I would like to think those

I would
1
individuals.
2
the
3
this
agency,
4
that
you value
5
ignorance,
FDA, who have
who have
agency
are
8
continued
not
in Europe
11
Round-Up
12
lymphoma.
those
the
shown by your
of
public
you within
current
policies
actions
science
good above corporate
directed
that
at
my coming
above
profits.
remarks
And thank
you.
of
and attitudes
above propaganda,
you
to
for
the
your
on our behalf.
Two recently
10
think
against
understand
effort
9
to
principles
Please
7
stood
.and the
6
like
have found
exposure
In
published
epidemiological
a statistically
for
hairy
a polled
studies
significant
cell
leukemia
analysis
risk
from
and non-Hodgkin
that
is
about
to
be
Because of FDA's policies
'this
risk
is large.
*
the public
has absolutely
no way to protect
secrecy,
published,
of
15
itself
from
16
prove
17
we label
surprises,
to pose a danger
these
The
18
19
truth
20
that
21
be a lie.
22
arrests,
23
know
24
industry
I
from
crops
and,
we do not
care.
as this,
to the
food
gone
then,
thatyour
manner
policies
and the
saw nothing
to
Seattle
We are willing
and all
the
of
of
will
Food
this
cancer
its
way
beatings,
not
hide
to
to
The
stand.
the
gloat
attitude
gasings,
brutality
of Monsanto
Quality
to
that
that
crops."
ignorance
has proved
police
finding
I propose
for
use our
to face
shareholders
in
out
should
supply.
"Round up ready
FDA has
us;
such
to
false
let
you
chemical
can be damned.
Production
Act
that
302
1
requires
2
or the
the
FDA to protect
the
of Monsanto
This
is
It's
4
science.
5
about
6
subvert
7
of
6
however.
9
subservience
the
not
not
almighty
even the
corporate
about
about
dollar,
highest
democracy;
the
and the
raw power
levels
to the
industry
MR. LAKE:
Thank you,
11
MR. GUY:
-
public
outrage
that
that
will
13
M.R. LAKE:
14
[Applause.]
to
the
in
in your
sir.
finally
continue
woken
Thank you.
16
CAROL B. SLOAN
17
NUTRITION AND FOOD SERVICE CONSULTANT
MS . SLOAN:
Sloan.
I'm
2a
American
and the
21
a nutrition
2i
area
2:
health
care
2L
safety
inspections
of
Good
a registered
MY
safety.
facilities
Dietetic
service
I
consult
experience
Carol
Berg
and a member
of
Association.
I have
and work
and conduct
every
I'm
afternoon.
dietitian
California
consulting
food
a vast
to grow.
STATEMENT OF
19
order,
groveling
15
18
will
-
you've
only
is
money has to
are
so blatant
about
This
of government
being
chemical
not
planet.
Some things
boardrooms.
Thank you for
it's
feeding
10
2f
or Dow
rest.
3
12
profits
primarily
with
restaurants
over
300 food
in
the
the
and
service
year.
consulting
in
food
service
303
1
departments
2
mainly
3
products
4
California
5
a food
indicates
concerned
meet
with
the
the
What
6
food-borne
9
the
issues
handling
be spent
in this
use foods
are
area
of
convenient
also
and
available
15
offer
16
fungicides,
is
17
the
nutrient,content
18
SUPPlY I why not
19
precious
which
will
2i
genetically
21
environment
food
prevention
education
is
of
needed
of whether
or not
embrace
in
should
we should
If
the
use
friendly
food
of
and to animal
regulate
has
products
the
use
of
improve
of the
for
what
the
safety
is
food
more
of
our
always
been
that
new
are
safe
to
the
be a concern,
for
and human health.
proteins
tested
is
pesticides,
and will
it,
is
supply?
to
priority
that
a technology
reduce
and support
engineered
rigorously
food
and productivity
a nation's
and top
nutritious
protection,
environmentally
Allergenic
they!re
or not
in
and effort
reduce
The FDA continues
supply
concern
More time
want
help
disease
plant
food
more
affordable.
14
21
the
are bioengineered.
tasty,
2c
of
Not whether
greatest
instead
13
than
food
requirements
Law.
and also
Consumers
quality,
and that
code,
sanitation
techniques.
that
are
of cross-contamination,
illness,
food
food
employees
engineered.
Prevention
service?
model
service
Food Facilities
is genetically
7
food
general
Retail
6
10
that
should
by the
not
EPA and the
FDA.
The
304
1
process
of
determining
2
issues
of
3
pharmaceutical
4
new
5
coverage
6
skewed logic
new
a
allergenicity
drug.
Concerned
'
based
are
similar
must
undergo
food
companies
often
6
very
excited
9
profession
about
and for
the
Thank you very
11
i¶R. LAKE:
12
[Applause.]
seek
of all
Thank you,
16
WESTERN GROWERSASSOCIATION
MS. MANNION:
Western
Growers
20
ship
21
submitted
22
points
fresh
more
at this
24
labeling
policy
25
derived
through
WGA members
in
in
California,
comments.
I'll
Affairs
for
the
grow,
pack
and
Arizona.
just
I've
make a few
time.
WGA supports
23
my
Kathy
I'm
of Government
Association.
extensive
am
for
afternoon.
Good
director
produce
I
malam.
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAFFAIRS
19
and
much.
15
the
emotion
consumers.
KATHY MANNION
I'm
a
balance
biotechnology
14
Mannion.
of
a parent,
STATEMENT OF
16
that
approval
13
17
those
of the
and
of
future
future
10
for
safety
new technology.
dietitian
the
to
because
accompanies
As a registered
7
other
should
consumers
on sound science
that
and
with
the
respect
biotechnology.
current
to
FDA science-based
food,
or food
This
policy
ingredients,
provides
that
305
products
of food
biotechnology
2
labeling
and safety
3
U.S.
are subject
policies
applied
to the
to
all
same FDA
foods
in
the
marketplace.
WGA supports
4
5
allows
for
6
and not
7
framework
6
labeling
9
consumer
the
voluntary
labeling
consumer
food
of
10
marketplace.
11
products
12
willing
13
will
produced
pay
quickly
is
our
occur
in
belief
that
response
biotechnology
for
and
of
food
to
in
market
labeling
the
competition
an identified
without
are truthful
provides
is
of
which
the
food
customers
so produced
follow.
15
food
ingredients
16
that
‘such
17
interest.
18
would
19
misleading
relates
to mandatory
produced
with
suggest
a health
risk
about
Agricultural
21
provide
22
agricultural
23
represents
the
24
innovations
to
25
include
is
the
consumer
to
and the
mentioned,
WGA
Value-added
industry.
consumer
demands
in
carrots,
mixed
baby
thus,
potential
produce
salads,
labeling
foods.
has the
both
and
public
none;
of these
As previously
fresh
meet
to
the
mandatory
there
safety
foods
WGA believes
serve
that
where
the
benefits
industry.
packaged
not
biotechnology
significant
of
biotechnology,
WGA believes
consumers
labeling
would
a requirement
Instead,
20
will
a premium,
As it
14
It
choice.
there
that
policy
and as a result
If
to
labeling
products
preference
policy
statements
This
misleading.
for
FDA labeling
recent
years
vegetables
306
1
ready
for
stir
frying,
sliced
2
KR. LAKE: .Thank
3
[I'ipplause.
you,
and so forth.
malam.
]
STATEMENT OF
4
MARTIN J.
5
SPROUL, ESQ.
SPROUL LAW OFFICES
6
MR. SPROUL:
7
8
Sproul,
and
9
citizen;
and also
10
mushrooms,
U.S.
Congress
I'm
here
in the
12
species
13
regulatory
categories,
14
When
FDA
15
engineering
16
breeding
17
scientific.
18
consideration
rapidly
21
addictive
has
23
drug.
24
easily
25
is
decided
that
different
issues.
in
into
tobacco
and opium
We are
losing
exercisable
subtle
has
developed
through
developed
by other
political,
not
and
a false
biased
paradigm.
have we witnessed
Biotech
the
right,
choose
foods
has engineered
and plans
distinction
combinations
and
mission.
was
the
means to
breached
regulatory
imposed
history
drugs?
only
prejudged
It
for
conceptual
food
decision
decision
of the
The public
food
private
candidate
not
the
Martin
District.
blurred
from
that
The
natures
also
weakening
methods,
22
Law Party
has
it
morphing
attorney,
engineering
When before
20
an
Congressional
was not
19
as
My name is
Seventh
barriers,
the
today
as a Natural
Genetic
11
Good afternoon.
more
more nutraceuticals.
and
to
between
food
and
should
have
the
consume
and balances
of
foods
that
nutrients
307
with
2
drug-delivery
3
folks
in
are
they
that
confidence
1
or that
systems,
not
patchwork
brainchildren
of
be expressed
in
labs.
Functional
4
5
language
6
human
7
scientific,basis
8
acts,
9
engineered,
that
public
to
Though
technocrats
mind.
for
between
and
between
have
11
regulating
human
12
distortion
of words
I just
and hypocrisy
16
a business.,
17
professors
have
18
biotech
19
It's
useful
Bad
the
industry.
beneficial
in
begins
with
of meaning.
