DS 3
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
------X
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON :
BIOTECHNOLOGY AND 21ST CENTURY :
AGRICULTURE :
------X
A meeting in the above-entitled matter was held on March 5, 2012, commencing at 9:03 a.m. at the United States Access Board Conference Room, 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20004-1111.
Russell C. Redding, Committee Chair
Michael G. Schechtman, Executive Secretary
APPEARANCES
Russell Redding, Chair
Michael Schechtman, Executive Secretary
Dr. Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes, Guest Speaker
Cathy Greene, Guest Speaker
Marcella Szymanski
Committee Members:
Isaura Andaluz
Paul C. Anderson
Laura Batcha
Daryl D. Buss
Lynn E. Clarkson
Leon C. Corzine
Michael S. Funk
Melissa L. Hughes
Gregory A. Jaffe
David W. Johnson
Keith F. Kisling
Josephine (Josette) Lewis
Mary-Howell R. Martens
Marty D. Matlock
Angela M. Olsen
Jerome B. Slocum
Latresia A. Wilson
Non-USDA Officials:
Robert Frederick
DS 3
P R O C E E D I N G
MR. SCHECHTMAN: By the way, if you’d like to make your own presentation --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I’m more than happy to do it, but it’s entirely up to you.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: I --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really have no particular sense of ownership of that stuff.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I just try to do a service, so.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: Well, I could do it nicer, because I’d like to have your perspective here.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: Because you could correct everybody around this table, it’s a pretty good --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: You seem to be able to balance them with any of us. So --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don’t have any ideology, you know.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: I have a hunch that I’m going to be defending something --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay. You’d like to verify a report of it --
MR. SCHECHTMAN: I’d prefer, but I don’t want to be --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: -- on --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Reporting and then, yes, I know what you mean.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: And all the time. If that’s not good, not comfortable to have, okay.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, thanks. I’ll keep that --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, how you doing, good to see you.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: Good morning.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good morning.
MR. SCHECHTMAN: This is the third meeting of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s advisement committee on biotechnology in the 21st century agriculture or AC21. The third meeting since the Secretary of Agriculture brought back the AC21 after a hiatus of about two and a half years. My name is Michael Schechtman, and I am the Executive Secretary and designated federal official for the AC21. I’d like to welcome you all to this meeting and to Washington D.C. if you happen to have come here from out of town. I would like to welcome our committee members. I believe 22 out of the 23 of whom are here, as well as some of our ex officio members as well from other federal departments and agencies, and all members of the public who have come here today to listen to our proceedings and perhaps to provide statements to the committee later this afternoon. I’d also like to welcome our chairman, Mr. Russell Redding, Dean of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at Delaware Valley College, and former Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture and whom you’ll hear in a few minutes. I’d like to offer my thanks to the U.S. Access Board, whose lovely facility we are privileged to be able to use for this meeting, it’s a Board that discusses issues around accessibility for the disabled. So this is a very, very nice facility we have to use here. For this meeting, we will have Marcella Szymanski, who was recently on detail at USDA but is now back to her official job at the State Department, but is here at this table today and tomorrow to help this process along by taking notes throughout the meeting. Thank you very much, Marcella.
