future 
outcomes.
		MS. ZANNONI:  Also prepare.
		MR. OLSON:  There is a value doing it this way.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  We could have to write an 
opening paragraph or so about why the scenarios 
particularly since this will be taken totally separate out 
of context.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, it does.  It says neither the 
AC21 nor anyone else can say with certainty what U.S. 
agriculture will look like in a decade but we can try to 
examine different scenarios.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  But it doesn't -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  This does not imply that we're 
predicting or endorsing any given scenarios but rather we 
are trying to understand the implications of different 
outcomes.  We are providing questions that will lead you to 
develop the implications.
		MS. MELLON:  Providing a list of some of the 
confusion is something you might want to consider.
		MS. LAYTON:  But we're -- actually we're not 
going to try to understand the implications of the 
different outcomes.  We're actually going to provide a list 
of questions that allow you to understand the implications 
of differing outcomes.  Is that correct?  
		MS. MELLON:  Aren't our questions a list of 
implications?  What are the implications for resources?  
What are the implications for trade?  What are the 
implications -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  No, it's what is the impact of the 
scenarios relating to economic impact of the scenario?  
What is the environmental impact of the scenario
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Won't that still work for the 
document that we've got and then -- where we put the 
questions.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  So isn't it, Juan, I think building 
on what you had said would be as you read through each of 
these scenarios, you should consider this list of questions 
and others, if you want to add that, the answer to which 
will be different under each scenario and something like we 
hope these will provoke thought and -- or thinking about 
the future -- appearance of the future.  Isn't that 
ultimately what we're trying to get them to do is -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Well, you can put a paragraph in 
there and say you may agree or disagree to a greater or 
lesser extent with each of these scenarios.  The reason why 
we are writing them is because what happens to you under 
this system changes.
		MS. ZANNONI:  Yeah.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Other than a rosy world or this 
world or that world.
		MR. OLSON:  That's the value.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Yeah, but my concern is that if 
somebody doesn't understand scenarios, they're going to 
come into this, they're going to start reading it, and 
they're going to say, oh, I don't think this is correct and 
they're going to quit reading the Rosy scenario and they're 
going to jump to the one that they believe in and that's 
not the point.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  They're not to pick which one 
do they think will come true or which one they agree or 
disagree with.  And that's our problem.  It's got to be 
couched in those terms of what do the scenarios allow you 
to do.
		MS. DILLEY:  You've got to take them together.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  You've got to take them 
altogether with a neutral mind.
		MR. BUSS:  The suggestion I had was on page 8, 
the bold part that says -- these are not predictions of the 
future nor are profitabilities or likelihoods assigned to 
them -- and then suggesting that the next sentence read -- 
they're intended to provoke thought over a wide range of 
possibilities.  So no single scenario should be considered 
in isolation.
		MR. OLSON:  Something like that.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Nor should you -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Do you want to repeat that 
again.
		MR. BUSS:  The second sentence -- thought, over 
a wide range of possibilities, so no single scenario should 
be considered in isolation.
		MR. GIROUX:  Just change to they were created 
which was the change we already made to that.
		MR. BUSS:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  But they were created to 
provoke thought?
		MR. BUSS:  Sure and then the rest of the 
sentence.
		MS. LAYTON:  So no single scenario should be 
considered in isolation?
		MR. BUSS:  Right.
		MS. CRAMER:  I think we should add then a 
sentence that started out with -- their value therefore was 
based on implications.  I agree with David that we should 
expect this point of view of teaching somebody before they 
go into that, how to utilize scenarios because this isn't a 
common tool that they're used to.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So what was your next sentence 
then?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I lost my train of thought 
there.  I think this is better.  It may still come down to 
when do we bring in the questions, the scenarios.  I'm not 
quite sure whether they would fit at the end better than -- 
but I'm willing to wait until we can focus the scenarios -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Let's go through the scenarios an 
then figure that out because we have some work to do on the 
scenarios and I don't want us to bog down on this and not 
get to the scenarios because we'll never get it done, and 
we are at 5 minutes to 2:00. 
		The committee had reviewed work group -- I mean 
Rosy Future and you had looked at both Michael and Mardi's 
comments.  Would someone from the committee or do we want 
to take it paragraph by paragraph.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I just back up for half a 
second.  Just before the scenarios, with or without that 
inserted text, we have the -- using and adding to the list 
of certainties and uncertainties, you can build your own 
scenarios.  As you read through each of the following 
scenarios or develop your own -- do something or is this 
premature.  Should we do the scenarios first?
		MS. LAYTON:  We should do the scenarios first.  
		MR. JAFFE:  One suggestion, instead of going 
paragraph by paragraph, the scenario is, the whole point of 
it is the whole overall point.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. JAFFE:  Maybe if you read the first one, 
everyone for five minutes and then get into Abby's 
questions.  Is there anything in there or major heartburn, 
and then move to the second one.
		MS. DILLEY:  Do you want to do it that way?
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  I agree.
		MS. DILLEY:  Then why don't we take five minutes 
to read the Rosy Future scenario.
		MR. JAFFE:  reread them one final time.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And I would also suggest just 
since, Mike -- I know that Michael had a bunch of comments, 
and he wasn't, he wasn't here.  He's not here today and 
wasn't expecting to be doing this, and we have his comments 
here that we look at those as well.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Michael's comments are incorporated 
in Rosy Future.
		MR. JAFFE:  One and two.
		MR. GIROUX:  I want to remind the committee as 
well that we deleted the first sentence of Continental 
Islands.  What that means is that we're not making an 
assessment of what the world looks like today.
		MR. GRANT:  Just another scenario.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right now we're only doing Rosy 
Future and you have four minutes.
		(Pause.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Just a couple of things in terms of 
calibrating your heartburn, too.  I think we -- the work 
group did a huge amount of work in terms of trying to bring 
some parallelism to all three scenarios, and just as we are 
suggesting to the USDA or whomever who uses these, to think 
of -- do not think of each scenario independently but as 
ways of looking at three different complex futures as 
opposed to whether you like or dislike a particular 
scenario we're looking at at the time.  So I think we've 
got to keep that in mind, too, as we review each of them.
		MS. LAYTON:  And since it's totally created, I'm 
not sure we can in fact check anything.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  If it doesn't give you 
heartburn, it probably wasn't a good scenario.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Rosy Future.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Having said that, and with a very 
high bar for heartburn.
		MR. GRANT:  Are you ready?  I do think in the 
second paragraph it talks about European opposition.  It's 
the last sentence in that paragraph -- European opposition 
to the food uses decreased significantly as EU governments.  
This is just kind of a fact check I think.  I don't think 
the fact that EU governments change will decrease EU 
opposition.  What will be the catalyst there I think is a 
change on the part of environmental groups, so what would 
be required would be a change of heart on the part of the 
environmental groups.  
		So I would propose that we change that wording 
to say environmental groups -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  How about source?  In the end, it's 
not -- it's the people.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Government and consumers.
		MR. JAFFE:  Consumers of the EU public.
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm comfortable having governments 
and consumers because it's that agricultural GDP, 
agricultural productivity on GDP and that's got to be 
government first.  
		MR. GRANT:  Okay.  So -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Does Greenpeace play any role in 
that?
		MS. LAYTON:  Is Greenpeace playing a role in 
-- on making decisions based on increased agricultural GDP?
		MR. OLSON:  That sentence.  Instead of 
governments and consumers, isn't it also -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  Greenpeace plays a big role with 
consumers in Europe.  
		MS. SLUTSKY:  Having governments by themselves 
won't change this.
		MR. SLOCUM:  They're far behind.
		MS. LAYTON:  That's the scenario.  Is it that 
they're losing money and they're -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Is it European public or consumer 
opposition to food uses or -- because the government has 
realized -- NGOs and consumers -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  I mean it's the Rosy Future, right?  
So everybody gets somebody from the side.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Even the EU governments. 
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. GRANT:  So if you had NGOs, with governments 
that would work.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, the NGOs are the European 
opposition.
		MS. MELLON:  No, but the opposition -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  No, they're not.  European 
opposition is broader than the NGOs.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.  I know but it's part of the 
European opposition. 
		MS. DILLEY:  So is it European opposition to 
food use to decrease significantly as NGOs, consumers and 
EU governments realize the value of increasing -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  That's fine.  
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm sorry.  Say that again.
		MS. DILLEY:  It was decreasing significantly as 
NGOs, consumers and EU governments realize the value of 
increasing agricultural productivity.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Okay.  Any other thing.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  There some stuff, just simple 
language in the next to the last paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  Governments have had success.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Yes.  I'd simply make that 
Governments adopted compatible regulatory systems, 
essential for the development of.
		MS. DILLEY:  Take out, and this has been.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Yes. 
		MS. LAYTON:  Wonderful.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  And then below that also -- 
however, the poorest developing countries found themselves 
to have problems -- take out the have.
		MS. MELLON:  I think there are a lot of haves to 
come out.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Anybody else have any significant 
concerns or questions or -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  If we look at this in dealing 
with things like tenses, we're going to have problems.
		MS. LAYTON:  Carole.
		MS. CRAMER:  On page 9, the third paragraph down 
it says -- energy companies begin to establish pipelines on 
the bio-based energy.  It seems to me energy connected with 
pipelines has Alaskan Pipeline implementations which isn't 
really talked about.
		MS. DILLEY:  Networks.  Is that what 
you're -- 
		MS. CRAMER:  Yeah, I think that -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Or infrastructure.
		MS. MELLON:  Supply chains.
		MS. CRAMER:  Or just say, begin to manage -- 
yeah.  I don't know.  Pipeline seems like the wrong word.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Energy companies begin to invest 
in bio-based energy.  Do that work?
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And then get rid of the and 
manage?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Yes.
		MS. CRAMER:  Yes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  
		MS. CRAMER:  And then in the following 
paragraph, the second sentence -- information companies 
merged with financial companies.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Say that again.  Where are you?
		MS. CRAMER:  The paragraph after that which 
starts -- as various.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Uh-huh.  
		MS. CRAMER:  I don't understand the context or 
utility of that second sentence in our context.
		MS. DILLEY:  Information companies merge with 
financial companies.  Is that what you're -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  It's the same type of merger as 
you saw with the IT revolution.  Instead of managing 
molecules you're managing bits in biology.  So the merger 
pattern and the reorganization is going to be very 
different.  In the beginning you see General Electric -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Do you mean -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  And I think IBM is going to 
become a life science company.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Do you mean bio-information 
companies.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Bio-information companies merge to 
financial companies.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Right.