I'd
attack
like
on Dr.
(sic)
partisan
So much
and
definite
to
for
Fagan,
pointed
out,
cheerleaders
researcher
The
add.
has shown astounding
Cantelera
become
the
natural
Such
and
the
and unfree
government
one comment
today
free
drugs.
of
question
between
and corruption
As Dr.
have
may
and
conduct.
categories
between
proved
insuring
I
natural
crimes,
foods
long
industry,here
15
must
distinctions
torts
categories
biotech
policy
corresponds
10
cynicism
for
having
many Cal
of
the
objectivity.
a shame.
MR. LAKE:
20
Thank you,
sir.
21
STATEMENT OF
22
BOB CANNARD
23
CANNARD FARMS
MR. CANNARD:
24
25
surreptitious
organic
farm.
Bob
Cannard,
Cannard
Farms,
an
Until
1
2
controlled
3
organic
4
levels
5
be exceeded.
the
from
pollens
in
you talk
the
about
The crops
6
7
into
the
a
radicchio,
9
escarole,
small
and
nutritionally
11
greens,
12
will
soon
13
it's
3 years
14
crops.
15
and wheat,:
16
patenting
17
the
18
patented.
19
their
20
longer
21
very
22
up*
way
on your
be
all
from
we're
now,
the
big
material
25
drive
to
down,
get
it's
all
beet
to the
corn
group,
Whether
small
and soy beans,
as we allow
various
small
crops,
and
carrot,
will
seed
difficult
been in trying
ballot
to
all
be
them,
We will
stocks.
available
my position,
on the
winter
various
be introduced
stocks
important,
Cichorium
as we allow,
extremely
a measure
and
important
with
will
food
is
endives
very
5 years,
but
table
Now this
the
all
to
It's
family,
it's
down
drift
reaching
farmers.
soon,
the
small,
the
what
soon
radicchio,
of
any
they'll
us as organic
ones;
of
matter
to
working
can be
knell
chicoria
other
continue,
easy to do.
this
the
to
will
of -
greens
or whether
crops
premissible,
healthfully
be taken
have traditional
slow
doesn't
list
the
winter
pollens
24
It
cross-pollinated
of
Genetic
23
death
as being
bitter
*
Right
the
nation.
important,
the
is
vegetables,
can
10
modified
this
drift,
industry
of these
It's
to us.
to clean
no
things
my work.
To try
to
a petition
sponsor
in
California
to
to
309
require
2
should
food
labeling,
This
www.calrighttono.
be doing.
3
Thank you.
4
MR. LAKE:
5
[Applause.]
Thank you,
sir.
6
STATEMENT OF
7
MILTON P. GORDON
PROFESSOR OF BIOCHEMISTRY
‘8
UNIVERSITY
9
opportunity
to talk
I:'rn
1
12
14
University
15
Science
Board
16
Lahore,
Pakistan.
17
third-world:
of
I
19
think
I'm
20
make,
in
21
distinction,
22
happens
23
years,
24
different
25
United
for
feel
the
the
Center
I
limited
in nature.
have
lonely
of
laboratories,
which
that
the
there
the
Biology
Italy,
here
in
with
point
is
because
I
I want
to
not
engineering
understand,
show that
of
experience
sad
genetic
I don't
in
some
But
is
man-made
of
at the
a member
Molecular
and
one.
time,
professor
problems.
have been manuscripts
States,
the
sciences
also
of
and their
rather
between
there
I'm
So
a minority
a
and ecological
Washington.
countries
I
I'm
Gordon.
microbiology
biochemistry,
I appreciate
to you.
Milton
13
18
OF WASHINGTON
Good afternoon.
DR. GORDON:
10
11
is work you
in the
France,
solinacious
but
for
press,
Japan
plants,
a clean
and what
13 or
from
14
four
and the
many of
310
them
contain
already
organism
that
occurred
used
maybe 10 to
by the
change
preserved
9
this
afternoon
10
four
laboratories.
if
in the
that's
about
Now there
11
12
in
13
agrobacterium
14
true,
15
and radishes
16
other
17
knowledge.
best
the
They've
into
have
not
been tested,
19
MR. LAKE:
Thank
20
DR. GORDON: That's
done
have
only
there
label
all
the
to
oranges,
the
in
done
also
What about
stores?
like
heard
Now supposing
grocery
foods,
here
we've
It's
that
we have to
Do other
a gene
that
which
indicate
a mutant
bacteria.
engineering.
and radish.
mean that
gene has been
back
fact
This
as we can tell
and in the
some papers
in carrots
foods?
plants
which
in
put
So you
the
are
ago,
But the
it's
the
engineering.
years
genetic
laboratory,
does that
genetic
function.
function
agrobacterium,
DNA sequence.
will
I think
from
40 million
'in the
it
will
one
in
so much that,
bacterium,
which
is
genes
are
this
carrots
all
best
turnips,
the
of my
celery
18
you,
sir.
Thank you.
it?
21
STATEMENT OF
22
ALAN MOORE
23
CITY OF BERKELEY BUTTERFLY GARDENERS ASSOCIATION
MS. MOORE:
24
25
representing
the
My name is
position
of
Alan
the
Moore
Butterfly
and I'm
here
Gardeners
311
1
Association;
2
Mendocino
3
Citizens
the Patch Adams Peace and Justice
Center,
the
'(
'Coast
Environmental
Center,
the
Bay Area
Circle,
grow.
the
World
Trade
was a recent
Organization
Our
Defenders."
McConnell,
10
Julia
Helen
other
failing
13
technological
14
improving
15
health
16
has tainted
17
antibiotics,
18
recombinant
19
consequences
20
increasing+,
to
Rabbi
Alliance
as
article
on the
a
Donald
Brower,
John
Patch
Adams,
Wolf,
Lerner,
has been far
regulate
and welfare
of
food,
genetic
that
big
and over
lax
2000
are
American
meat,
of
poultry
mainly
so-called
namely
rather
public.
hormones,
in approving
array
corporations,
materials,
were
too
a whole
of the
growth
whose
a
than
the
supply
whole
health
ignored,
on
Such practices
and milk
and
focused
but
host
effects
are
with
of
and
becoming
1.1understood.
While
21
"Butterfly
and individuals.
health
our
called
David
Michael
improvements
the
Seattle
Neal
Our government
and
Magazine
includes
Butterfly,
organj.zations
12
Time
in
group
Caldicott,
11
22
poison
our
23
imagine
that
24
same technologies
25
Renaissance
;
There
Dr.
Global
'food
we may have
supply
the American
threaten
When genetically
in
allowed
you
the
past,
public
will
to
there
acquiesce
pollute
is
and
no way to
when these
butterflies.
altered
crops,
such as BT corn,
312
1
were
shown'recently
2
Butterfly
3
stopped,the
4
European
5
love
a Cornell
caterpillars,
of
.it
exportation
Union
world
to
realize
7
corporations
8
raised
Chip
10
group
dedicated
to
11
cited
as saying
that
12
the potential
the
to raise
protect
rooted
of
of the
the
University
of
of
the
new corn
hell
with
and regulatory
Watch,
a
Monarchs,
was
and soy bean crops
have
Monarchs.
you,
That's
Kansas
sir.
When we allow
it.
agencies,
who are
these
supposed
to
!,
us MR. LAKE:
17
18
at
the
the
multinational
conservation
MR. MOORE:
16
these
Monarch
14
’
that
that
to
consciousness
of
MR. LAKE: 'Thank
corporations
seeds
and director
13
15
uproar
us with.
Taylor,
Department,
Monarch
The deep
the
dangers
kill
transgenic
countries.
were threatening
:.
Dr.
Etymology
the
to
a worldwide
of these
that
:.
study
created
and other
butterflies
6
9
at
you.
your
Sir,
tow
minutes
is
up.
Thank
<
19
STATEMENT OF
20
SHEILA BARRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ALAMEDA COUNTY RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT
21
MS.
22
23
executive
24
Conservation
25
land
owners
BARRY:
officer
I'm
for
the
This
District.
promoting
Sheila
soil
Barry.
Alameda
district
and water
I serve
County
works
with
conservation.
as the
Resource
private
313
I want
Today,
1
2
importance
of
3
engineering,
in
4
our
providing
air,
We have
5
6
conserving
7
conflicting
8
of
9
conflicts
our
our
natural
and
are
10
newspaper:
11
demanding
12
generally
13
production,
14
to pay for,it;
15
forcing
evident
cheap,
food
safe
and (3)
urban
used
17
us,
18
when,
19
houses,
to
instead
the
of software
valley
In
20
as the
terms
of
public
Endangered‘Species
Act,
22
Programs
lands
23
So how can .we continue
24
demands?