Before we start the meeting, I’d like to apologize to the committee members and to members of the public regarding the short official notice for this meeting. There were some administrative delays that we had that put us off schedule, and given the timeline under which this committee is operating, we did not think it was possible to postpone this meeting. I will make sure that the next meetings are a long notice to the Government, much more in advance, so this won’t happen again. As always, we have a very full agenda, so we ask that when the meeting is in session, conversations need to be limited to those between members. The public will be invited to participate by providing comments to the committee and to USDA this afternoon between 3:15 and 5:00 p.m. I think we have some individuals signed up to provide comments at this meeting. Members of the public who have pre-registered to provide comments, please be sure you have signed up on the comment list so that we can call you in order. We’ll be a little more flexible about people who wish to comment at this meeting because of the delay in getting the notice out. Anyone else planning to provide comments, though, please do sign up this morning. We will be preparing the minutes of this meeting, and a computer transcript of the meeting will also be available within a few weeks. We will get the minutes and all meeting announcements up on the web. The website address for the AC21 is pretty long, and I won’t state it here, but the website can be accessed quite easily by going to the main USDA website at www.usda.gov, clicking on biotechnology on the menu at the left, and then clicking on the committee. The members of the press, you are welcome to speak to whomever you wish during the breaks of our meeting and before or after the meeting itself. We ask that you not conduct any interviews or request comments from members while the AC21 is actually in session. Mr. Redding, our chair, and I will be available for questioning and comments at the end of each day of the meeting. On housekeeping issues, we’d also request that all members of the AC21 as well as all members of the, of the audience and the press, please shut off your cell phones and any beepers while in this room. They interfere with the microphones and with our recording of the meeting, in order to produce the transcript that we need, that we need to produce and publish on the web. Bathrooms are located on the opposite side of the elevator outside, outside of the meeting room.
One other important matter that I need to mention, please when you wish to speak, use the tent cards that are in front of you. Please turn them on end when you wish to be recognized. And also for the transcript, please do identify yourself when called on to speak. Just inside the door, there’s a table with documents on it. Please take only one copy of any document. We don’t want to run out. Among handouts is the detailed meeting agenda. Please note that there are breaks scheduled this morning and afternoon. Coffee is provided for committee members in the little alcove back there. Members of the public note that there are coffee shops located on the streets where they have, to provide coffee for you, for this meeting. If there are any additional documents distributed by AC21 members, please be sure and provide me copies of those documents.
For each member of the public who speaks during the public commentary, I will need a hard copy of your remarks and an electronic copy so that we can post them on the website. I’d like to repeat again we are planning for a period of one-and-three-quarters hours for public comments, from 3:15 to 5:00 p.m. today. We want to be responsive to the needs of the public and we’ll see how the meeting progresses, how we need to structure that time. Let me repeat again that if you wish to make a public comment and you’ve pre-registered, please sign in at the door, and if you have not, but plan to do, or plan to give a public comment, please sign up at the door. Commenters will have five timed minutes to provide their comments.
At this meeting, we hope to build on the positive work of the first two meetings, and on the efforts of the four working groups that have been busily discussing relevant issues since our last meeting in December, in order to gather information for the full committee. I will describe the working groups in a few minutes. Members of the committee, you are well aware of the charge from the Secretary, but let me reiterate it for members of the public. Within the overall context of strengthening coexistence among different agricultural methods, the charge is to address the following questions: one, what types of compensation mechanisms, if any, will be appropriate to address economic losses by farmers in which the value of their crops is reduced by unintended presence of GE materials? Two, what will be necessary to implement such methods? That is, what would be the eligibility standard for a loss, and what tools and triggers, for example, tolerances, testing protocols, et cetera, would be needed to verify and measure such losses and determine if claims are compensable? Three, in addition to the above, what other actions will be appropriate to bolster or facilitate coexistence among different agricultural production systems in the United States?
This charge was given with the caveat that work on questions one and two are to be completed before work is undertaken on item three. The charge is provided to the committee and the public as a background document near the door. In addition, we are keeping a compiled list of what we call parked items to be addressed when we get to question three. That list is included within the meeting summary for the August plenary session near the end of the document. I haven’t put copies of that document, of that earlier meeting summary out today, in order to save paper, but it is online and copies of the parked list are available, if anyone is interested in them or if we need to refer to them during the meeting.
Let me now reiterate to the committee and indicate to the public a little more of the history of the work of the AC21 at the first plenary session and the interval between that meeting and now. At their first meeting, committee members discussed the, the Secretary’s charge in some detail, listened to several presentations, and in getting down to business decided that the four working groups should be established, that four working groups should be established to gather and organize materials for the committee to consider on four topics, which were size and scope of risks, potential compensation mechanisms, eligibility standards and tools and triggers, and who pays. The first two of these working groups started their discussions before the second plenary session, the other two after the second plenary. As a result, these groups have each met between two and five times. We will shortly here report-outs from each group and meeting summaries from all the working meetings that have taken place since the last plenary session. Those meeting summaries are provided at the door.