		MS. DILLEY:  Did you say bio-informatics?
		MR. BUSS:  On the next sentence I think we could 
probably do better than outfits.  We just said mergers 
between seed and chemical and pharmaceutical companies 
continue.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yes.
		MR. GIROUX:  Can't we just disconnect in the 
next paragraph.  The beginning of the sentence is -- global 
multinational corporations and then in the next sentence 
talk just about U.S. companies see the overall opportunity 
pie.  Opportunities, this is the future, global, not just 
for the U.S. bio-market.
		MS. LAYTON:  Just companies.
		MR. GIROUX:  U.S. companies, right. So can we 
just say companies are seeing more and more diverse 
business opportunities.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Sure.
		MS. LAYTON:  So take out the words global and 
multinationals?
		MS. MELLON:  And then the paragraph beginning as 
various conglomerates, the last sentence, you might want to 
take out the two words, their own.  I think energy 
companies began developing portfolios of alliances and 
acquisitions outside the traditional energy business.
		MS. LAYTON:  Broad portfolios of alliances.
		MS. MELLON:  And acquisitions outside the 
traditional energy business.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I missed what happened to the 
paragraph after that.
		MR. JAFFE:  Global and multinationals -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Global and multinationals are cut 
out.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Companies began seeing.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  And then is U.S. deleted as well or 
-- 
		MS. LAYTON:  No.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm just going to switch a couple 
of tenses and words in there.  Companies began seeing more 
and more even with increased global competition, the 
opportunity pie was growing faster than the increase in 
competition.
		MR. GIROUX:  I just see a disconnect if we agree 
that NGOs and everybody that got on board with biotech, 
does the last sentence of the next paragraph beginning with 
-- within the food area -- environmentalists throughout the 
developed world continued to worry about increased rates of 
new product introduction could lead to a serious accident, 
but so far none has occurred.
		MR. GRANT:  I think that's still consistent.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Maybe you would prefer to say 
some.  Some environmentalists.
		MR. OLSON:  Some would be better.
		MR. GRANT:  On the paragraph that starts with -- 
farmers adapting to new technologies became more profitable 
regardless of farm size, any one part of this scenario that 
isn't captured in here is that we're getting old in the 
U.S., as far as the farm population, it's really aging, and 
so this scenario really sees young tech with sophisticated 
workers returning to agriculture.  So you're kind of 
repopulating the farm base with younger technically 
sophisticated farmers.  I would put that in just before the 
semicolon on that first line of that paragraph.
		MS. DILLEY:  In which paragraph?
		MR. GRANT:  third paragraph up from the bottom 
on page 9.
		MS. LAYTON:  So it's going to read -- farmers 
adopt into the new technologies become more profitable 
regardless of farm size and young -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Technically sophisticated workers 
are attracted to agriculture -- return to agriculture.
		MR. GIROUX:  You're implying that those who did 
not adopt perhaps are older, that you could tack onto the 
end of that, and they were replaced by more technically 
efficient.
		MR. GRANT:  It works for me.
		MR. OLSON:  Younger more technically efficient 
or something like that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Or you could do farmers including 
young new sophisticated -- however you said that.
		MS. LAYTON:  Can you work this in?
		MR. GRANT:  Yes.
		MS. MELLON:  I would suggest in the next -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can we hold on a second?  Can 
we work this in?  Can we get the language before we move 
on?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, that's what I meant.
		MR. GRANT:  Ron, the language -- Ron, how did 
you have it?
		MR. OLSON:  I would put it after harder, because 
I think those who did not adapt had a harder time and were 
replaced by younger, more technically savvy -- 
		MS. MILEWSKI:  Wouldn't the aging ones have to 
be replaced?
		MS. LAYTON:  But the ones who didn't adapt -- 
		MR. GRANT:  We got rid of age but we imply that 
the age is probably why they had a harder time.
		MR. OLSON:  It just says those who don't -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  But we're using that younger, 
more technically savvy.
		MR. OLSON:  Take younger out then, too.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  More technically -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Sophisticated.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  -- sophisticated -- okay.  
Thank you.  
		MS. MELLON:  And now in the next paragraph, I 
think we ought to delete really, for really high value 
crops, take out really. 
		MS. DILLEY:  High value crops.  If they're high, 
they're high.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  They're not necessarily really 
high.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Any other comments?
		(No response.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Then we move to Continental 
Islands and do the same thing.  Take a few minutes.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Keep in mind the first sentence has 
been deleted.
		MS. LAYTON:  The first sentence has been 
deleted.  It begins -- new products.
		(Pause.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So again taking comments 
that rise to the level of significant heartburn.  Mardi?
		MS. MELLON:  On page 11, the second paragraph, 
it's just to make it more readable -- The EU (including the 
accession countries) continued not to accept food products 
in general, although they -- I think rather than say 
continued to accept, just say they accepted products for 
feed uses and approved some products for field testing and 
importation.  I'm just not sure we need another continued.
		MR. OLSON:  And the second sentence of that same 
paragraph where it says -- despite the approval, though, no 
products -- nor food products, and it should be nor were 
any food products.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Nor were many.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah, that would be good, nor were 
many.
		MR. OLSON:  Let's back up a little.  The first 
page.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Wait a minute.  I didn't -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  We didn't get the first sentence 
that Mardi had.
		MS. DILLEY:  Despite the approvals, though -- 
what was the change, Ron?
		MR. OLSON:  Nor were many food products imported 
and offered for sale.  Or you could say many or any.
		MS. DILLEY:  So after nor. 
		MR. OLSON:  You need to put the word were.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  
		MS. LAYTON:  And what was Mardi's again?  I'm 
sorry, Mardi?
		MS. MELLON:  Mine was just a suggestion to 
delete the two words -- continued to -- in the second line 
in the paragraph beginning, The EU including.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And then accepted products.
		MS. MELLON:  Then accepted.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Thank you, Mardi.
		MR. GIROUX:  Were many.  Could we say many?
		MS. MELLON:  Nor were many -- okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Pardon.
		MS. MELLON:  Nor were many products.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Anything else in that?
		MR. OLSON:  The very first paragraph -- with two 
or more new traits in a single variety.  I think you want 
to insert the word stacked in a single variety.
		MR. GIROUX:  What's the word for that?  Trait 
products.
		MS. DILLEY:  So wait.  Slow down, Ron.  Wait.  
Two or more nuw traits stacked in a single variety.  Is 
that what you're looking for?
		MS. ZANNONI:  Stacked has a different meaning, 
and so you have to be careful when you use it.
		MR. OLSON:  Leave that out then.  The only thing 
I would add is the word but should be changed to and I 
think.  
		MS. DILLEY:  So after -- 
		MR. OLSON:  Provide additional value but some of 
them are still introduced -- and they were introduced I 
think.
		MS. DILLEY:  And some -- and some new 
ergonomics.  Okay.  
		MS. CRAMER:  There might be in that paragraph as 
well, but one of the things that's missing from both the 
first Rosy scenario and this one is concepts of impacts on 
minor crops which is that -- one implication here is that 
the current investment in minor crops has sort of 
dissipated because they don't move forward to the 
regulatory process due to consumer rejection.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  We really had a strange purchase 
last week by Monsanto.  That was a $1.4 billion purchase of 
about 70 percent of the vegetable seed market.
		MS. MELLON:  For a product that's trading at 
$260 billion two years ago.
		MS. CRAMER:  But Monsanto has moved to a lot of 
non-biotech approaches.
		MS. MELLON:  And they have a very expensive exit 
strategy.
		MS. DILLEY:  So, Carole, your original question 
is should there be some discussion about the minor crops?
		MS. CRAMER:  Minor crops.  Implications to minor 
crops?
		MS. MELLON:  Minor crops are mentioned in Rosy 
scenario, right?
		MR. SLOCUM:  Yeah, they are in the Rosy Future.
		MS. MELLON:  They're in Rosy Future.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Second paragraph from the bottom on 
page 9.  Most innovation took place in mega-crops, but some 
improvements to minor crops took place and began to change 
cropping patterns in the U.S.
		MS. MELLON:  Okay.
		MS. DILLEY:  So you're looking for something 
referencing minor crops -- to minor crops in the 
Continental Islands.  And what might that be I guess?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  One sentence, given, given the 
reduced market, little investment was made in minor crop 
biotechnology.
		MS. CRAMER:  Yes.  That's sounds good.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  At the end of that third 
paragraph?
		MR. JAFFE:  After animals would be good to add 
that right in that first paragraph because we're talking 
about the different products.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So many of these new 
products and then say at the end, given -- Juan, say it 
again.  Sorry.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Given smaller markets, little 
investment was made in further development of -- in further 
small crop biotech.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Given smaller markets -- 
		MS. CRAMER:  Non-commodity.
		MS. LAYTON:  Little investment was made in minor 
crop biotechnology.
		MS. CRAMER:  The minor crop guys don't like to 
be called minor.  
		MR. SLOCUM:  Well, that's one part of the 
scenario they don't like.  
		MS. LAYTON:  And we've already covered minor in 
Rosy.
		MR. SLOCUM:  That's right.
		MS. LAYTON:  So little investment was made in 
minor crops -- minor crop biotechnology.
		MS. MELLON:  They didn't say improving fruit and 
vegetable -- fruit and vegetable crops.
		MS. DILLEY:  Minor crops.  Let's be consistent 
because -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Minor crop biotechnology.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Let it go.  I mean, Daryl, somebody 
is going to be mad at us no matter what.
		MR. BUSS:  For symmetry with the first and third 
sections, I guess what I would suggest in that last -- if 
we're working on the next to the last sentence of the first 
paragraph, about the animals, read -- development of 
transgenic animals has continued for niche applications, 
including xenotransplantation, but not for food uses, 
because we discuss at some length xenotransplantation in 
the other two.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Including xenotransplantation.
		MR. BUSS:  Including xenotransplantations.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So just after applications, 
including xenotransplantations.
		MR. BUSS:  Including xenotransplantation comma.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay. Randy?
		MR. GIROUX:  Although this doesn't represent the 
current marketplace, in the paragraph that starts -- along 
the agricultural food chain.
		MS. LAYTON:  Page 11, upper half.
		MR. GIROUX:  Page 11.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right above the fold.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.
		MR. GIROUX:  One of two changes.  Either it says 
while food products -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Which sentence?