In
25
land
less
with
taking
short,
to
that
(2)
people
used
Valley,
Valley
of
with
in
the
and able
policy
are
Fed
our
meet
of
just
Hearts
south
of
Delights,
companies,
and
orchards.
policies
Open
Space
agriculture
the
public's
how can we produce
chemicals?
any
land.
policy,
Cal
2;
are
food;
and semiconductor
was covered
at
population
and public
'The Silicon
be known
These
even willing
growth
to be grown on less
we have
glimpse
and herbicide
some are
in
to the production
a quick
high-quality,
food;
us
resources.
a growing
For example:
16
our
just
pesticide
of
of
notably,
in regards
we have
:want less
I
of their
,
ahead
Most
of
with
genetic
and people.
resources.
conservation
the
conservation
challenges
and needs
(1) I
for
wildlife
enormous
desires
food
solutions
water,
regarding
including
biotechnology,
land,
soil,
to make a statement
more
like
the
Protection
production.
conflicting
food
on less
314
We are wise
1
2
solution.
And
3
proceed
with
4
continue
to
5
thoughtfully
6
responsible,
7
protect
our
8
unknown
risk
:
9
death,
to
look
as with
any
new
I
want
caution.
take
every
step
informed.
for
towards
to
biotechnology
technology,
to
insure
that
it
environment
the
if
MR. LAKE:
11
[Applause.]
and
zeal
children
GE foods
they
to
from
starved
Thank you,
to
ma'am.
12
STATEMENT OF
13
GREGORY FRANKEL, PROJECT COORDINATOR
THE GREEN LINK,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
BERKELEY
BERKELEY FOOD POLICY COUNCIL
15
MR. FRANKEL:
16
17
Frankel.
18
"The
19
Department
of Pesticide
20
ecologically
based
21
University
Hello!
discussions,
24
not
management.
of California
I want
23
Regulation
pest
to
and well-rounded
I just
Gregory
a project
by
the
called
California
to provide
education
It's
through
run
to
say,
on having
discussions.
I hope you take
want
for
is
on
the
at Berkeley.
commend you all
a smoke screen.
name
MY
I'm the project
coordinator
!\
Green' Link,"
which
is funded
22
25
is
..
10
14
to
public
in our
children's
with
you
thoughtful
be an irony
and our
associated
be
a
we must
encourage
We must
wouldn't
for
right
it
off
open panel
I hope
all
to
the
it's
light.
bat,
that
I
1
support
labeling
2
modified
organisms.
the
of
I'm
GE corgorations
earlier
if
understand
issues
7
with
that.
It
8
fear
behind
their
9
supporting
opposition
1992
bottom
11
done on this
issue
12
back
to
1992
like
it's
to
study
of
that
you all
of
outdated,
product,
the
I
labeling
be associated
amount
of
And many of them are
put
that
has been
So to
then.
scientific
since
Except
out.
research
has been done since
a little
their
would
why
To echo
a significant
of the
findings
out
this.
about
it.
that
most
line,
figuring
concerned
there's
genetically
with
so proud
seems like
that,
topic
they're
costs
10
the
trouble
incremental
the
contain
so concerned
why they're
and the
the
that
having
are
remarks,
don't
evidence
it's
been
refer
seems
such
a new
of discussion.
Another
15
grips
with
point
that
was that
Dr.
16
to
17
it's
18
human health
19
went
through
20
that
EPA goes through
21
about
nutritional
22
testing;
but
23
discussionof
the
goal
of the
but
the
discussion
especially,;
also
on the
didn't
the
are
really
testing
it
Maryanski
seems
talking
of
the
like
about
not
and
didn't
on ecological
the
the
But he
talked
testing
a lot
only
and criteria
it
have any -
that
risks.
testing
consultation,
coming
earlier
with
ecological
criteria
trouble
said
the
allergy
testing,
it
I was having
FDA to be concerned
risks,
Also,
24
25
products
of
people,
benefits
that
a lot
toxin
show any
risks.
farmers
pesticide
I
1
reduction
2
long-term,
!
has come with
ihis
benefits
Mi.
3
these
LAKE:
GE products.
But,
Thank you,
sir.
STATEMENT OF
5
NANCY EVANS
6
COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT
7
THE BREAST CANCER FUND
9
MS. EVANS:
10
health
science
grandmother,
writer,
and
I
am &gry
13
industry
14
promote
15
the
16
foods
17
corporations.
is
It
were
the
disinformation
feeding
Our
18
seems to
supply
19
hormones
20
by pesticides
on produce.
21
contamination,
so it
22
life
corporations
23
independent
24
human health
25
get
science
and meat,
scientific
is
our
that
feeding
bioengineered
in
that
not
supply
for
contaminated
surprising
that
They
of transnational
FDA has
environment.
food
hope
already
are
biotech
people.
coffers
The
foods,
the
only
a
cancer.
by antibiotics
evidence
or to the
FDA to protect
isn't
the
a
a mother,
American
as the
feed
I'm
bioengineered
me, however,
to
food
in milk
the
foods
developed
Evans.
breast
about
bioengineered
world.
with
concerned
about
force
Nancy
an environmentalist,
I'qm deeply
12
is
My name
and a woman living
11
the
-
4
8
in
by
poultry,
and
permitted
the
this
so-called
required
to
show
GMOs pose
no risk
to
What will
it
to
from
corporate
take
control
1
and contamination?
GMOs are
foods,'
these
infant
in
6
life-threatening
7
American
Americ+?
9
pancake
ingredients
We don't
higher
10
produce
their
11
more children's
12
know.
bioengineerkd
15
industry
16
first
17
bioengineered
16
to be safe
foods,
21
democracy;
22
of
23
against
snack
food.
Will
cancer
epidemic
they
produce
already
want
labeling,
.We need
foods
for
until
us and for
Cehtury
of great
the
propaganda
growth
as'a
to
means
buy them.
but
halt
the
the
Hi
LAKE:
26
[Applause.]
We don't
risks
of
That's
why
a
of
shows them
environment.
importance:
corporate
Thank you,
only
production
has been characterized
of
to
endanger
is
evidence
power;
protecting
democracy.
24
labeling
to
or
foods
potential
scientific
political
of
spraying
compromised?
not
know.
developed
these
the
would
5 million
We don't
been
pesticide
knew
the
asthma?
Will
than
they
in
GMOs have
of
Americans
The 20th
developments
Will
from
of
health
steh.
20
the
reactions
levels
doesn't
19
fuel
own insecticides.
If
14
cereals,
and pet
know.
who suffer
The majority
13
mix
further
allergic
withstand
in
;
children
6
ingredients
formula,
stealth
5
stealth
malam.
by three
The growth
and the
corporate
of
growth
power
318
4
STATEMENT OF
'I,.
/:
KARA COSBY
.j::
MEDIA RELATIONS MANAGER
'ii
INTERNATIONAL FOOD INFORMATION COUNCIL
5
MS. COSBY:
3
6
International
It's
credible
9
tha't
important
information
10
communicating
11
biotechnology
Consumer
12
and other
food
15
health
16
academic
17
such
16
dissemination
19
goals
for
food
20
risks
to
the
21
important
22
evidence
23
distort
24
targeted
food
L
much
to all
consumers
play
the
safety
research
food
by IFIC,
the
credible
that
organizations,
farmers,
most
communication
physicians,
and
should
be consistent
safety
education,
'general
public.
for
with
and the
In
perceived
this
are
dietitians,
government
Priorities
CDC.
let
of
in
conducted
and nutrition
we not
role
public.
indicate
safety
who want
a critical
about
attitudinal
FDA and
t.hat
as
as possible
scientists,
as the
the
provide
general
professional
with
we all
organizations,
for
Cosby
that
.information
to the
Kara
Council.
FDA does
information.
sources
I'm
Food Information
7
6
Hello.
agencies,
information
both
national
relative
health
regard,
risks,
absent
it
is
of
any
02 actual
risk
from agriculture
biotechnology,
:
the important
Presidential
Food Safety
Initiative
to
supply.
actual
risks
We should
from
not
microbrial
minimize
pathogens
legitimate
in
our
questions
I
319
1
or concerns.
2
be driven
about
food
by opinion
Our
3
consumers
with
that
5
been
6
consumers
have
7
the
decisions.
6
benefits
9
explained.
right
that
consumer
4
most
biotechnology.
likely
we know is
surveys
the
to
food
we should
than
of
education
We look
in
11
partners
12
communities
13
information
14
choices.
forward
the
they
of consumers
when
to
that
to working
health
make
support
they
will
Thank you.
16
lr-3. LAKE:
17
[Applause.]
with
are
the
and
professional
and
accurate
provide
15
help
consumers
the
clearly
Thank you,
19
JANET BROWN, PROGRAMOFFICER
20
CENTER FOR ECOLITERACY
22
program
officer
23
systems
and
24
Berkeley,
25
of
at
liaison
recently
USX,
for
My name is
the
Center
to
the
designated
linking
academic
informed
food
malam.
STATEMENT OF
MS. BROWN:
FDA and our
comprehensive
make
18
the
When
information,
biotechnology
have
"
10
21
shown
biotechnology.
science-based
not
informed.
consistently
level
A majority
o,f food
less
have
highest
support
solid
Yet,
Janet
for
Ecoliteracy,
Food
Systems
one of
farms
Brown,
to
four
pilot
schools.
and
I'm
a
for
food
Project
in
projects
I'm
the
320
1
founder
and chair
2
California
4
City
Counci!.
