on those, but they are there. passage in viruses and fraud are disrupted to international trade. security concerns are very much there related to undetected viruses. there's the potential for international misunderstanding and weakening the fabric of international organizations and standards around codex and, of course, iso 9000. i forgot we got a very fancier. so my apologies. partially because i'm colorblind because i can't see red. the role of the private public platforms that's a global food safety forum. it is come one, maybe for some foremost is information exchange, too, its joint venture investment in new food safety technologies from the operating

system, tracing, certification, all of that is addressed within forums such as ours. and collaboration, business-to-business and with government regulators to ensure uniform compliance with international standards and reduced incentives for fraud. the achievements of global food safety forum, we did receive a usda grant and we received chinese government in kind support. we've had several conferences worldwide. we did corporate site visits. we have partners like the center food safety, defense what you probably know of in minnesota, it's a consortium of 40 universities. we work closely with food and drug law institute. so these partnerships would like to integrate into these hands-on activities that we do. chinese delegations visit to the

united states, this year we intend to launch online courses on food safety for chinese companies and government regulators. and most certainly in that context there will be fsma compliance courses as well. and launching food safety comment and our big project which may not be completed this year but we been working on for about six months is launching a food safety liability insurance product for recall contamination in china trade, which does not currently, and surprisingly, exists even to the satisfaction of international buyers, as well as suppliers. here's what we think we can do for u.s. products. again, very much in the context and in synchronization with the

implementation of fsma. we did as noted received a usda grant and that is to promote the brand of u.s. food safety and quality in our exports. collaboration as noted with businesses, harmonization of standards, the ability for self revelation, something that is again presumed within fsma, because fsma and fda has to work closely with industry for successful implementation and compliance. a forum for dialogue and policy formulation, both industry and government, and a platform for regulatory agencies to broaden and widen their outreach and achieve greater and more uniform compliance. i look forward to questions. thank you very much. >> let's hold our applause.

we did chris, he gives a little extra for today but since we have to allow the listening audience to participate it doesn't seem fair so we will appoint everybody when we finished today. thanks, rick. next we'll hear from dennis nuxoll, representing farm families growing fresh produce in arizona and california. the members of western gross provide half of the nation's fruits and vegetables. including one-third of the fresh organic produce. dennis. >> thank you very much, charlie. good morning, everybody. good morning to you out on the internet. again my name is dennis nuxoll, i'm the vice president for federal affairs for western growers, as charlie mentioned, our growers, we are a trade association of growers who grow fruits, vegetables, tree nuts. we were founded roughly 90 years ago. in california and arizona.

most of our members are headquartered there but we grow in roughly 30 states and some 20 odd foreign countries. as charlie mentioned when you aggregate all of our volume together, our growers collectively represent 50%, roughly 50% of the fruits and vegetables in the united states, and roughly 99% of the tree nuts grown in the united states and about a third of all the organic production in the united states. and i should say we are all sizes, we're small, medium and large operations of all sizes. i've been asked to talk about the control rules on the product safety rules, pursuant to fsma, and i'm going to limit myself because of time to the produce rule, what i look for to talking of preventive control rules as well. i wanted to start about talking some passionate about some overarching thoughts and this is

going to sound like a lot of criticism, and i think all of us have talked about ways that the fda can improve the rule. so let me start by saying we think the fda did a really good job in executing the food safety modernization act. i think chris mentioned that they were required to issue seven very detailed, very specific rules over what are really very different topics. we think that they did a very good job doing that. think about the produce rule. in the produce rule, fda has to start thinking about, for example, agricultural water, how agricultural water can be a pathogen, a vector of pathogen and contamination for literally every single crop grown in the united states, across every growing region in the united states. it's a significant challenge, one that we think that they did a very good job in tackling. i will, however, say we're very appreciative that this year we are going to have an opportunity

and fda is looking again at at least a couple of the critical element of the produce rule, a couple of the critical elements around water, soil, a couple items similarly with the preventive control. so we are very appreciative of that opportunity and it's in that spirit that i want to talk about some of our thoughts about specific suggestions. to start off with, western growers believes that every operation regardless of scale should have some type of food safety plant. there is a very complete body of literature that talk about food safety outbreaks at all scales, whatever the scale of operation. and to we think that every operation showed and could have a food safety plant. in fact, we know that this is possible because over the last three or four years usda has had outreach programs to engage producers of all scale on food