		MS. DILLEY:  Second sentence.
		MR. GIROUX:  Along the agricultural food chain, 
the pattern was similar.  Products containing ingredients 
derived from transgenic varieties were acceptable and 
widely used for domestic markets, while food products for 
export were largely sourced from non-transgenic-developed 
ingredients.
		MS. LAYTON:  Food products.  
		MS. MELLON:  So it's while products and then 
it's -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Now it's while food products. 
		MR. SLOCUM:  To distinguish it from feed 
products.
		MS. LAYTON:  To distinguish it.  Can we talk 
about these products later.
		MS. MELLON:  There's also a sentence without a 
verb at the end of the paragraph beginning -- consumers 
worldwide remain divided and/or ambivalent.  Or maybe I'm 
just not reading that sentence correctly, but at the end of 
that paragraph, there's a sentence, the situation was most 
confused in Africa, given the dire need for food but 
confusion regarding trade-related issues, especially with 
the EU.
		MS. LAYTON:  You're right.
		MR. JAFFE:  Continue, especially with the EU.
		MS. DILLEY:  Confusion continued regarding -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  No.  Given the dire need and 
given confusion.
		MS. ZANNONI:  So what's the point?
		MS. LAYTON:  Take out the but and insert and.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And given.
		MS. MELLON:  Does the dire need for food have 
something to do with a confusion about consumers?
		MS. LAYTON:  No, it's confusion about -- 
regarding trade-related issues.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I think the issue is that 
Africa needs food but they don't know how best to source 
that given the issues with trade with the EU in terms of 
biotech.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  So the but is an and?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  The issue is Africa needs to 
produce a lot more food, but they can't export it to the 
EU.
		MS. LAYTON:  All right.  And they need cash, so 
they have to export.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  They need food and cash.
		MS. LAYTON:  They need food and cash. 
		MS. DILLEY:  So the but should be changed to 
and, and that now makes sense.
		MS. LAYTON:  And given.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  And given.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I make a controversial 
suggestion?  This is maybe -- this is thinking about 
Michael Dykes' not being here, and my suggestion would be 
that you consider whether to be silent on the question of 
transgenic wheat in this scenario.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Which paragraph?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It's a one sentence paragraph.
I have a suggestion.
		MS. LAYTON:  It became much harder to introduce 
transgenic -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Transgenic wheat varieties face 
significant opposition.
		MR. GIROUX:  Wheat?
		MS. MELLON:  We don't even have to talk about 
wheat.
		MS. DILLEY:  We already said that we're going 
on.  Okay.  Are we hearing anybody argue strongly for 
keeping it?
		MR. GRANT:  Let me give you a suggestion, or a 
group of suggestions.  
		MR. JAFFE:  We're all agreeing to delete it.
		MR. GRANT:  I know you are, and I'm not sure -- 
really where, you know, the state of the technology today, 
and so what I would suggest is that if we're looking ahead 
10 years, changes to read transgenic wheat varieties were 
not introduced -- have not been introduced in Canada.  
However, they have found a limited marketplace in feed 
varieties within the U.S.
		MR. SLOCUM:  I don't think I'd go there.  Feed 
approval but not food approval.
		MR. GRANT:  No, no, no.  It doesn't imply any of 
that.  It just means that they found a marketplace.  They 
would obviously have to have both approvals but it means 
they have found a marketplace, and that some kind of system 
has been implemented that allowed for it to continue.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  You're going to have to explain 
that sentence to everybody who reads the report.
		MR. OLSON:  I think you're going to have to add 
something about cautious development about transgenic wheat 
or something like that.  
		MR. GRANT:  That would all right, too.
		MS. LAYTON:  Does it add anything on it?
		MR. JAFFE:  I think we should be silent on it.  
Just be silent on it.
		MR. BUSS:  Yeah, I think just not going there is 
-- 
		MS. LAYTON:  It's a more negative island.
		MS. DILLEY:  But it's supposed to be.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Are there transgenic seeds for 
sale today?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  No.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Are there anywhere on the 
horizon?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Yes.  Well, there's available.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  But they haven't been introduced.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Not available, but they haven't 
been introduced.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  They're not commercially 
available?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  No, no.
		MR. JAFFE:  They have dozens of different kinds 
of products.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  It was much harder to introduce 
transgenic wheat products than it had -- 
		MS. MELLON:  What about a suggestion that 
they're introduced in China?
		MR. GRANT:  That's -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  Even madder.
		MR. GRANT:  I think that's a more real 
possibility than even having a feed market in the U.S. 
frankly.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So what we would say, 
transgenic wheat varieties were introduced only in China.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Only in certain countries.
		MR. GRANT:  That would work as well.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Just say in China.
		MR. GRANT:  Just say they have been introduced 
in China.
		MS. LAYTON:  Transgenic wheat varieties were 
introduced in China.
		MS. MELLON:  The reason I would like to put this 
in there is that -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  I don't think Michael will like 
that.  I think he would rather have it deleted.  His 
company lost the -- and somebody else won.
		MS. LAYTON:  Maybe he just sold it China and not 
the U.S.
		MR. GRANT:  So the fact is that wheat is one of 
the major crops in the world.  It recognizes the benefits 
that are accruing to corn and beans and the marketplace is 
agitating to find a way to capture that value in wheat.  
When it gets done -- IÕm not sure.  The Chinese are looking 
at it.  They have the ability to control their marketplace.  
It would be a significant gain to them, would be consumed 
domestically there.
		MS. CRAMER:  What about expanding it to wheat 
and rice?
		MR. GRANT:  That would be all right as well.
		MS. LAYTON:  Let me suggest something.  Move it 
to the top paragraph on that page.  The United States 
continues to be a major producer and distributor of 
biotechnology products.  Other major growers and producers 
were Canada, Argentina, India, Brazil and South Africa.  In 
China, biotech wheat -- transgenic wheat and rice varieties 
were grown -- were introduced.
		MR. GIROUX:  Can I -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  No, I feel uncomfortable with that.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me just say one thing.  My 
initial intent for suggesting that it be deleted was to 
perhaps eliminate a flash point that might be here for one 
person who's reading this who will, you know, thumbs up or 
thumbs down, that additional sentence may very well make 
the scenario more provocative but it may have the opposite 
effect.
		MR. GRANT:  So my sense, you're talking 
about -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Saying that this is introduced 
in some other countries.
		MR. GRANT:  My sense is that this would be fine.  
I can't speak for him obviously. 
		MR. JAFFE:  I mean nobody agrees with all the 
facts in any one of these scenarios.  That's the whole 
point.  
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Can we say something like 
transgenic wheat and rice varieties remain difficult to 
introduce but were commercialized in at least one country.
		MS. LAYTON:  And could it be up in that other 
paragraph whether than having it's own paragraph.
		MR. GRANT:  Sure.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Transgenic wheat and rice 
varieties remain -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  limited in scope or limited in 
production.
		MR. OLSON:  Cautious development.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'm struggling with this.  Isn't 
the scenarios supposed to lay what value does making a 
controversial comment to both wheat.
		MS. LAYTON:  Bring to the scenario.
		MR. GIROUX:  -- bring to the scenario that makes 
a better scenarios.
		MR. GRANT:  The very first word, the very first 
sentence says -- new products of biotechnology continue to 
be developed and introduced into the marketplace.  That's 
the baseline for this scenario.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That could be wheat.
		MR. GRANT:  Wheat, right.  So, so that's -- so 
are you arguing to keep it in or to take it out?
		MR. GIROUX:  No, I'm saying -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Just let it lay.
		MR. GIROUX:  -- that to call up the flash point 
like GM wheat which was clearly a flash point -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Right.
		MR. GIROUX:  -- in the marketplace, does it 
already get covered in saying products continue to be 
brought to the market.  Do we want to make a controversial 
statement that may not allow certain people on this 
committee to accept the document.  What additional gains 
does it provide by calling it a wheat direct specifically.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think it's covered in the first 
paragraph.
		MR. GIROUX: That's what I'm trying to figure 
out, Duane.  And if there is a compelling argument -- 
		MR. GRANT:  If you come up with this scenario 
from the premise that this represents our best guess at 
what the future will look like given -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  No, it's not a series.
		MS. DILLEY:  Let him finish.  He was asked a 
question.  Let him finish.  Go ahead, Duane.
		MR. GRANT:  It's illogical for me to suppose 
that under this scenario that has as a baseline new 
products continue to be developed, that one of the major 
commodities globally is somehow isolated from development.
		MR. GIROUX:  Where does it say that?  That's 
what I'm trying to understand.
		MS. LAYTON:  It doesn't.  It implies it that it 
would be developed.
		MS. MELLON:  There is an advantage to -- it is a 
real example of the Continental Islands phenomenon which is 
that there might be an acceptance of wheat, and I would, 
you know, in China.  I think that that does -- it does 
provoke a number of kinds of responses.  I mean from -- 
that I actually think are important, and one of them, of 
course, is the import question.  That all of a sudden, that 
makes very real to me the notion that we would have to 
start thinking very hard about import restrictions that 
food would be coming to us and, and that it wouldn't be 
like the food we have here.  This wouldn't be, you know, 
our GNP.
		MS. SULTON:  Does it have to be wheat?  Could it 
be rice?
		MS. MELLON:  Well, I would actually test Michael 
out and see if he is going to have heartburn.  I think 
there's a value to it.  I wouldn't argue it -- I'm not sure 
how far to push him to the wall, but if he would accept it, 
I think there is value to it. 
		MR. GIROUX:  Could we just add it to the first 
sentence, new products for biotechnology be developed in 
industries into the global marketplace, like wheat and 
rice.
		MR. JAFFE:  Go back and read that again.  In 
other words crops, not just new -- any other products 
meaning another -- I guess I want to make a general 
comment.  My understanding of the scenario is I mean there 
could be 10 Continental Islands scenarios, would any one 
factor, any one thing differ in here?  So it's not -- this 
is not my view of Continental Islands.  It's no one 
person's.  So we can all put our mind in and say, well, 
under my Continental Islands, wheat would be introduced or 
in mine, rice would be introduced.  This is just a 
conglomeration of potential facts.  My understanding again 
there could be 10, 20, 15 different Continental Islands to 
cite different variations.