5
of
6
marketing
7
been proven
on December
federal:regulation
safe
ban and calling
11
of
13
14
for
Education
10
12
Food Policy
the
ban growing,
and a
by Berkeley
establishment
disseminating
engineered
until
and
they
have
human consumption.
I've
a resolution
adopted
for
Council
adopted
supporting
genetically
In addition,
of
7,
to
products
8
Board
Marin
certified
organic
farmer.
:
I 'bring with me a resolution
3
9
of the
from
on December
implementation
the
Berkeley
1, supporting
the
of a transparent
system
assessment
that requires
a demonstration
of reasonable
: 1
certainty
,.$f the benefits
which greatly
exceed the cost,
.i :
and a shift
of the burden
of proof
and cost
to the
t:
1
manufacturer.
These may be the
15
16
in the
17
the
United
States,
but
first
resolutions
you and I both
of their
kind
know they're
not
last.
From the Marin
18
19
opportunity
to register
20
permissive
atmosphere
21
unregulated
22
genetic
23
constraints.
Genetic
24
sustainable
agriculture.
25
natural
Food Policy
our
strong
which
: : and disturbingly
engineering
to operate
process
to undermine
we take
concern
allows
in the
seeks
this
regarding
an
the
essentially
disintegrated
engineering
It
Council,
science
absence
of liability
is
at
odds
to
intervene
and move against
of
with
in
the
the
the
great
321
1
forces
of
ecology,
2
short-term
3
infallibility
4
citizens
5
from
countries
6
this
technology
7
of mounting
cleverness
of
of
10
the
At
the
time,
are
uniting
world
can be allowed
danger
in
to
MR. LAKE:
with
citizens
questioning
whether
in
the
face
and opposition.
rather
than
Thank you,
the
to
risk
employ
management
ma'am.
STATEMENT OF
13
RON PETERSON
MR. PETERSON:
14
15
speak,
16
for
17
outside
18
given
although
I think
my family,
not
the
given
I appreciate
it's
the
much too
Peterson
belated.
Family,
entrance,
opportunity
and
and millions
to
I speak
the
hundreds
worldwide
not
voice.
My family
19
20
our
21
being
22
from
23
source
nutrition
relies
and health.
threatened
GE crops.
cease
on organically
Our
grown
source
of
by cross-contamination,
We demand that
the
crops
for
sustenance
is
genetic
poisoning
of
drift
our
food
immediately.
We demand an immediate
foods,
in the
many concerned
go forward
12
25
faith
Food and Drug Administration
principle,
on the
-
11
24
gamble
over
this
States
over
doubt,
to
of human ingenuity
United
all
precautionary
model
instead,
nature.
Were the
8
9
choosing,
and demand long-term
5-year
mandatory
moratorium
independent
on GE
testing.
322
We do not
trust
Monsanto-FDA
the
the
tandem.
safety
of
GM0 foods
only
demand
that
shelves
immediately
then
all
GE,
8
responsible
9
biological
use,
11
compromising
family
13
supplements,
such
14
contamination.
We will
15
driven
pirates.
corporate
Japan,
and
18
untested
19
citizens.
20
in GE foods.
21
job
22
bought
and
23
motives
of Monsanto
Frankenfoods.
Your
be the
24
Thank you.
25
MR. LAKE:
chemical
and
in
job
of
health
self-serving,
coconspirators..
sir.
of
soy-based
pigs
for
GM0
greed
in Europe,
rejecting
own scientists,
Thank you,
nutritional
and sisters
warned
by the
and its
of
guinea
FDA, do your
for
increased
E, because
They were significant
paid
are
superweeds,
robbed
countries
to your
market
farmers.
own scientists
now and listen
from
resistance,
our brothers
other
many
We
GM0 methodologies
being
not
with
17
pulled
Monarchs,
as Vitamin
We join
16
Frankenfoods.
antibiotics
is
determine
independent
nutrition,
BT use by organic
My
long-term
door
safe.
GE,
dying
and
we first
be
decreased
allergies
12
revolving
those
proven
that
pollution,
10
label
until
for
by
GM0 foods
We believe
7
all-to-cozy,
We demand that
GE,
and
testing;
current,
and protect
dangerous
risks.
these
your
toxins
Do your
scientists
greed-driven
not
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
CHRIS BRINEGAR, PH.D.
PROFESSOR, MICROBIOLOGY
DIRECTOR, BIOTECHNOLOGY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
DR. BRINEGAR:
I'm
director
of
Institute
at
professor
Ph.D.
Hi!
My name is
Biotechnology
Education
San
Jose
State
and Molecular
I've
a Masters
in Crop Physiology,
and three
agricultural
biotechnology
I've
molecular
taught
directed
biology
our Biotechnology
16
speaking
so,
believe
that
17
I truly
18
improve
19
applied
20
public's
21
poisoned
by regulatory
22
refusal
to
23
educational
24
tabloid
journalism,
which
26
against
genetically
modified
the world's
so
far.
food
supply,
but
my biggest
of
bioengineered
educate
the
has
13 years,
the
on
filled
has led
and
at an
and
past
organisms.
5 years.
has
the
potential
to
not
the
way it's
been
fear
is
foods
this
the
that
the
has
been
and by their
issue.
largely
to
I've
of experience,
and companies
public
been
experience
25 years
Today,
agencies
a
too.
Food Science
for
biotechnology
perception
void
for
almost
in
also
And as a professor,
Institute
from
there,
years
company.
Research
I'm
Biology
Degree
Brinegar.
and
University.
of Botany
have
Chris
current
by
This
British
backlash
324
I saw that
In 1996,
2
educate
3
years,
4
with
5
foods.
At least
didn't
know
9
consumers
on this
I gave more than
the
goal
of
were
about
told
10
bioengineered
11
whether
a food
12
whether
their
13
have
14
or buys
15
just
16
wrong,
other
17
between
the
18
should
not
19
products.
is
often
MY
21
bioengineered
22
affected
dolphin
third-world
an extension
people
kingdoms
be
of
forced
specific
ingredient
if
felt
they
on the
food
want
is
to
running
shops.
know
or
shoes
What one eats
one believes.
animals
that
morally
is
from
vegetarian,
And
is morally
swapping
eat
genes
And they
wrong.
unknowingly
by putting
transgenic
this:
Label
an asterisk
next
all
to
the
Thank you,
MR. LAKE:
24
DR. BRINEGAR:
minutes.
is
advice
foods
or
eating
believe
life
to
they
or
to
that
their
of what
that
may
23
25
sweat
believe
off
what
free,
country,
products
ticked
organic,
two
I talked
of how they
know
next
the
people
same reasons
is
as some people
20
to
kosher,
tuna
were
to
bioengineered
eaten
regardless
the
been made in
is
already
want
for
the
nothing
the
over
about
all
and they
it
People
issue.
of
over
all
people
they'd
crops,
So,
20 lectures,
90 percent
that
FDA was doing
issue.
informing
bioengineered
not
the
Damn
sir.
that
was
a
fast
ttwo
325
1
[Laughter.]
2
Well,
3
then,
won't
YOU
specific
my
recommendation.
MR. LAKE:
4
You can submit
it
5
STATEMENT OF
6
WALTER EPP
MR. EPP:
7
8
issue,
9
capitalism,
you
you
get
reward
11
When industry
12
risk,
13
consequences,
14
Tampering
with
15
different
order
gets
damage.
19
with
there's
the
20
unprecedented
22
there's
23
choice,
24
a fraud.
nothing
genetic
over
time,
you
both
a scientific
the
public
gets
disaster.
fabric
of
risk.
and risk.
for
keep
the
reward
the
to
Under
assume
and
to
types
could
the
Without
actors
life
the
responsible.
is
a completely
spread
damage.
is
the
ability
there's
no freedom.
a rigged
We will
radioactive
elements
a limit
to
the
and reproduce
We're
total
forever
talking
about
of recklessness.
no labeling,
there's
and
so there's
genes
limit
It's
is
record.
completely.
if
reward
chemicals
Freedom
21
point
gets
the
of risk.
Mutant
no
the
for
this
a prescription
Toxic
18
the
the public
we have
disintegrate
think
the
socialism,
17
you
missing
Under
16
If
are
10
25
get
to
make
no choice.
To call
this
choices.
If
If
there's
a free
no
market
is
when
it
market.
know the
FDA is
doing
its
job
326
1
does the
2
environmental
3
with
4
Any company
5
selling.
6
must
7
approvals
8
the producer
All
following:
consequences
funding
sources
that
For
have
the
produced
exceed
12
posting
13
genes
could
14
would
be spectacular.
15
not
accept
16
then
they
17
so why should
from
the
20
terms
liability
of
last
the
a million
If
liability
do not
believe
23
maximized
24
inconvenience
25
serve
it
No product
affiliated
with
to
pay,
damage
this
years,
the
will
could
require
of
this
and their
possibility
benefits
all
self-reproducing
size
companies,
for
of
are
bond
CEOs, do
bankruptcy,
worth
the
risk,
we?
criterion
An industry
for
from
decisions,
Since
from
the
is
of scientific
:
is an astronomical
22
disclosed.
industry
damage
without
pile
21
from
companies
Since
a bond.
internet,
of interest.
engineering.