I should mention that work groups are, as required by law, populated by individuals with a balanced range of perspectives. We have included both AC21 members and some outside individuals to achieve balance in these groups. A handout at the door lists the names of the individuals in each. Now, onto documents provided for AC21 members and the public. To start, we have the Federal Register Notice announcing this meeting and the provisional meeting agenda, which we’ll go over in a moment. Also there are copies of the AC21 charter and the bylaws and operating procedures for the committee and a package containing biographical information for each of the AC21 committee members. We also have a statement of the charge to the committee from Secretary Vilsack. As I mentioned, we have a list of members in each of the working groups. We have several meeting summaries: the summary from the last, the last meeting, the second plenary session, and the summaries from all of the working group meetings that have taken place since the last plenary session organized by working group in one large document package.
Let me mention in reference to one of the summaries, the summary for the most recent meeting on February 15th of this year, of the who-pays working group, working group four, that in the appendix to that summary, where there’s a list of potential principles that might help guide the who-pays decision if a compensation mechanism is decided to be appropriate. In that list of, in that summary, this appendix of potential principles contained a list of principles that have been submitted by members which have not yet been discussed. And in that list, there is one omission. That list should include as a potential principle avoidance of policy or regulation that discourages innovation. That should be added.
Also, in reference to the work of one of these working groups, the size and scope of risks group, we have reprinted one page from an Organic Trade Association white paper that discusses the frequency of detection, detections of GE material in organic and identity-preserved non-GE corn, identity-preserved non-GE corn and soybeans. This page provides context for one important analysis which I’m sure will be discussed in this meeting entitled scope and market scale of adventitious presence of GMOs in corn and soy, which is found as an appendix to the January 17th summary of the size and scale of risks work group in the summary package.
In addition, just as at the previous two meetings, we have provided on the table in the back an earlier summary, an earlier paper on the subject of coexistence prepared by a previous iteration of this committee as a background document. The paper was entitled What Issues Should USDA Consider Regarding Coexistence Among Diverse Agricultural Systems in a Dynamic, Evolving, and Complex Marketplace? It was an analytical paper rather than one that gave USDA much in the way of concrete recommendations on this topic. As I’ve noted in each of the previous two committee meetings, Secretary Vilsack is asking his committee to go beyond the analyses to recommendations. The paper contained a working definition for coexistence as follows: coexistence refers to the concurrent cultivation of conventional, organic, and genetically engineered crops consistent with underlying consumer preferences and choices. At the first AC21 meeting this past August, members opted to add the word farmer before the word choices, as this group’s working definition of coexistence, so that it now reads concurrent cultivation consistent with underlying consumer preferences and farmer choices. The committee also decided to leave it to the initial drafters of this committee’s future report and recommendations, the chair and I, how to address some of the complexities around the use of the word conventional. So that’s something we’ll face down the road. Now, from USDA’s perspective, there are three main objectives for this meeting. They are first, to consider the reports of the four working groups on the progress of their analyses relevant to the overall AC21 charge. This will take us, take up the morning’s discussions today. Second, to listen to a panel discussion on crop stewardship measures in different agricultural sectors. There will be discussion of stewardship measures recommended and/or used by different entities involved in agricultural production. One member of that panel discussing today will not be here in the flesh, but will be calling in from the Midwest. We were not able to bring him here because he was scheduled to be in South America today from where he was going to call into this meeting, but at the last minute his plans changed and we couldn’t bring him here in person. So he’s calling in. Third, to explore areas of agreement among members, and this is where the discussions are going to be very, very important in our process today and tomorrow. And finally, to continue overall discussions on committee charge and on planning subsequent work.