		MS. ZANNONI:  But for the import, I think the 
import question is important if the major commodities are 
going outside the U.S. and can you just add on the top 
paragraph, 11, when it says the U.S. continues to be a 
major producer, the next line says other major growers and 
producers were -- can't you just add something there that 
some of the production was not the same as that -- or major 
commodities not in the U.S. or something like that, so you 
don't have to name wheat and rice, but you can get the 
import question in there.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  So you could add something like 
-- and introduced a commodity not grown in the U.S.
		MS. ZANNONI:  Yeah, but that would be the place, 
I think that -- 
		MR. SLOCUM:  Wheat and rice are both grown in 
the U.S.
		MR. GRANT:  That's a good point.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Or just say a commodity
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, if we didn't mention wheat in 
Rosy, why would we mention wheat in Continental?
		MS. CRAMER:  But we're making another point 
which is broader.
		MS. LAYTON:  I understand that.
		MS. CRAMER:  The point is that how we articulate 
it.  The point is that in this scenario, there's an 
opportunity to have a major crop being a biotech crop to go 
out the market globally that is not produced from the U.S.
		MS. ZANNONI:  We're not the major exporter.
		MR. JAFFE:  How about -- and produced commodity 
varieties grown in the United States.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Not leads to United States.
		MS. DILLEY:  So where is that?  I'm still 
struggling with where that is.
		MR. JAFFE:  Page 11, first line after South 
Africa.  Other major growers and producers were Canada, 
Argentina, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.  And they 
produced -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  And they produced -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  One or more of these 
countries -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Produced the transgenic variety that 
was not released in the United States.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Can we try something that says -- 
China was particularly aggressive in rolling out transgenic 
wheat, providing a significant growing advantage -- which 
provided a significant growing advantage.
		MS. DILLEY:  Can we just go back to where Duane 
was?  Can we just try this sentence and see if it gets to 
the export issue and not.  The United States continued to 
be a major producer and distributor of biotechnology 
products.  Other major growers and producers were Canada, 
Argentina, list of countries, and one or more of these 
countries produced a major crop not produced -- not grown 
in the United States.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Major transgenic.
		MS. LAYTON:  Major transgenic, sorry.
		MR. GRANT:  Crop.  Yeah, use the word crop.
		MS. DILLEY:  Third sentence -- one or more -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Of these countries.
		MS. DILLEY:  -- of these countries 
commercialized a major transgenic crop not grown in the 
U.S.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's good.
		MR. SLOCUM:  But that's not going to point to 
wheat or rice necessarily because folks are going to read 
that as not grown meaning not a crop we grow.
		MS. LAYTON:  Not commercialized in the United 
States.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Not commercialized.
		MS. LAYTON:  Not commercialized.
		MR. SLOCUM:  If you want to point at wheat or 
rice without saying wheat or rice, you're going with it.
		MR. GRANT:  That's good.
		MS. LAYTON:  So it says -- one or more of these 
countries commercialized a major transgenic crop not 
commercialized in the U.S.
		MR. GIROUX:  So if this is a deal breaker for 
Michael -- 
		MR. GRANT:  That won't be.
		MS. LAYTON:  It doesnÕt mention wheat.
		MS. DILLEY:  It doesn't mention wheat.  Okay.  
Anything else on that?  
		MS. LAYTON:  It is now quarter of 3:00.  We have 
one more scenario to go and we still have to do the 
implications.
		MS. CRAMER:  Wheat is now out.
		MS. LAYTON:  Somebody needs to tell Michael how 
concerned we were about it.   
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  We have bent over absolutely 
backwards for Michael.
		MS. LAYTON:  I agree.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I'm getting a little bit -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  I agree.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  He'll acknowledge it.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Let's be very specific on this.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  It's one of those scenarios that 
we are not considering all of this as a biotech accident.
		MS. LAYTON:  I agree.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  And we're not doing that because 
of Michael.
		MS. LAYTON:  Because of Michael.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  And if I were to push this 
scenario process forward for the next two years, the one 
thing that could change things in this room overnight would 
be an accident, and if there's one thing that this room 
should be preparing for, it's an accident.  Whether you 
want to do a public report or whether you want to do it in 
private, somebody at USDA has to have something in place 
and if God will, it will happen with BSE, what happened 
with BSE over the course of a year and what happened during 
the course of -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  And you are now on the 
record as saying that.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  And not doing that on an accident 
scenario and having an accident scenario blocked from this 
area of discussion is doing a disservice I think.  Okay.  
I've said that.
		MS. MELLON:  I agree.
		MR. JAFFE:  Number 3.
		MS. DILLEY:  So biotech goes niche and take 
another five minutes to read it over.  
		(Pause.)
		MS. DILLEY:  Are we ready to go?
		MS. LAYTON:  I have a question.  Can I start?
		MS. DILLEY:  Sure.
		MS. LAYTON:  Would, especially at the last part 
of this scenario, and it's talking about increasing soil 
erosion and more water and things like that -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  So you're on the last page.
		MS. LAYTON:  -- the last page -- is there, is 
there a use -- is there a lessening of production and 
therefore an increase in the amount of land needed so that 
we would take things out of CRPs and put them back into 
crops?  I don't know the answer.  That's why I'm asking.  
		MS. MELLON:  Certainly globally speaking, you 
know, the big increase and land use, conversion of land 
into agriculture in Brazil and Argentina and they're not 
-- whether they get -- are driven by a need for export 
products.  So whether they get more -- even if there were 
an effect on productivity, that productivity increase would 
translate in any direct way that I can see into people not, 
you know, continuing to convert that, that land into 
agricultural land, and in the U.S., I don't think there's 
any -- been any demonstrated, you know, trade-off between 
productivity on agricultural lands and say CRP.  If there's 
a problem in the U.S., it goes the other way.  It's that we 
are, we are encroaching on our -- and taking our best 
agricultural lands for use in urban -- for urban settings. 
So that, that -- I don't think that that -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  But what would the case be in 
Brazil or China?
		MS. MELLON:  I don't think so.  I think that 
they will continue to cut it down but -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  So conversion of forests in Brazil 
might continue to occur?
		MS. MELLON:  Because that's being done, a lot of 
U.S. growers are now down there -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Absolutely.
		MS. MELLON:  -- doing that.  So I mean the 
notion that you would have less conversion if people got 
more food and therefore didn't need to cut down an extra 
acre of rain forest in order to feed themselves, it just 
doesn't describe the situation.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  I just wanted to ask that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Other questions on this?  Daryl?
		MR. BUSS:  On page 12, the third paragraph down, 
the last sentence, I would replace the term humanized 
organs with the word tissues.
		MS. DILLEY:  Tissues for xenotransplantation 
came on line?
		MR. BUSS:  Uh-huh.  
		MS. DILLEY:  So tissues is more encompassing.  
You don't refer to them as organs?
		MR. BUSS:  Well, organs imply solid organs and 
that would be included but some of the transplants may well 
be isolated cells, Islet cells for insulin production for 
example, and I guess you could think of that as an organ, 
but -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Is it redundant to say tissues and 
organs?  Or no.  Okay.
		MS. ZANNONI:  A small change on the fifth 
paragraph, just change the word protocol to reflect its 
proper name, the Cartagena Protocol.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  On page 13, the second paragraph, 
make that clearer, the last sentence where it says genomic 
technologies.  I think that should read from various 
technologies like genomics, proteomics, gene expression 
assays, and bioinformatics.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I'm sorry.  I was hacking here.  
Can you -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  To date delivered from various 
technologies as opposed to genomic technologies.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Uh-huh.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Like genomics, proteomics, gene 
expression assays, and bioinformatics.
		MS. LAYTON:  So various technologies such as -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Sure.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Without the et cetera, right?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Correct.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Is that a paragraph then or 
do such innovations move -- some innovations -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Well, it just goes interrogatory 
the same place.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So it's a new paragraph.
		MS. LAYTON:  It's a new paragraph.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  Got it.
		MS. CRAMER:  I have something that could, you 
know, some innovations paragraph.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Which one?
		MS. CRAMER:  The one just after the one we were 
talking about.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The first innovations 
paragraph.
		MS. CRAMER:  The third paragraph down, which is 
stuffed against the second paragraph, somewhere in there I 
would like to have -- it seems to me as a plant 
pathologist, one of the biggest things we might lose is 
this as a tool in the toolbox for an emerging disease for 
plants, and one of the things we could do is say something 
like biotech was not utilized as a key strategy in 
addressing emerging diseases for -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Or insect.
		MS. CRAMER:  -- yeah, pests or diseases or 
something like that, or these strategies did not 
effectively or it could be said more negatively which is 
after it says we went toward traditional strategies, just 
put a statement saying these strategies did not effectively 
address several emerging disease or pests of crops.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Could I suggest you put that 
sentence two paragraphs down in the paragraph that says 
scientists did not abandon.
		MS. CRAMER:  Sure.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  The last sentence of that could 
read on which you base your subject, less research also 
meant a smaller tool kit with which to deal with plant 
diseases.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can I ask if that's consistent 
with the first sentence of the second innovations 
paragraph?
		MR. JAFFE:  We didn't have a way to protect 
against pests, but that there was a particular disease or 
particular thing that we didn't have this to use for -- I 
don't think one makes the other one -- doesn't make this 
incorrect.
		MS. CRAMER:  The point is that there are and 
will continue to be diseases for which our current gene 
pool in that crop doesn't provide for capture.
		MS. LAYTON:  Ë la, we lost the chestnut.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Did Juan's suggestion meet that in 
terms of less research also meant a smaller tool kit with 
which to address pests.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Well, I think that's exactly 
the point of this scenario, and in that case genetic 
engineering would be used.  It's a niche.  It's an actual 
niche because what we're trying to say in the scenario is 
that biotech -- genetic engineering does get used but for 
very, very specific and focused high priority targets.  Now 
that's what I'm saying.  Now whether we set this scenarios 
enough in here in bringing that in, that genetic 
engineering does get used for specific diseases where there 
is not significant genetic variation.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  That's not incompatible with 
saying the tool kit you're going to have, the amount of 
research that's going to be done in this is going to be 
smaller.
		MS. MELLON:  Right, but it does seem to me that 
we have a very -- I mean our time horizon here was what?  
Ten years?  So I don't see that there's any, anything in 
that pipeline right now that would lead us to say that 
there, you know, that there wouldn't -- that there would be 
a specific disease that we would say wouldn't -- we 
couldn't address because we know that probably it didn't go 
forward.  I would actually -- I think it would be better to 
turn it around the way David said and, and actually add 
that as one of the niche applications that we would 
continue to work on.
		MS. LAYTON:  Soybean or plum pox disease.  