,ability
and
prohibited
by people
conflict
genetic
This
foot
information.
on data
11
19
all
based
damage
is
make informed
to
full
histories
to
access
health
on the
secret
free
or other
to
published
anything
public
10
18
are
regarding
and employment
keeps
Require
9
studies
studies.
poll
Anything
and procedures
for
corporations
to
public.
If
corporate
less
shows 93 percent
convenience
the
than
a hundred
than
these
subsidy.
The timing
labeling.
more relevant
interests
and
the
of
public
support
this
meeting
and
maximized
FDA continues
subvert
the
public
to
327
1
interests,
it
renounces
2
and leaves
it
to
3
to
4
criteria
regain
the
In
MR. LAKE:
6
MR. EPP:
&'.
.,
legitimate
figure
out
a democracy,
Thank you,
-
the
authority
some other
public
way
decides
by
sir.
scientific
or not.
STATEMENT OF
SHIRLEY STUART
8
RETIRED,
9
UNIVERSITY
MS. STUART:
10
11
to
to
chasing.
5
7
claim
public
control.
of its
its
speaking
today
13
180
degrees.
14
the
avarice-of
15
other
16
an altruistic
17
Plants
18
resulting
19
asking
of the
The FDA is
big
agri2biants,
being
supposed
to
developed
feed
the
have not
them without
The
focus
of
to
answer
seems to be not
22
stop
23
industry
24
our health.
25
ordinary
asking
Stuart.
them.
assurances
I'm
They're
foods,
between
world,
but
to
out
make money.
Many
And,
of
of
yet,
the
you're
our knowledge.
The FDA has
their
so no special
and the
not
changed.
the
questions,
being
us and
Norvartis,
GM0 products
some of
that
stand
been tested.
us to eat
21
to
Monsanto,
irrevocably
products
20
Shirley
FDA seems to have been turned
business.
have
wish
are
name is
My
as a consumer.
The mandate
12
OF CALIFORNIA
panel
but
simply
products
considered
testing
members
how to
get
accepted
pose
here
us to
biotech
no threat
as no different
has been required.
to
from
328
Some scientists
1
are
2
or souped-up
promoters
3
cells
4
resistance
5
routines,
6
raised.
Some experts
7
acquire
new characteristics
8
created
may'
cause
to
used
of
traditional
11
Cross-species
12
without
13
from
of these
gene
genetic
a flounder
get
it's
going
but,
16
labeled.
17
and
18
bacteria
19
the
world
has been
20
the
right
to say "No,"
I
I don't
don't
want
and virus
21
Thank you.
22
[Applause.]
23
MR. LAKE:
24
//
25
I/
I
. .
to
for
only
mark
also
been
diseases
may
may be
an extension
is
could
instance,
genetic
be
want
to
is
practices
to
15
by
ludicrous.
never
occur
would
a gene
a tomato?
I am opposed
if
splicing
How,
into
bacterial
new diseases
combinations
process.
old
into
processes.
agricultural
'.,
this
14
and
genes
have
that
enhanced
worse
process,
have suggested
the
that
be made
splicing
To say that
10
foreign
may
the
as a result
9
insert
Questions
cancer.
in
that
to
antibiotics
used
concerned
to
eat
genes
saying,
done,
modification
the
products
eat
tomatoes
corn
and
spliced
into
with
potatoes
them.
WNo,W and we in
too.
Thank you,
malam.
of
food;
must
fish
genes,
that
The rest
America
be
have
of
have
329
r
‘,
1
STATEMENT OF
C. S. PRAKASH, Ph.D.
2
PROFESSOR, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
3
TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY
4
dR. PRAKASH:
5
My name is
C. S. Prakash,
from
Tuskegee
8
crop
My, research
is in developing
r'?
and I work specifically
plants:
9
my work
6
7
10
developing
11
myself,
involves
training
countries.
13
biologist,
14
products
15
And my belief
16
the
are
breeders,
developed
is
nature',of
risk
product
scientists
in
country
also
as a molecular
to know how some of these
is
agriculture
has evolved.
necessarily
and not
heard
mentioned
a lot
19
principle
20
here
21
just
22
precautionary
23
about
a hundred
or two
24
same
types
questions
25
biotechnology
wanted
many
Much of
a function
necessarily
the
of
process
developed.
Tyhave
warning
on peanut.
a developing
and
and how
that
the
::
it:'was
18
new
India.
I have been fortunate
in which
nutritionally
of
And I am from
As a plant
12
17
University.
also
from
and I'm
here,
you about
to
say
about
that,
if
if
the
mention
and our
some of
principle,
of
of
the
of
-
risks
involved.
you
were
safety
to
years
all
of
precautionary
being
you were
hundred
of
of
the
the
to
audience
And I
invoke
the
be sitting
here
ago and asked
the
the
critics
GM foods,
of
in
this
330
1
country
you would
2
artichoke.
3
from
4
the
5
or corn,
6
prevent
7
with
8
a small
9
potato
Because
every
and you
the
the
could
use
of
other
traditionally
crop
chromosome
introduces
we are trying
that
nearly
1,000
knowledge
what
13
positions
And,
;
'that
14
cascading
effect
15
developing
16
century,
17
about
18
day f and who go hungry
19
not
those
is
introduced
genes
and for
again,
what
happens
you've
taken,
FDA,
on the
rest
which
from
just
even
a wild
one gene
which
we have no
And,
people
here,
still
who earn
here,
has
world,
end of
have
the
prospect
than
in
this
of
one dollar
And biotechnology
everyday.
a
especially
the
less
the
really
at
you know,
will
technology
today
of the
a
may
-
21
DR. PRAKASH: Thank you.
,.'
STATEMENT OF
2E
same goes
for
for
to
genes do.
technology
proper
plants
introduce,
countries.
a billion
be the
to
factor
And the
crop
MR. LAKE:
24
and
introduced
some risk
20
2s
has been
here.
segment
11
the
crops
improved
that
22
blueberries
come up with
those
10
:
cranberries,
And every other
crop you can ask
somewhere
else.
..!
whether
it is potatoes,
or soy bean,
same questions,
12
f
be eating
Thank you,
sir.
MAUREEN TERNUS, M.S.,
R.D.
FOOD AND NUTRITION COMMUNICATIONS
MS. TERNUS:
My name is
Maureen
Ternus.
I'm
a
z
1
registered
2
consulting
3
with
dietitian
practice
public
here
and health
One area
4
5
nutrition
hot
6
questions
regarding
7
more
8
pesticides,
9
of
10
with
in
the
of
And,
I work
includes
ironically,
closely
about
the
of
the
One of the
the
get
Most
safety
is
manning
I
biotechnology.
biotechnology
pesticides
Bay Area.
my business
in particular.
plant
communications
professionals.
line.
conce-rned
a nutrition
very
few
consumers
are
food
supply
greatest
reduction
a
in
and
benefits
the
use
of
and insecticides.
From a health
11
the
12
improve
13
For example:
14
foods
in
developing
countries
15
malnutrition.
Other
opportunities
16
of
17
minerals.
18
benefiting.from
grains,
food
standpoint,
supply
Using
fruits
this
Association,'
21
dietitians,
22
useful
23
the
variety
24
is
especially
25
the
world's
is
foods
technology,
with
of
which
represents
in enhancing
include
of food
available
production
are
expected
already
Dietetic
registered
potential
to
and nutritional
for
value
human consumption.
consider
to
and
A rice.
American
has the
of
vitamins
70,000
when you
is
the
more
to
rates
countries
the
quality
important
population
with
biotechnology
the
nutritious.
high
high-Vitamin
.position
that
more
can help
we can add protein
many developing
newly-developed
The
20
by making
and vegetables
In fact,
19
biotechnology
double
the
in
This
fact
in
be
the
that
next
332
to
increasing
50 years,
1
40
2
percent.
3
global
4
farming
Plant
food
biotechnology
and fiber
can
help
demands while
As with
any
needs
meet
by 250
increased
promoting
new technology,
6
information,
can result
7
of spending
so much time
6
to
9
educating
the
10
the
these
11
which
12
supermarket,
13
As a health
i!
is an important
tool
':
environmental
benefits.
15
production
sustainable
methods.
5
14
food
use
biotechnology,
farm
public.
produce,
days
much less
Thank you.
17
MR. LAKE:
16
[Applause.]
resources
should
Most
consumers
are
understand
gets
example,
how this
the
or not
so removed
on
from
the
process
field
into
by
the
works.
I feel
providing
Thank you,
Instead
be spent
new technology
professional,
in
credible
whether
more
few
of
and concerns.
and money debating
that
for
16
in questions
lack
biotechnology
numerous
health
and
malam.
STATEMENT OF GUY A. CARDINEAU, Ph.D.
19
20
GLOBAL LEADER, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
21
OUTPUT AGRICULTURE, DOW AGROSCIENCES
22
DR. CARDINEAU:
23
Mu name
24
global
leader
25
AgroSciences
for
is
Good afternoon.