		MS. CRAMER:  I mean there are some serious 
diseases that are coming, but plum pox, I don't think 
that's a good target, and the question is in this niche 
scenario, is that going to be addressed from a research 
point of view or do people assume that it would be 
accepted, and not put their efforts into developing it.
		MS. MELLON:  I would say that it would be -- 
there would be a -- that it would be a niche application.  
It would continue to be addressed and the Protocol is 
saying that.  The question then becomes whether even with 
some amount of research, there would be, there would be 
diseases that would come along that couldn't be addressed. 
		MR. GRANT:  I like Carole's point.  If you sit 
there and think about it, there's actually a large number 
of diseases for which either the resistance is extremely 
limited or for which we don't know of the resistance in 
that, in that specific crop or species I guess if you will, 
and I know of some -- sugar beets for example, rhizomania, 
where that disease is held in check by a single gene pair 
globally and the only other alternative is the biotech 
trait but the company that owns that trait hasn't elected 
to commercialize it because it doesn't perceive the market 
will accept it.  So that's what you're talking about with 
the specific example, and we probably -- I would say we 
would lose sugar beets before that becomes commercialized.
		MS. DILLEY:  Well, this does say in the second 
paragraph on 13, it says some innovations dependent on new 
systems of agriculture included new ways of enriching soil, 
protecting against pests and increasing yields.  Couldn't 
you just build on that to make your point?  Because it 
already talks about using it to -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  This scenario really talks about 
alternatives to biotech.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Right, alternative to genetic.  
I mean it is true now, in thinking about it, is that we 
-- I mean you could play this out two ways.  You could use 
that was one of the implications under the scenario where 
genetic engineering is not a tool in the toolbox.  Then you 
could look at implications, what that would be, and one in 
particular would be if a new disease arise, there's no 
transgenic variation for it, you would be using a tool but 
that's an implication.
		MR. GIROUX:  Right.  Right.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  That's one way to deal with 
this scenario.  The other is to put it back in the scenario 
as a niche use of the technology, and I think the working 
group had not considered that, now that I think about it.  
We thought what would happen is it would go to very high 
value traits.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  So you could possibly add that 
at the end of the first sentence of the paragraph that 
starts -- scientists did not abandon genetic engineering 
but in their research at niche markets, it generally did 
not involve the food system, or disease for which no 
conventional -- no alternative approaches were -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  It dilutes the scenario.  These are 
not supposed to be realistic scenarios.  They're supposed 
to be divergent.  Biotech goes gung-ho.  Biotech stays 
along the same course or biotech withers.  
		MS. CRAMER:  I would just like to say something 
that -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  I can see that where -- what Carol 
is saying, and I'll give you two examples.  I can see where 
in this scenario, there may be some effort in the U.S. to 
save soybeans from soybean rust.  However, I can also see 
in the same scenario that it would not be implicated or 
used in plum pox because that is a tree species, it is long 
lived, it is wind pollinated or actually it's insect 
pollinated and there are wild origins out there, wild 
cousins out there and this will not get developed.  So it's 
not going to be in the tool kit in this scenario.
		MS. CRAMER:  I mean we could just say it as an 
out pack -- I mean an output in that saying, because the 
first innovations that I suggested first, which is just to 
say something like, however, several diseases emerged as 
highly problematic for which there is no traditional 
breeding approach, and with the implication there might be 
biotech, but just -- because it's here.  So right after it, 
it says, you know, that they did a whole bunch of marker-
assisted and things and if you go in addition, because 
there were traditionally bred, new products could be 
brought to market with little regulatory oversight.  
		However, several diseases emerged as highly 
problematic for which these traditional breeding strategies 
were not effective.
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.  I think that's reasonable.
		MR. GIROUX:  That's reasonable.  You're not 
giving the solution.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  That's good.
		MS. MELLON:  Because it really is an issue that 
we didn't discuss, and I think it actually is but it a very 
useful sort of scenario to -- it is a useful situation to 
bring up in the scenarios.
		MS. LAYTON:  Read it again, Carole.
		MS. CRAMER:  However, there were several 
diseases -- several diseases emerged that are problematic 
for which -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  However, several diseases emerged 
that are problematic -- 
		MS. CRAMER:  -- for which traditional -- these 
more traditional approaches were not effective.
		MS. MELLON:  Or you could even say the enhanced 
traditional approaches, you know, were not effective.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  You're saying natural genetic 
diversity.
		MS. LAYTON:  Where it's going to take them a 
while to get going, and so for us to -- and we can't assume 
that they're going to be 100 percent effective either.  So 
it's not unreasonable to say.
		MS. LAYTON:  For which enhanced traditional 
approaches were not effective.
		MS. MELLON:  And then that's a good scenario.  
That provokes people's thought.
		MS. LAYTON:  All right.  And where is that going 
to go again.  I've forgot.
		MS. CRAMER:  That goes second to the last 
sentence, right after regulatory oversight, but before 
except.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Do you think there or after the 
last sentence? 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I would put it after the -- at 
the end of the second sentence because traditional reading 
could more readily accomplish selection, new products wound 
up providing a broader variety of traits that generic.  
However, certain diseases remain -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Several diseases emerged as 
problematic for enhance traditional approaches were not 
effective.  In addition, because they were traditionally 
bred, the new products could be brought to market with 
little regulatory oversight.  
		MS. CRAMER:  That's why I put it at the end.
		MS. LAYTON:  So except for some groups focusing 
on patent and monopoly concerns -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  No, it has nothing to do with 
that.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So after the word oversight?
		MS. CRAMER:  Yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  And then to finish up with except 
for some groups focusing on patent and monopoly concerns, 
most of the new innovative products escape consumer 
opposition.
		Okay.  So this goes -- it goes right before 
except.
		MS. CRAMER:  Yes.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Anything else on -- Mardi?
		MS. MELLON:  The last paragraph which I think is 
unlabeled.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The section or the page?
		MS. MELLON:  The third -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The last paragraph of the 
scenario?
		MS. MELLON:  Yes.  This last paragraph that 
begins -- a decrease in biotech plantings resulted in a 
return to agricultural farm practices based on conventional 
crops.  I would suggest that -- I think -- first of all, I 
would suggest that in the second sentence, that we -- but 
that we would increase in overall volumes of insecticides 
and herbicides, I would stop that sentence there.  I don't 
think there is an increase in diesel fuel and water used in 
manufacturing, transport and application of these products, 
makes sense.
		MS. CRAMER:  Actually, I think there is.
		MR. BUSS:  That's want discussed earlier.
		MS. CRAMER:  A tractor may have to go over a 
field seven additional times.
		MS. LAYTON:  To spray as much -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Not only that but just in the 
production of the chemical in the first place.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right. 
		MS. CRAMER:  It may not be diesel fuel, but it 
would certainly be petroleum products.
		MS. MELLON:  Pesticide use has gone up.
		MR. JAFFE:  And is going to keep going up.  So 
it will keep going up.  I mean whether you agree that it's 
gone down or it's gone up, clearly in this scenario it's 
going up.
		MS. MELLON:  Well, I'm not sure that it will 
keep going up because people actually -- there are lots of 
way you could reduce pesticide use, and the question is 
whether we would turn to them.  Now in a 10-year period, I 
don't know how, you know, how realistic it is, but I don't 
think that these are going to be -- I mean maybe it would 
be appropriate to say that -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  But it fits within the scenario.  
The scenario's idea is we don't use very much biotech and 
to the extent that somebody thinks that biotech was 
beneficial in some of these things, it loses benefits.  
It's just a scenario.  It's not -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  It's not reality.
		MR. JAFFE:  It's not reality.  It's not saying 
that biotech decreased these, but it is fitting with the 
scenario that to the extent that biotech provides benefits 
here, we've lost those benefits.  If anything, it's 
magnifying those benefits to show that -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Unless they have been -- unless 
alternative approaches have moved in to achieve a similar 
benefit.  I mean that's the, you know, that's the -- to me, 
that's the question.
		MS. MILEWSKI:  But this scenario says that there 
were innovations and marker systems and also ways of 
protecting against pests.  So I think if we going to keep 
that last paragraph, you've got to have some return.  It's 
not like 100 percent.
		MS. MELLON:  To what?
		MS. MILEWSKI:  I mean to be internally 
consistent with the scenario, you have recognize that there 
were improvements gained through -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  So you're looking for a partial 
return to agricultural practices.
		MS. MELLON:  But in this scenario, it envisions 
the existing product which are tolerant, two products 
continuing to be used and this has been diminishing over, 
over the 10 years.  So it isn't that they would put it to 
use tomorrow and all of a sudden you would get whatever 
benefits there are associated with them.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, but we're going to increase 
our organic and you're going to have to wash them a lot 
more.  Again, it's -- 
		MS. MELLON:  I didnÕt put in my own problems.
		MR. GIROUX:  It's just supposed to provoke 
thought, cause and effect.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, no, if it's cause and effect, 
there's a trade-off.  It provides a trade-off that people 
can then -- whether there's a cause and effect -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Because it's late, I will agree but 
I do think we need to make -- then we need to make clear in 
this clause an increase in the diesel fuel and water used 
in the manufacturer, transport and application of these 
products.
		MR. JAFFE:  Insecticides and herbicides.
		MS. MELLON:  Yeah, right.  In the manufacturer, 
transport and application.
		MS. DILLEY:  Right.  Not in crops but -- 
		MR. GRANT:  Shouldn't this be fossil fuels or 
some -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  And fuel.
		MS. LAYTON:  No, it's petroleum.
		MR. GRANT:  Yeah, petroleum won't work because 
they manufacturers use other -- 
		MS. MELLON:  And I thought you'd use methyl gas 
as the -- 
		MS. MILEWSKI:  That's why the fossil fuel.
		MR. GRANT:  Energy use.  Would that work? 
Because it's -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Energy and water. 
		MR. GIROUX:  I think you're correct.
		MS. LAYTON:  Energy and water.
		MR. BUSS:  Energy and water in the manufacture 
of.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So energy and water in the 
use of -- energy and water in the manufacturing of -- 
		MR. BUSS:  Transport and application.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So take out the used and put 
the use of.  Okay.  Done.  
		MR. BUSS:  A question on 13, the second some 
innovations.
		MS. LAYTON:  Uh-huh.  
		MR. BUSS:  Would that be more immediately 
transparent if we added the words non-biotech between some 
and innovations?  Set the stage for what the paragraph is 
about?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Which?
		MS. LAYTON:  The second innovation paragraph.
		MR. BUSS:  The first one is more obvious.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay. 
		MR. BUSS:  The second one might read easier if 
you said -- some non-biotech innovations.
		MR. GRANT:  It's non-biotech innovations.
		MS. MELLON:  Is it good even in a scenario to 
say that U.S. biotech companies transferred research and 
development efforts to China?  Does that ring true?
		MR. JAFFE:  True.  That sounds fine.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'm struggling with the paragraph 
starting with some innovations, the second paragraph -- new 
systems in agriculture which are fully supported and 
continue to grow but I'm struggling with calling it organic 
specifically as the one that will make it possible to 
divert funds from the heavy investment of biotechnology.  I 
think it's more general than that.  I think it's more 
correct to just talk about the new systems of agriculture 
are invested in and the funds come from biotech.  I think 
that's reasonable.  And then I think it's these new systems 
that will, that will continue to grow and then products be 
marketed.  
		MS. LAYTON:  And you're taking out organic.
		MR. GIROUX:  They use organic several times and 
maybe it isn't organic.  Maybe bio-dynamic food which was a 
brand new thing that I learned about at the -- meeting 
takes over again.
		MS. MELLON:  Right.  I mean that's really very, 
very true.  You can -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Support these new systems -- 
		MS. MELLON:  -- organic food production and many 
people who previously liked it are going to actually be 
kind of -- develop a lot of heartburn with respect to it.  
So -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  So here's my recommendation.  
		MR. JAFFE:  You've got language.
		MR. GIROUX:  Right.  The first sentence remains 
the same.  Many of these ideas were generated in research 
done in support of these new systems made possible by 
research funds that were from the heavily investment -- 
from investment in biotechnology products with steady 
increase and double digit annual growth, these food -- 
systems rose to constitute six percent of the total food 
production.  Several large multinational food companies 
launched new product lines to capture the value of these 
alternatives.  Does that work?  Or launch new product 
lines.  We could just end it there.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Product lines.  And then 
continuing, marker-assisted breeding programs.
		MR. GIROUX:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  And were they welcome in organic 
and sustainable systems?  Marker-assisted breeding programs 
became integrated with farmer and producer needs and were 
welcomed in organic and sustainable systems.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  You could use new systems.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Use new systems?  The farmer 
and producer needs.
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm asking.  I don't know.  That's 
why -- 
		MS. CRAMER:  Wasn't the point here sort of that 
all of a sudden it kind of allows new systems in organic to 
be, to be compatible, to be formed in place -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  What I'm saying is it's going to be 
all these new opportunities and who knows which one the 
market is going to grab a hold of next.
		MS. CRAMER:  I'm agreeing with everything you do 
but then read the last sentence.
		MR. GIROUX:  Just to be consistent, I think if 
we keep it broad and say these new systems.
		MS. DILLEY:  Into the new systems is the last 
part.
		MR. GIROUX:  That's just a suggestion.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  
		MS. MELLON:  I'm not sure that we don't need to 
-- I mean one of the points here is, is the huge inequity 
in the allocation of research funds in the current system 
to any kind of -- anything but biotech.  That's the only 
real, you know, that's the only kind of research that, that 
seems to get consistent time level support and so the idea 
here is that if we were to provide, you know, anywhere near 
that kind of support for alternative approaches, you might 
begin to expect a kind of a greater, a greater number of 
tools and more success -- more improved products and more 
success in the marketplace.  So that's my idea, and 
actually I think -- I mean it's true that -- I would -- I 
think I would agree to leaving the word organic from all 
the references in the -- in this sentence except for the 
first one because it is organic agriculture as the USDA 
supported program that now actually does demand the first 
chunk of research money and so it seems true to me to say 
that -- it rings true to say that many of these ideas were 
generated and the research done in support of organic and 
related systems in agriculture and then go on and say with 
the steady increases and, you know, alternative food 
production systems or these food production systems rose to 
constitute six percent of the food production.  Several 
multinational food companies launched, we could say, 
alternative product lines.
		MS. LAYTON:  I think if you don't say and new 
systems, and you just leave it organic and related systems, 
it's organic and related systems.
		MR. GRANT:  Actually another alternative.
		MR. GIROUX:  IÕm not just thinking about things 
organic or related to organic.  I think there's huge 
possibilities to take a more conventional approach.
		MR. GRANT:  Right.  Right.  Organic is so 
restrictive in the process that you have to use, although 
there could easily be trade-offs between the different 
types of systems using the same research.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So what is it now?  It 
stands -- many of these ideas were generated and the 
research done in support of organic and other new systems 
of agriculture -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Made possible -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  -- made possible with steady 
increases in double digit, these new food production 
systems rose to constitute six percent of the total food 
production.  Several large multinational food companies 
launched new product lines and marker-assisted breeding 
programs were integrated with farmer and producer needs and 
welcomed in these new systems.
		MR. GRANT:  Good catch.
		MS. DILLEY:  So organic has been taken out of 
everything except that one sentence.
		MS. LAYTON:  Except the first sentence.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'm not sure if organic needs to be 
called specific but I'll defer.
		MS. MELLON:  That is where the research money 
is.  Existing research money -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  It's 25 after.  Heartburn city 
here.  
		MR. GIROUX:  I'm done.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  We have to talk about where the 
implications go.
		MS. LAYTON:  So Juan has been working steadily.  
So I hope he's got the solution for us.  But I just wanted 
to make sure.  Is it okay to stop on this?
		MR. GIROUX:  Can we have a two minute break?
		MS. LAYTON:  Only if you do it in two minutes.  
		(Whereupon, a short break was taken.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  We need to deal with the 
questions, questions and how we set them up.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  So I have a specific solution.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Go to page 8 of the scenario 
document. So it's just before Rosy Future.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right. 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  The paragraph before that would 
read as follows:  Each of these scenarios has implications 
for farm income, private investment, USDA agendas and 
resources.  We advise you to read the three scenarios 
without making value judgments or picking a favorite.  
Instead, we advise you to consider what would be the 
consequences if each scenario or some version thereof came 
to pass.  After outlining the three scenarios, we will pose 
a series of specific questions which could help you work 
through some of the implications.  
		Do you want me to read it again?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes, please.  
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Each of these scenarios has 
implications for farm income, private investment, USDA 
agendas and resources.  We advise you to read the three 
scenarios without making value judgments or picking a 
favorite.  Instead, we advise you to consider what would be 
the consequences if each scenario, or some version thereof, 
came to pass.  After outlining the three scenarios, we will 
pose a series of specific questions which could help you 
work through some of the implications.  
		And then we go through the three scenarios.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  And then there's one sentence.  
That one sentence reads:  You have now reviewed or you have 
now visited three very different worlds.  Here are a few of 
the questions you might wish to consider for each scenario.  
		And then we insert the questions and we discuss 
the questions and see if anybody wants to add to these 
questions.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Can you read that last 
sentence one more time?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Absolutely.  You have now visited 
three very different worlds.  Here are a few of the 
questions you might wish to consider for each scenario.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  May I make one suggestion, 
Juan?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Sure.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  In that last sentence, to say 
for these or other scenarios.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  For each -- for these and other 
scenarios you might envision.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Uh-huh.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I like that a lot.
		MS. MELLON:  Once you finish typing -- I would 
like, if I could, have you read just the first sentence 
again that list the four -- what are the, you know, the 
four -- I'm trying to see if that covers kind of the whole 
range of implications.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Fair enough.  Each of these 
scenarios has implications for farm income, private 
investment, USDA agendas and resources.
		MS. ZANNONI:  What about public investment?
		MS. LAYTON:  What about the environment?  He 
didn't have that either, but that's a USDA -- the 
environment is a USDA or government -- 
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Farm income, the environment -- 
		MR. GRANT:  You could really stretch that out 
but -- 
		MS. MELLON:  Yeah, you could go longer.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  I believe that's fair.  I think 
each of these scenarios has implications for farm income, 
the environment, trade, private investment, USDA agendas 
and resources.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Consumers.
		MS. LAYTON:  And the questions are going to be 
there at the end.  So -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I like it.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'd like to see one sentence at the 
end of questions you might want to consider.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Yeah.
		MR. GIROUX:  And that would be what's the 
deliverable of that, something like the questions are posed 
to provoke discussion and something the implications that 
you might want to consider.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  These questions are designed to 
provoke discussion and help you be prepared no matter -- 
help you prepare for -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Prepare for an uncertain 
future.
		MS. LAYTON:  Prepare for an uncertain future.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  So let me see if I got that 
right.  So the last sentence will read -- these questions 
are designed to help you prepare for an uncertain future.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah, provoke discussion.
		MS. LAYTON:  And to prepare you for an uncertain 
future.
		Then we have got the footnote in there on page 1 
about how to do scenarios.  So there is a footnote to a 
reference book that they can use.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  All right.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Can you read the whole shebang 
again, Juan?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Sure.  So the first paragraph 
will go on page 8 reads -- each of these scenarios has 
implications for farm income, consumers, the environment, 
trade, private investment, USDA agendas and resources.  We 
advise you to read the three scenarios without making value 
judgments or picking a favorite.  Instead, we advise you to 
consider what would be the consequences of each scenario, 
or some version thereof, came to pass.  After outlining the 
three scenarios, we will pose a series of specific 
questions which could help you work out some of the 
implications.  
		Then we have the questions and then the 
questions are introduced by the following paragraph.  I'm 
sorry.  Then we have the scenarios and then the questions 
are introduced by the following paragraph:  You have now 
visited three very different worlds.  Here are a few of the 
questions you might wish to consider for these and other 
scenarios you could envision.  These questions are designed 
to provoke discussion and help you prepare for an uncertain 
future.  
		MS. LAYTON:  I like that.  I think there needs 
to be some title in which you separate the last scenario 
with that question or that statement and question.  
Preparing for the future is our title.  What we know -- IÕm 
looking at what we've got in here as titles.  What is much 
less certain, envisioning a few possibilities and then I'm 
thinking it's a verb -- working through the implications, 
something like that.  I don't -- yes, Daryl.
		MR. BUSS:  Actually, I was going in a different 
direction.  I really like the symmetry of using that 
closure as a title and instead of saying preparing for the 
future as if we know what it's going to be -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. BUSS:  -- why wouldn't we say preparing for 
an uncertain future.  Because that really resonates what we 
would quote.
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm okay with that.