Guy Cardineau,
Output
in San Diego.
and
I'm
Agriculture
For over
16 years,
currently
R&D,
I've
at
Dow
worked
333
1
in the
field
of ag biotechnology,
2
to have been involved
3
opportunities
4
addressing
5
worldwide.
in the
that
new
I'm
here
7
AgroSciences
6
plant
9
potential
toxicity,
10
concerns
as
11
identified.
12
safety
13
planted
14
are
15
throughout
16
effect
17
submitted
16
form
19
may conduct.
20
or
to thorough
21
submitted
as
the
as the
the
evaluated
the
of
proteins
24
toxicities
25
nevertheless
transferred
of trait
new
All
for
are
seed
to
variety
assess
the
data
is
collected
as appropriate,
regulatory
agencies
which
review.
on our
and
varieties
plant
depending
these
safety
genes
new plant
EPA, and USDA,
that
of all
to
integration
modification.
We
assessments
make about
our
data.
While
23
is
period
tests
Dow
and human health
traditional
framework
of
assessing
or
environmental
their
additional
,i
evaluations
22
traits
against
a coordinated
testing
in
problems
and environmental
desired
gene
us
commitment
We begin
The resulting
FDA,
offer
the
field.
the
to
stress
allergenicity
soon
tremendous
and other
we develop.
We continue
in
varieties
and continuous
that
tes!zing
from
to
been fortunate
of the
nutritional,
today
varieties
exploration
plant
'environmental,
6
and have
these
that
appear
are
not
new
in
products
nature
expected,
be investigated
are
and
derived
human
we recognize
with
both
and
they
traditional
from
animal
must
and
i
1
emerging
2
prodigious
3
problems
4
the
risk
assessment
in
that
5
coordinated
,
from,various
eyes,
6
health
7
environmental
da;ta
9
First,
11
oversight
reviews
might
occur
framework
like
14
to
15
evaluate
any
of
review
the
we
17
permit
16
will
us to
19
farming,
20
environment.
play
with
support
appropriate
Dow
the
numerous
safety
and
toxicity
and
plants
important
food
coordinated
agency
effective
in
the
and
roles
fiber
to
takes
Our company
assessment
product
is
working
methods
to
products.
we expected
use
points:
AgroSciences
this
wonderful
produce
in
medicine,
production,
22
MR. LAKE:
Thank you,
23
cApp1ause.j
I/
for
products.
for
25
four
and
Thank you,
//
allows
the
21
24
real
We believe
and
new wave of novel
Lastly,
16
are
anticipate
situation.
very,
very seriously.
,:
the most modern risk
employ
to
agencies
to examine
to conclude
Secondly,
stewardship
in
allergenicity
of biotech
13
and work
perspectives,
It's
12
The
impact.
IlId
framework.
these
on
6
10
methods.
your
time.
sir.
novel
science
products
fuel
and to
will
that
production,
benefit
the
1
STATEMENT OF
( ARIELLE LEVINE,
2
3
GRADUATE STUDENT
COLLEGE OF NATURAL RESOURCES
'UNIVERSITY
4
OF CALIFORNIA,
MS. LEVINE:
5
6
here
to
speak
7
University
of
6
Resources.
as a concerned
California,
Last
9
My name is
my
Novartis,
a major
agricultural
corporation.
12
about
13
direction
14
funding
at
15
towards
developing
16
funding
is
17
developing
sustainable
alternatives,
18
agriculture
or integrated
pest
sparked
surrounding
o,f reseach
Berkeley,
towards
20
pressures
21
possible,
before
22
economic
and health
23
engineering
24
the
is
potential
very
As
we
one-sides,
heard
future
the
is
deal
of
directed
little
to
biotechnology
as
no
or
organic
management.
companies
on the
their
have created
market
as quickly
possible
and little
morning,
as
ecological,
Research
of biotechnology
this
fact,
such
ramifications.
dangers
and
However,
business
we know
biotech
debate
questioning
new products
Natural
research
A good
in
biotechnology.
agro
a
university.
$25 million,
directed
to get
our
of
the
tremendous
biotechnology
at
A few large
19
25
alliance
from
College
signed
11
and I'm
student
college
agreement
issues
Levine,
graduate
10
This
Arielle
Berkeley,
year,
with
BERKELEY
on genetic
is
known
to our
society.
there
is
about
little
336
---
scientific
consensus.
faculty
both
4
In
and students
in
support
controversy
embrace
it
rallying
is
be found
clear
8
UC-Berkeley,
9
towards
genetically
10
first,
more
11
potential
negative
effects
12
potential
benefits
is
ii
corporations.
14
at
15
alternatives.
16
advocate
If
of
for
university,
yet
research
to
and recommend
be
already
very
sparse
hazards,
conducted
GE foods.
or
funded
funds
to
of
18
have
19
they
20
advocates
21
the
22
precautionary
23
for
24
conducted
25
hazards
the
right
consume.
say they
public's
the
If
these
are,
right
FDA to take,
are
should
know.
given
the
paucity
known
at
the
to
and they
safe
the
as
no problem
that
responsible
of
about
look
labeling
about
We believe
only
is
as
have
the
the
sustainable
choice
is
and how little
og.GE foods.
,)
they
to
approach
foods
on
by large
available
develop
to make an informed
that,
Looking
well
at
approach
Second, the FDA should mandate industry
:
The public's
concerns
are valid
GE‘foods.
17
like
wholeheartedly
responsible
foods,
of
are
so much
a precautionary
needs
But there
today
implications.
its
engineered
potential
biotechnology.
taking
research
Berkeley
building
a major
students
were
the
we can not
in all
1.: and the
the
in
that
biotechnology
there
outside
of and against
can
Berkeley,
fact,
their
with
this
approach
research
the
food
being
potential
Thanks.
Thank you,
LAKE:
HR.
[ipplause.]
I
',
ma'am.
STATEMENT OF
MICH B. HEIN,
PRESIDENT
EPLCYTE ~~-mmcmmcAL,
MR. HEIN:
7
8
president
9
biotechnology
company
10
based
transgenic
11
proteins.
on using
:,.i j
$;d
c,
/'jl
ofl;us
12
13
for
all
14
endurance
plants
17
planet.
18
reason
19
basis
are
20
for
21
a company,
to
to
meet
Hein.
plants
thank
the
FDA for
and to
here,
in
any question
about
basis
for
supply.
labeling
You've
economy.
for
nutrition,
.support
;"
1a:beling
the
already
and we,
is
opportunity
on your
two meetings.
isn't
food
small
pharmaceutical
commend you
producers
our
the
which
this
There
our
efficient
a
to produce
most
the
I'm
California,
the
it's
of
like
San Diego,
for this day, and for the
:f
We produce
pharmaceuticals
15
16
in
Mich
Pharmaceutical,
EPlycyte
of
is
My name
mc.
plants
because
of protein
that.
It's
instituted
on the
It's
the
also
the
protocols
as an industry
1992 FDA protocol
for
and as
science-based
j i’,’
22
material
of products.
We believe
23
24
in plants,
25
somebody
for
please
that
the
pharmaceutical
shut
that
ability
purposes,
off?
to
produce
will
also
proteins
-
would
338
We believe
1
2
will
lead
to
3
pharmaceuticals
4
alluded
5
our food
that
I'd
therejis
like,
in closing,
a lot
of fear
that
is
That
8
and a lot'iof
9
what
10
facts
and we need
11
fear
and
12
surprise
13
representations
t4
amongst
15
are
16
kingdoms
17
without
18
ability
19
make many of
2a
have made.
welre,'getting
And
I
technology
lines
think
is
between
Dr.
very
Johnson
much tied
'I
dismay
here,
based
to
amongst
that
would
organisms
out
that
Dr.
we need
precedent,
that
Gordon's
many
of
the
of
genes
that
transferred
have
know
eliminate
miscegnation
been
there,
we don't
echo
clear
have
to
that
on the
point:
However,
order
in
has a very
many genes
and
Because
in
single
ignorance
in many cases.
his
organisms,
many,
and a lot
And
ignorance.
and
to make this
information
been
there
between
done
so
it's
the
In fact,
th>e help
of human hands.
.'
of'us
to recognize
that,
that
has allowed
us to
the
transgenic
Thank you.
22
MR. LAKE:
2?
[Applause.]
/I
the
justified.
into
21
25
of
Our health
earlier.
7
//
plants.
of this
supply.
6
24
evolution
blurring
a
and
to that
the
organisms
Thank you,
sir.
and plants
that
we
339
STATEMENT OF
1
MIKE PHILLIPS,
2
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL,
3
BIOTECHNOLGOY INDUSTRY
ORGANIZATION
4
I'm
MR. PHILLIPS:
5
6
I'm
the
'executive
7
the
Biotechnology
8
allowing
director
Mike
for
Industry
BIO represents
10
and academic
11
1992 policy
12
really
13
derived
14
even
15
understand
16
a nonissue.
no issue
from
the
with
regard
to
improved
food
safety
through
who
take
the
time
recognize
the
consumer
them
to
19
regarding
20
biotechnology
21
with
22
ability
23
government'blessing.