		MS. SULTON:  The title for the whole report.
		MS. LAYTON:  Title for the whole report.  Is 
preparing for an uncertain future, and so in the last 
paragraph, what if we say it again, preparing for the 
uncertain future -- preparing for an uncertain future.  
Okay.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.  With that --  
		MR. BUSS:  Before we were ready to close, I was 
just going to suggest looking at the questions.  Number 4, 
and what I was wondering on number 4 was whether we should 
slightly broaden that to be consistent with the rhetoric 
we've used elsewhere and say what are the implications of 
the scenario for consumers and for public acceptance?
		MS. LAYTON:  Or the implications of the -- 
		MR. BUSS:  Scenario for consumers and for public 
acceptance?  These are views that -- otherwise.
		MS. MELLON:  Didn't we already mention 
consumers?
		MR. JAFFE:  Not in the questions.
		MR. GIROUX:  Number 4 says public acceptance but 
consumers have public acceptance.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think that's good.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I agree.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Other with a question mark.  
Are we deleting that or is it going to say others without 
the brackets?
		MR. JAFFE:  I would delete that.
		MS. LAYTON:  Under number 1.  
		MR. SLOCUM:  And market segmentation to number 
1.
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm sorry.  Say that again?
		MR. SLOCUM:  We're going to add market 
segmentation to number 1.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Instead of other, that last 
bullet would be market segmentation?
		MR. SLOCUM:  Right.  
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Does number 5 cover that issue 
we're talking about in terms of solving problems -- solving 
diseases?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Is that part of food security 
because some people wouldn't think so.  Food security isn't 
solving a disease problem necessarily.
		MS. LAYTON:  Food security is making sure you 
have enough to eat.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Making sure you have enough to 
eat but people don't always translate that directly to 
solving a production problem.
		MR. SLOCUM:  So is food security and food 
sufficiency the same thing?
		MR. HOISINGTON:  No, they're different but I 
don't think many people would quite go into it as solving a 
disease problem.  It's a bigger issue.
		MS. LAYTON:  Actually I think the disease 
problem is an environmental problem.
		MR. GIROUX:  Is it global food security and 
self-sufficiency or is it U.S.?
		MR. SLOCUM:  I'd say global.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I think it's global.
		MR. SLOCUM:  Yesterday it was global.
		MS. ZANNONI:  And what about public sector 
investment, the universities and things?  Where's that 
caught in here?
		MR. SLOCUM:  The resources.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Michael, if I remember right, 
the problem was we were to focus on the implications to 
USDA, not, not in a broad sense.  That's why we limited it 
only to the USDA.  We didn't go into any of the 
universities or private sectors.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, I hate to say this, but 
there's not really a big line between USDA and our land 
grant university.  That's where the money comes from.
		MS. DILLEY:  Number 3 is specifically 
implications and scenario for USDA.
		MS. LAYTON:  And if you go to USDA, and you talk 
about research agenda, it immediately brings in the land 
grant universities.
		MS. ZANNONI:  What is it called in here?
		MR. JAFFE:  It says research agenda 3 -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  It's the last bullet of number 3.
		MR. OLSON:  But I don't think I'd cry over 
something like that, just to make sure -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  It's under private economic impact.
		MS. ZANNONI:  I think you need one for public 
someplace.
		MR. BUSS:  Because USDA has its own ARS in terms 
of -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It funds both.
		MS. LAYTON:  It funds both.
		MS. MELLON:  Well, maybe we should just say USDA 
research and -- USDA and land grant research agendas.
		MR. JAFFE:  Just put public research agenda.
		MS. DILLEY:  Public research agenda.
		MS. LAYTON:  So it that the -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Bullet 5.
		MS. DILLEY:  Public research agenda.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Public research agenda.  And 
I don't know what we did with Dave's suggestion on number 
5.  Is that now supposed to be for addressing global food 
sufficiency.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  I think it should be 
global food sufficiency.
		MS. CRAMER:  What kind of impacts on world 
development?  I mean there's a lot of effort at USDA to, 
you know, for protection of small farmers and do we want to 
-- can that be incorporated anywhere because that is an 
implication for various things.
		MS. SULTON:  It's a series of policies.
		MS. SULTON:  It is -- can it be under the first, 
what is it, economic impact of the scenario, economic 
growth, world development.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Farmer income and rural 
development.
		MS. LAYTON:  Farmer income and rural 
development.  Very good. Farmer income and rural 
development.
		Okay.  Anything else?  
		MS. MELLON:  We should delete that last 
paragraph, right?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yeah.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, we're only picking up 1 
through 5.
		MS. MELLON:  I just wanted to make sure.
		MR. OLSON:  Did you insert the word global on 5 
or just leave it the way it is?
		MS. LAYTON:  We inserted global.
		MS. CRAMER:  I mean we want to -- from their 
point of view, are there issues of U.S. food sufficiency as 
well, things like if we become a major food importer as 
opposed to just a food exporter, are there implications 
there and is that something -- I mean should we say in this 
context, the implications we're addressing, we're 
addressing global -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  None of the scenarios has 
envisioned the U.S. becoming a food importer.
		MS. CRAMER:  They're a food importer now.
		MR. JAFFE:  But not to the -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, but if you're a -- but if 
it's a global food sufficiency, you're part of the globe so 
they have included themselves.  
		Okay.  We need you to look at the first three 
paragraphs, preparing for the uncertain future on page 1 -- 
for an uncertain future -- page 1.  
		MS. DILLEY:  The AC21 has been charged with -- 
		MS. MELLON:  The title is now Preparing for an 
Uncertain Future?
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes.  I'm assuming that, Michael, 
you will send out the name of the committee the first time 
and put AC21 and let it go at that.  So I'm assuming you're 
doing those pieces.
		MR. GIROUX:  I'm getting some heartburn over the 
title.
		MS. LAYTON:  Express yourself.
		MR. GIROUX:  Talking about biotech and talking 
about an uncertain future just -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. GIROUX:  -- doesn't mean -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Are you comfortable with preparing 
for an uncertain future at the back of the questions, as 
the lead in for the questions?
		MS. SULTON:  For the analysis, for the 
scenarios?
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Okay.  Now once I establish 
that, then the title of the report is -- 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS:  Preparing for the 
Future.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Just -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  Is there any comment on the three 
introductory paragraphs?
		MS. LAYTON:  I just was actually going to think 
of preparing for the future:  the scenario process or 
something like that.  But that's probably dorky.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  No.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Can we do this without defining 
biotech?  We did it in the -- we're going into the bigger 
report.  I think we have -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  So footnote, agricultural 
biotechnology, blah, blah, blah -- 
		MS. SULTON:  And take the definition from the 
other report.
		MR. HOISINGTON:  Take the definition from the 
other report.
		MS. LAYTON:  So add definition -- 
		MR. HOISINGTON:  I'm not sure we need any other 
of those definitions.
		MS. LAYTON:  So that's -- and that can even be a 
footnote?
		MR. JAFFE:  Yeah, I think it should be.  
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  Anything else?
		MR. OLSON:  Just the European -- we're talking 
the middle of the first paragraph, relations between the 
United States and European Union, between North and South 
in general, I mean does that eliminate China, Japan or 
people like that or -- it says including.  So maybe it's 
all inclusive there.
		MS. LAYTON:  I thought China was considered as 
South when it comes to that.
		MS. DILLEY:  Is there better descriptor?
		MR. OLSON:  The United States and various 
trading partners or something like that or -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.  That's good.  
		MR. OLSON:  Otherwise, we'll have to define 
north and define south, or is that pretty well accepted.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  I think the North and South was 
really talking about, you know, this topic is just not 
about the United States.  It's between rich nations and 
poor nations.
		MS. ZANNONI:  Yeah, but nowadays you have 
economies thatÕs -- so it's not really so defined.
		MS. LAYTON:  On trade relations including those 
between the United States and its trading partners?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  And various trading 
partners.
		MS. LAYTON:  And various trading partners.  
		MR. GIROUX:  Can't we just say international 
trade relations -- international trade relations on 
biological diversity and development of international 
instruments.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. JAFFE:  I have something.  I have something 
to add.  I'd like to add this page 8, but it comes up on 
page 1, and that is, and I may be wrong, but we only really 
talk about that this a 10 year outlook is we say it looks 
like in a decade in the bold of the text, and then in the 
first scenario, we say by 2015.  To me that's not enough.  
I think -- so I was suggesting where we say each scenario 
is intended as a coherent description of what the world 
might look like, put 10 years from now or something like 
that.  I just think -- we all know it's 10 years from now 
but those two -- well, I don't think there's a big enough 
reference and I thought about putting it in the first but 
now I just actually think it's better off to put it at the 
beginning of the scenario.
		MS. LAYTON:  How about a decade from now after 
events driven by the uncertainties?
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Where are you?
		MS. LAYTON:  Page 8, big first bold paragraph  -
- each scenario is intended as a coherent description of 
what the world might look like a decade from now after 
events driven by the certainties and some of the key 
uncertainties listed above.
		MR. JAFFE:  I just think somewhere in there we 
have to say -- because the first one does say 2015, but the 
other two don't mention the date.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yeah.  
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Anything else?
		(No response.)
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  The rules.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Before we go to the rules, I did 
speak to Carole about this language.  I didn't speak to 
her, I left her a voice mail and she left me back a voice 
mail message, and I dictated the language to her in the 
voice mail message, and she had proposed changes to it, so 
let me provide those and I don't know whether we can have a 
conference call with her, so I don't know what to do but 
her proposed changes would be, the sentence would read -- 
consumers interest in seeking additional information about 
-- instead of their food -- the presence of GM ingredients 
in their food and then it would say -- is -- instead of 
stimulated -- increased by the -- and the remainder is the 
same.  So the two changes are to change the reference 
about, about their food to a more specific reference of the 
presence of GM ingredients in their food -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Not using GM of course.
		MR. JAFFE:  Right.  Whatever, biotech 
ingredients or something.  I don't think she would care 
about that, and then change stimulated to increased by.
		MR. OLSON:  I don't have a problem with the 
increased by but in food, we talk about biotech, we talk 
about -- because that also covers processing those goods 
and growing those goods and stuff like this.  So the whole 
section is about biotech, so I don't know why we need 
restate it in that text.  And it also picks up how it was 
processed, where it was grown.  The information is just 
bigger than just the -- 
		MS. DILLEY:  And I think that -- as I recall, 
the way that language came up, is consistent with what you 
guys did yesterday.
		MR. OLSON:  That was the guts of what we came up 
with the day before.
		MS. DILLEY:  So unless other people have a 
problem with increased, then we switch stimulated to 
increased and just leave it more generic in terms of what 
they're interested in.  
		MR. OLSON:  Well, I think the whole rest of the 
sentence deals with biotech, and I think it's there.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah, biotech crops.  I mean it's 
pretty implicit.
		MR. OLSON:  Yeah.  But the information is more 
than just about food content.  It's about processing, 
production methods.
		MS. MELLON:  But it doesn't really -- consumer's 
interest in seeking a different -- additional information 
about food isn't really increased by variability and -- 
labeling requirements in different countries.  I mean what 
is increased is an interest in seeking information about 
biotech ingredients in food.
		MR. OLSON:  That's why we moved that.  That's 
now how it reads anymore.  The bottom sentence, the bottom 
line is the top line.
		MR. GIROUX:  The first is a declarative 
sentence.  It says consumers are seeking more information 
about their food, and that stimulated by -- increased by.
		MR. OLSON:  And variability is the last part.  
The main thing is the biotech stuff.  
		MR. GIROUX:  And it's not just biotech.  They're 
looking for information about everything, and that was one 
of the big issues.  It covers safety, environment, 
processing efforts, not just the presence of biotech per 
se.  
		MR. OLSON:  We spent a lot of time on this. 
		MR. GIROUX:  So personally I would accept 
increasing bio -- if the greater committee reads that it 
was information about food including biotech -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Yeah.
		MR. GIROUX:  -- and not biotech specifically.  
		MR. JAFFE:  How about if we said that 
information.  How about if that is a compromise, additional 
information about their food and then (including biotech) 
is stimulated by -- is increased by 
-- excuse me.
		MR. GIROUX:  So there was a large group of 
people that went away for four hours and came up with 
language and that language specifically excluded using the 
word biotech food.
		MS. DILLEY:  I think we ought to go with just 
increased, and if Carol has problem, then I think she ought 
to talk with Ron.
		MR. OLSON:  No, I think the biotech food was 
picked up from the guts of the sentence.
		MS. DILLEY:  Yeah.  I mean -- 
		MR. OLSON:  So rather than change how we did 
everything else and do it again now, I think -- I probably 
have a problem with that.  I think the rest of the group 
would, too, a little bit, would be my guess after the 
discussions yesterday.
		MS. LAYTON:  Especially since Duane just left.
		MR. JAFFE:  I think it's already there. 
		MS. DILLEY:  And, you know, Carol does have the 
opportunity to express her concern and bring it to the 
working group.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.  
		MR. OLSON:  So we'll just leave it at increased 
which I think she would -- 
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.  
		MS. MELLON:  Actually stimulate did come from 
Duane.  If the rest of the committee is comfortable, he 
would be comfortable with that change.
		MR. OLSON:  I think so.
		MR. JAFFE:  Okay.  I raised and -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  You've raised it, and we took 50 
percent of it.  So we need to -- do we want to repeat that 
process just to remind yourselves or are we dwindling down 
to where -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  I would like to hear it one last 
time.
		MS. LAYTON:  You want to hear it one last time.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  The process, we are going to 
take all of these back, confer among the folks here, see if 
we can be sure what you all said, try to put together 
quickly within a week or 10 days, new versions containing 
all of what we thought we heard.  You will all have a 
working period to look at this, a review period of 10 days.  
		MR. JAFFE:  That's two weeks.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes, 10 working days.  Two 
regular weeks barring holidays.  We'll take responses via 
e-mail.  No response will be considered to be agreement.  
You can either accept the documents or say that you can't 
go along with them with a reason for a particular problem 
or raise a question specifically of fact check.
		MS. LAYTON:  You just can't say no.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  If there's a no, we will -- 
once we've tabulated all the votes, arrange a conference 
call with the work group which will be an open ended call.  
Anyone will be free to join.  We'll announce when they are.  
If the work group doesn't agree to put in the change, then 
we'll be either a minority report written and time allowed, 
a defined period of perhaps two weeks, to allow that person 
to produce that minority report to go along with.  If the 
minority report is not produced at that time, the report 
will go in and that person can say -- will have another 
opportunity to say whether they join the consensus or not.
		MR. GIROUX:  So my original understanding was 
that the minority report could come after.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  It can.
		MS. LAYTON:  Minority reports can come later.
		MR. GIROUX:  But why are we going to defer two 
weeks?
		MS. LAYTON:  I'm willing to go five days or 
something like that just to make sure -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Just to give the person an 
opportunity to write it and send it in at the same time if 
they wanted.
		MR. GIROUX:  So that it would go with the 
report?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Giving them an opportunity to 
do so if they wish.
		MS. LAYTON:  But at some point in time, if the 
work group did agree to put it in, we would all see a new 
version.  Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  No, I thought if you cared about it, 
you were on the call.
		MS. LAYTON:  You're on the call.  Okay.  
		MR. JAFFE:  And that's one thing that I was 
going to raise is that I'm assuming -- we've talked about 
complete transparency.  So any no vote, that e-mail with 
the reason goes to everybody and -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  It has to, yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- and so it's not a formalized -- 
if you have a problem, this is your reason, your proposed 
solution.
		MS. LAYTON:  Michael, you will forward that out 
to everyone?
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  
		MR. JAFFE:  In advance if you want to be on the 
call, I mean after it's gotten to you -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- the votes are tallied.
		MS. DILLEY:  Mardi.
		MS. MELLON:  This is probably hypertechnical, 
but there may be difficulties trying to schedule a call 
with the work group.  So you might want to consider earlier 
going through this process, requires that every person on 
the work group be on that call, whether it is most of the 
people on the work group would be enough.
		MS. LAYTON:  Yes. 
		MS. DILLEY:  And I think the other thing, where 
I thought you might be going, is that we just tentatively 
make schedules now because otherwise we don't want to make 
it delayed because we're late in getting schedules 
organized.
		MS. LAYTON:  Well, actually I'm hoping it's all 
yes and we'll cancel it.
		MR. ENRIQUEZ:  Yeah, unless someone has got such 
a strong objection that they want everybody -- 
		MR. GIROUX:  And they want to take the time to 
write a minority report.
		MS. DILLEY:  Okay.  Well, then -- okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me add one other thing to 
this process which hasn't been mentioned yet, and that's 
the matter of cover letters.  I would say that we -- if you 
give us a couple of extra days here, we will draft some 
cover letters for you to consider that we'll send out along 
with the documents.
		MR. JAFFE:  Fair enough.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Okay.
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Fair enough. 
		MS. MELLON:  And I would just suggest that the 
scenarios cover letter largely repeat what -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Yes.
		MS. MELLON:  -- here is the process, here's what 
it means and -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  And an exhortation to use them.  
Use the scenarios process.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Let me just outline for two 
minutes thoughts on where I think we're likely to be going 
schedule-wise for a little bit.  I presume this is going to 
take a little bit of time.  It will take a bit of time to 
get the membership sorted out.  I'm presuming that the next 
meeting would be June or July but that we will have work 
groups meeting on the other materials and some get up to 
speed work for the new members before then.  I would 
presume that we would still manage to have two more 
meetings after that this year, probably one in October and 
one in December.  So that we can get in the same number of 
meetings during this calendar year but not in this fiscal 
year because I envision that we're going to need a bunch 
more work groups to work through the issues.
		MR. JAFFE:  I guess I didn't know when you said 
work groups, what you meant by work groups?
		MS. LAYTON:  The issue group.
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Issue, introduction.
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, I guess -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Issues is the larger one.
		MR. JAFFE:  I guess I would -- I don't know how 
we can do this, and we shouldnÕt do it now at 4:00 -- 
		MS. LAYTON:  Right.
		MR. JAFFE:  -- but it seems to me that since 
we've now broken off one part of the report, of the paper, 
that we should have an issues paper until we get rid of the 
formality of this other one being -- I mean we may not need 
the introductory chapter.  We may not need this whole 
chapter about benefits.  We may just have another 10 page, 
15 page document about issues, and, and so we may need a 
couple of those definitions, but I guess my proposal would 
be that we not necessarily need an introductory work group, 
a definitions work group, but I don't know how we come to 
terms with that but when you said work group -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's a fair point.  Let's, 
let's let us at the USDA sit down.  Obviously we have a new 
Secretary coming in.  Let's talk about all of that and come 
back to you.
		MS. LAYTON:  There may be additional issues that 
this Secretary wants the community to deliberate such as -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  That's a very good point.  
		MR. JAFFE:  Well, I mean my view is how hard 
it's been to get the global traceability and labeling 
report, how we've had two and a half meetings now just to 
go through word changes and a lot of time, and how long it 
took us to write that as a group and so forth, a 30 page 
document.  I mean we may be better off having a more 
streamlined issues paper -- paper I'm calling it, the 15 
pages that is not as elaborate as some of us have dreamed 
over these last two years to get it done in the time frame 
which we have of a couple of more meetings.  So anyway -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Point well taken, and we need 
to check the pulse on what the new Secretary would like in 
the way of new things.  So we will get back to you on that.
		MS. LAYTON:  Okay.  My read on this is that the 
earliest this will go to the Secretary is in early March.  
That would be -- 
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Late March.
		MS. LAYTON:  This is if everyone said yes.  
Okay.  Mid to late March, if everyone said yes.  If we have 
nos, it's going to run into April.  Does that sound right?  
Just so everybody has a complete expectation here? 
		UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Yes.
		MR. JAFFE:  Yes.  Minimum of four weeks from 
today is the middle of March.
		MS. LAYTON:  Middle of March.  And if we have an 
extra few days to get a call in.  I'm so proud of 
everything.  Thank you very much.  
		MS. MELLON:  Before we break, I just wanted to 
say thank you and good-bye to the two folks who have been 
with us for so long.  We really couldn't have done it 
without you, and I'm personally going to miss both of you a 
lot.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  Thank you both very much.  
		MS. LAYTON:  Terry, we said about you yesterday, 
and who else went off?  Keith.  And Keith hasn't been here.  
David, good luck in your new position, and we'll come to 
see you in India.  
		MR. SCHECHTMAN:  This meeting has once again 
been an adventure.  Thank you all.
		MS. LAYTON:  Thank you.  We are adjourned.
		(Whereupon, the meeting was closed at 4:00 p.m.)



















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

190

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