24
wants
25
can buy
the
allows
foods
that
foods
everything
the
sow
buy food
organic
they
and
ingredients
activists
have
confusion
not
and also
asked
mislead
is
provided.
derived
pay
from
the
to
enhanced
higher
to
cost.
and
is
have
choices
for
consumers
except
consumers
If
food
safety
1992 policy
for,
is
And
read
food
provides
and
Choice
the
informed
FDA's
eat.
in
right
make
its
There
biotechnology.
the
that
you for
companies
has been implemented.
supports
information
to
850 biotechnology
also
18
to.
I thank
FDA's policy,
BIO
for
FDA is to be commended for
activists,
17
-
Food and Agriculture,
over
way it
crops
the
today.
institutions.
and the
with
Organization.
us to make comments
9
Phillips,
the
with
a consumer
crops,
If
they
they
1
want
accurate
2
nutrition,
that
3
if
personal
4
modification
5
those
6
demand.
their
and
reliable
is mandated
been
preferences
8
policy
that
9
including
with
requires
10
nutrients
,'
that
specificaLly,
11
ingredient
12
Cosmetic
13
through
14
truthful
15
pursue
voluntary
16
integral
part
17
criteria
18
for
should
Act
factual
foods
21
significantly
22
foods
23
have
24
labels.
25
insure
in
free
the
know
genetic
to
meet
the
1992
changes,
name
producers
to
statements
choice
as labels
companies
FDA would
could
the
Drug and
provide
as long
food
and,
for
The Food,
that
need
are
were
to
be
an
to
guidelines
relay
or
on labeling
information.
policy
to
from
biotechnology
the
of
usual
change.
consumers
to
of allergens,
and
If
and
consumer
significant
uniform
information
MR. LAKE:
are
establishing
consumers
the
common
food
and accurate
and undermine
to
sufficient
for
labeling,
of
regard
introduction
the
want
implementation
misleading.
derived
20
or the
label
Changing
19
FDA's
is
labeling
allows
voluntary
to
there
identify
and not
in
they
companies
met,
provided
We agree
on health
If
by law.
preferences
has
7
information
require
perception
special
for
Thank you,
which
sir.
safety
consumers
they
look
for
impact
could
of the
confidence
labeling
of
these
presently
to
food
341
[Applause.]
1
2
STATEMENT OF
3
MATTHEW METZ
UNIVERSITY
4
My name
MR. METZ:
5
6
doctoral
7
Department.
in
student
First
8
9
OF CALIFORNIA,
of all,
disgruntled
scientific
11
ego stroking
12
scientists
13
making
14
not
15
melodrama,
16
to
be evolving
17
a
villain,
and
18
technology
should
19
position.
interested
be warped
I
Nothing
24
all.
25
Mandatory
merely
really
is absolutely
a filibuster
labeling
information
avoid
should
one end of this
Every
that
seems
melodrama
needs
debate
being
of
choices
of
this
or
capability
from
that
the
thrust
over
into
the
such
a
item.
on proving
Labels
the
These
end.
by
of concerned
coming
other
think
from
a coalition
choices.
the
fueled
fed me lunch,
having
deprivation
from
21
is
of
in public
the
One other
23
part
by techophobia
nor
an agenda
rallier
a
Biology
disenfranchisement
consumer
20
insistence
I'm
I'm
Plant
have
No protest
today.
Metz.
UC-Berkeley
of
community.
informed
Matthew
I do not
feelings
10
22
the
is
BERKELEY
absolute
against
will
occur,
will
not
safe,
and I think
safety
its
driven
in
reaching
by
be necessary,
the
that
food
the
market
the
product
market
at
demand.
nor does it
seem
342
1
to be the mandate
2
very
3
governing
4
they're
5
drug
6
prevent
critical
of the
for
the
how these
placed.
However,
FDA to
labels
consumer
they
it
will
seem to be
a strong
are worded
so that
role
and on what
in
products
of regulating
are
not
-
food,
they
do not
misconception.
During
the
8
irradiation
9
benefited
from
10
reduced
11
markets
storage
,
have not
12
substantial
13
not
14
and appeared
second
panel
was mentioned.
the
way,
promote
play
The FDA has a history
and cosmetics
7
FDA.
European
increased
costs
of
this
because
of
to be cautionary
15
MR. LAKE:
16
[Applause.]
have
shelf
this
the
the
long
life,
plus
The
technology
labeling
U.S.
in
any
standards
technological
versus
Thank you,
food
technology.
from
understanding
markets
safety,
benefited
partly
discussion,
did
benefits
informative.
sir.
STATEMENT OF
17
KEVIN DANAHER, Ph.D.
18
PRESIDENT,
19
BOARD OF DIRECTORS, TRANSFAIR USA
MR. DANAHER:
20
21
Danaher.
I
22
California.
I'm
23
TransFair
USA,
24
organization
25
Trade
Labeling
got
for
Good evening.
my
president
which
the
from
Ph.D.
of
is
United
Organizations
the
the
the
My name is
University
Board
fair
States,
of
part
of
Directors
trade
International,
Kevin
of
of
labeling
FLO,
the
Fair
largest
343
network
1
international
2
organizations.
I want
3
4
context
I
5
separation
6
of
7
order
to
8
about
science
9
the
It
to
separate
America
11
principle
that
12
authority,
resides
13
to
14
founding
of our
15
Address,
referred
16
people
17
corporations,
18
In
19
appear
20
Independence,
fact,
22
citizens
23
latest
the
‘.:
question
is
not
about
who rules.
the
government
He
rule,
it
or
a beacon
people,
didn't
say
the
of that
Gettysburg
the
by the
corporations.
does
not
Declaration
of
documents.
Are
are
the
of
maximization
the
is:
the
the
political
because
in
for
and profit
establish
open
world
of
corporations,
question
Is
And we are
Abe Lincoln,
of corporate
FDA's.';+,central
to
means
or any of our founding
I apologize
24
So the
Constitution,
who should
round
in
nation
people.
the
So the
21
first
around
corporations
in
state
which
country.
by the
middle
and the
in We, The People.
the
the
the
corporations?
sovereignty,
to
achieve
We are now in
It's
was the
movements
historical
to
corporations
the
labeling
largest
centuries
or technology.
it
trade
the
democracy.
or is
f;or
in
and state.
h,ave real
democratic
this
took
of church
citizens
t
put
can.
a struggle
IO
25
to
fair
of
the
people
we guinea
sovereign
pigs
to
the
technology?
if
this
responsibility,
sounds
condescending,
in
my mind,
but
is
to
V
1
protect
2
profits.
the
citizen
So the
not
taxpayers,
recommendations
to
of
protect
corporate
TransFair
USA, Global
organizations,
is:
We
sides
of
! ’
Exchange,
4
need more democracy.
5
this
6
up the
7
Night
Line,
8
issue
and may the
9
information
10
k-
and many other
3
Let's
process.
the
many speakers
As
we need the
has said,
about
activists
let's
kind
have
go out
best
so the
facts
in
all
citizens
the
12
MR. LAKE:
13
[Applause.]
out.
Let's
Let's
media,
and debate
go on
the
And we need labeling
can make informed
they
open
debate.
win.
of commodities
Thank you very
get
public
argument
11
to
on both
want
decisions
to purchase.
much.
Thank you,
sir.
14
STATEMENT OF
15
MICHAEL STRAUSS
16
INNOVATIVE MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE,
17
BEYOND ORGANIC
MR. STRAUSS:
18
19
I'm
a public
20
director
21
in
22
official
the
relations
of our
Weytern
:.
capacity,
24
burden
25
not
on dairy
requiring
Mu name is
consultant
family
farm,
United
for
FDA labeling
23
Hi!
States.
the
family
first
I'm
or the
on RVST placed
processors,
mandatory
the
and the
who choose
labeling
for
Michael
Strauss.
former
marketing
organic
not
dairy
here
farm
in
any
dairy.
an unfair
not
those
to
economic
use
it,
by
who do.
I
345
'./
1
I've
know.
run
into
The
2
that
apparent
3
allowed
RVST labeling
4
person
who was formerly,
raises
employee,
is
said
trust
9
know,
this
11
step
be
to
is
honored.
using
to restoring
12
Thank you.
13
MR. LAKE:
14
(Applause.]
issues.
When all
on trust.
of
Mandatory
public
is
merely
Thank you,
SALLY FOX
17
COTTON BREEDER, FOX FIBER
am a traditional
I
20
grows
in
color,
21
Fox Fiber,
not
nothing
and shocked
by the
24
room today,
have
25
simply
next
first
it
I breed
organically.
Sally
cotton
It's
Fox.
that
name is
Frankenfiber.
23
the
by
the
My name is
breeder.
and I grow
I want
22
Good afternoon.
cotton
to
sir.
16
19
right
trust.
STATEMENT OF
MS. FOX:
our
until
labeling,
15
18
Until
resolved,
all
GM0 ingredients,
the
a Monsanto
built
public,
by a
now,
can be fully
the
which
be developed
currently
process
work.
policy,
credibility
issues
must
manufacturers
door
and is
be restored,
10
revolving
significant
and done,
can
in my previous
regulations
conflict-of-interest
8
repeatedly
people
told
step
-
I am beyond
who hold
people
beyond
that
plant
belief,
Ph.D.s,
genetic
breeding.
aggravated
who,
in
engineering
this
is
346
I want
1
if
to,
2
I want
3
between
real,
4
us all
the :food
5
that
6
it
7
breeders.
And this
8
taken
the
9
community,tt
I only
you to know that
has
all
over
10
threat
11
have ever
plant
been
brought
scientific
real
science
I know we only
13
had brought
14
the
BT crops,
15
I've
looked
at
the
16
and
find
it
equally
17
actually
lots
of
18
-
19
toxin
20
registrations
21
that
22
bacteria
23
before
24
was as a fermentation
25
control
the
tested
very
civilization
to
traditional
us
by
this
current
our
is
views
-
but
plant
craze
that
has
the
quote
ttscientific
the
most
treacherous
society
that
I believe
crops
evidence
the
were
afford
that
analyzed
in
we
true
plant
by
BT plants
came.
conducted
the
with
I used
to
at -
actual
the
testing
on the
be,
and later
natural
my day
plant
EPA,
nothing
the
tolerance
were based
of
was
All
to be an independent
microbologist
not
plant.
from
the
Nothing
well,
I
BT toxin.
to
logic.
-
-
terms
the
was supplied
in
exemption
it
so I will
are producing
actually
EPA gave the
which
I've
lacking
and the
supervisor
that
that
expressed
that's
from
,,
I could
have two minutes,
data
with
few tests
the
the
come across.
12
I
has brought
on our
States
in
that
created
community,
United
whatsoever
depending
anomaly,
the
breeding,
that
-
or dislike
to you today,
is no resemblance
and fiber
in
to
there
traditional
we enjoy
say one thing
job
breeder,
as a quality
347
,;
MR. LAKE:
1
Thank you,
ma'am.
[Applause.]
STATEMENT OF
REBECCA KAPLAN
GREEN PARTY
MS. KAPLAN:
time
and your
attention.
convey
the::Green
10
moratorium
11
as
12
regardless
13
calling
14
organisms.
Party,
of
results
for
labeling
Some points
16
I've
17
they're
excited
16
they
find
19
that
justifies
20
without
21
them
and they
22
have
them
23
democracy.
genetically
back
all
want
also
to
safety
violates
Adam Smith,
talk
every
which
about
how
organisms,
how
None of
are
core
free
is
But
them
about
to
principle
market
premised
eat
excited
buy them.
every
is
modified
me made to
that
time
And
applications.
them
violates
such
a
testing,
modified
people
let
for
on.
people
why we should
them,
be labeled
of
to
completed.
going
specific
These
consent.
It
24
going
about
at
lot
until
genetically
what's
a
in
any
like
calling
food
is
all
of
heard
them useful
our
of
about
I'd
has recently
testing
your
late.
First,
engineered
safety
the
getting
Kaplan.
which
complete,
15
25
Rebecca
on genetically
full,
Thank you for
I know it's
IQ name is
6
9
Good afternoon.
not
of
principle
upon
people
348
1
making
informed
2
they
3
genetically
4
their
5
they
6
they're
do
choices
and
don't
of
want.
engineered
being
If
wouldipromote
6
into
account
9
organism
10
should
11
religious
12
labeling,
13
raw
big
doesn't
have the
14
15
to
16
from
17
beliefs
labeling
Finally,
19
States
did
20
Europe
did,
21
because
22
I imagine
23
is.
not
they
phase
even
though
were
beholden
many of
.j.,
their
personal,
there
lead
the
the
i
I!iR. LAKE:
25
Mk. KAPLAN:
Thank you,
It's
kosher
on
supermarket.
we're
going
to have
To prohibit
religious
people
and ethical
society.
undone.
paint
was proven
to
no
or
requirements
in
be
in
people
ethical
is
dietary
are
taking
impact,
The
until
to
corporate
you know how difficult
24
that
them.
one
health
their
it
people
specific
cannot
out
great,
if
Even
in a multicultural
this
were
of
kosher.
practice
oppose
a lack
is
engineering,
not
that
there
that
all
what
to find
other
is genetic
they
and tell
now,
vegetables
is unacceptable
16
not
a proven
for
that
it's
"
being able to
should
great
about
know where
Right
assume
think
labeled
to follow
beliefs.
fruits‘and
5
Now that there
who
picture.
have
right
those
thought
I think
the
or
they
people
Additionally,
7
will
are
them being
and let
own free
Even
foods
labeled.
great,
their
United
years
after
be dangerous,
profits.
lead
And
abatement
ma@am.
nothing
compared
to
trying
to
349
1
abate
genetically
engineered
2
Thank you.
3
MR. LAKE:
organism
in the
Thank you.
4
STATEMENT OF
5
JOHN DUARTE
6
DUARTE NURSERY
MR. DUARTE:
7
6
Duarte
Nursery
9
Farming,
from
wild.
Hello.
and
Dry
Modesto,
I'm
Feed
John
Duarte,
Laboratories
and
11
grape
12
throughout
13
permanent
California.
crop
I
14
of
We're
nursery
go
in the
out
15
ambition
one
16
apples,
genetically
17
modified
grapes
16
we work
19
it's
and
day
20
21
millions,
22
sold
genetically
modified
23
the
difficulty
in
24
wherewithal
25
into
the
crops
going
to
resources
deliver
we deal
largest
We've
and
towards
the
got
modified
genetically
process.
technologies
of
technology
with,
the
be a long
millions
these
growers
of many of our growers
these
finding
for
growers.
almonds,
needs
of
produces
genetically
the
deliver
hundreds
to
to
modified
difficult
to
I
41
and allocate
crops,
It
nation.
developing
And it's
or
probably
talk
to answer
with.
Duarte
California.
Duarte Nursery is our main company.
!i
vines and apple trees and almond trees
10
from
crops
acres
to,
so that
these
the
that
that
field
have
can be
you can imagine
investment
crops,
in
If
capital
or
technologies,
farmers
who grow
I
350
who just
1
apples,
2
tools,
3
now wondering
4
out
5
growers
6
insects
7
folders,
6
This
9
only
VIA,
of
lost
the
two of their
FQPA regulations
how they
their
In
insects
can answered
through
well
a
regulatory
framework
that
these
11
the
that
help
deliver
12
those
13
the
14
When can I have
the
growers
tell
:.
15
the
16
crop
17
these
pike
in
that
That
it?
Because
of
rollers,
problems
would
pesticides
programs,
the
lead
face.
it's
effective
attract
technologies
with,
the
that
Can you do it?
know what's
doesn't
into
crops
coming
and fungicides
and it
keep
ever
be great.
they
to
But
will
these
grape
they
and
crops
I work
me:
terms
production
look
down
in
their
good without
technologies.
so,
16
crops
going
predictable,
moth
sure
biotechnology.
10
crops,
who are
coddling
I'm
leaf
and disease
protection
year,
they're
the
through
will
last
future,
how
stable,
crops
to keep the
the
will.:
be wondering
'!
out: of their
grapes,
and other
this
are going
apples.
capital
major
19
those
20
open process,.
21
there
22
lo-year
I@11 ask
who need more
that's
development
23
MR. LAKE:
24
(Applause.]
25
MR. LAKE:
as you
information,
do it;
going
you,
but
to
let
answer
of those
please
keep
me attract
the
needs
who want
that
the
a more
predicability
capital
to
program.
Thank you,
This
is
sir.
the
last
of
of
our
scheduled
a
1
speakers.
,i
,?,
2
,:i.[
3
&~MISSI~NER
CLOSING
end of a very
5
Iem certain
for
6
been a very
productive
7
heard
8
viewpoints
on this
9
was raised
on one hand,
a
10
perspective
11
we heard,
12
education.,
13
people
wide
we've
I have to say,
here
and a very
of
issue.
on that
on the
myself,
and
panel,
informative
I think,
it
day.
has
We've
perspectives,
for
every
has given
same point.
the
for
opinions,
someone
come to
point
the
Probably
the
that
opposite
only
thing
*with
any consistency,
is that
consumers
need
,;.,I'
"I We need to do some a better
job of informing
about
what
this
16
written,
17
13 to
18
continue
to
19
further
information
20
developments
.
to
submit
technology
thank
We want
an open,
watch
that
all
the
is and what
of you for
you to remember
docket,
comments
Again,
21
and that
to that
we anticipate
thank
that
the
until
on the
subject
in the
going
on.
time
we do have a
We also
FDA home page
this
is
taking
you have
docket.
about
January
urge
you to
internet
for
and
the
all
future.
you
very
much for
at
5:55
p.m.,
your
attention
and good night.
23
[Applause.]
24
('Whereupon,
25
but
spectrum
15
22
day,
my colleagues
I.want
<I
to be with us.
14
Well,
Ho~moN:
4
long
REMARKS
concluded.)
the
meeting
was
352
---
CERTIFICATE
1
2
3
4
I
hereby
proceedings
certify
held
that
before
this
is
the
transcript
of the
the
5
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
6
7
on Monday,!December
1999,
;:
6
9
13,
and that
tl$is
is
a full
and correct
proceedings.
10
11
12
‘I
,”
13
14
.?’
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
;
transcription
of
the