safety. so you know that is for is one of the fundamental premises when we talk about food safety. we think that a food safety plant is appropriate for every farming operation regardless of scale and size. secondly, we think about the food safety modernization act and the resulting rule, one of the objectives we believe that is important to consider is that the rule should reduce the need for multiple redundant audits. and, frankly, it's one of the things that isn't talked a lot about, but for growers who have a standard set by albertsons and the standard set by safely in the standards set by whole foods and a standard set by wal-mart come you might have a grower green 100 acres for giveaways because those standards for food safety are not uniform. as i think chris mentioned certainly consumers are very focused on food safety. that is reflected not only in the legislation that was passed

by the clearly in food safety efforts that individual retailers are now pursuing and creating their own standards or looking for standards that they can adopt in food safety. so that's one of the things that we believed needs to be perhaps thought about a little bit more is how can we have this federal standard eliminate and reduce multiple redundant audits and multiple and redundant systems. that's over growers are already safe. let's not add another audit and another system on top of some of the commercial standards that are already in place. finally, all operation should be covered by only one rule rather than fragmented rules that preventive control and produce rule currently have. i'll talk about that in the next slide. in the produce rule, a couple of, a couple of thoughts. again, and i just talked about

this but we believe every operation should have a written food safety plan. we think that the way fda implemented the tester amendment, i think chris mentioned the tester amendment, an amendment that attempted to exempt certain small growers. we think that the fda as they wrote the produce rule has actually exempted a larger universe of growers then the tester amendment originally envisioned. and again since we believe that every farm operation, regardless of scale, can create, and should have a food safety plant of some type, we think that that's over encompassing definition from fda should be amended. speaking of definition, we think that definition should be clear, or size, and standalone. i suppose i could talk about five or six or seven dozen, you know, very technical definitions here. i'm not sure, charlie, the audience would appreciate the. suffice it to say, we think that

definition should be clear and concise and standalone. ownership of the product should not determine the rule to which the product is subject. what does that mean? well, in the preventive control and the produce rule, one of the elements that fda looks at any coming which rule do you fall under, is who owns the product. so we have lots of growers, this is a fairly common circumstance, i met 100 acres of let's say cabbage and 50 of those acres when i go out and harvest, i harvest for my own label, my own brand, and that enters the system of commerce under my name, or my logo and brand. but the other 50 acres i may be contracting with some other entity. so maybe i'm contracting with one of the grocery chains that i just talked about, albertsons or wal-mart or whole foods and maybe it's their brand, their logo on the cabbage your way the fda has these rules interacting,

i may now be subject to two different rules, even though it's the same operation, the same process, the same product. we think that there needs to be some rationalization of their, and specifically what we're interested in, in that regard is looking at the risk of the product and the risk of the activity, and what is the activity, rather than worrying about what the ownership structure is for that particular, in this case, harvest, and that really should dictate how the rules, what compound operation is subject to a rule. finally, apply the rules uniform a to both domestic and foreign operations. rick, we just heard rick talk about that so i will leave that aside. some of the general requiremen requirements, here i think one of the medical things that we

would like to see revised if possible in the rule is, in both subpar to be in the will talk about this later, subpart p, and that is creating greater flexibility to create alternatives and variances, conception they are very similar. the idea is if fda sets out standards and rules to accomplish a certain level of food safety health protection, there should be some mechanism to create alternatives for the. there may be other ways to accomplish the same objective. flexibility, right? conceptually, fda tested it on a. they have actually created not one but two mechanisms to create alternatives. there's a mechanism subpart d., subpart p, and so we applaud that but one of things that we would like them to refine and

improve is with respect to the alternative mechanism in subpart p regattas limi limited on wated soil components of the rule. there are several components to the produce rule. we think that if you're able to demonstrate an alternative that a conscious the public health objective, you ought to be able to demonstrate that with respect to all components of the rule, not just water and soil. secondly, the rule talks about establishing the same level, quote the same level of public protection. that seems quite reasonable, but when you actually read the rule there isn't a clear criteria and method and process by which you can accomplish that and show that. and in that regard, you know, we would consider, and we've suggested the fda that having an extra review process in order to approve alternates, allow those was approved to be widely

available to other growers, makes a lot of sense. and then we also talked, the rule talks about meet the same microbiological standards. and again, i think when we talk about trading alternatives, conceptually the idea of creating flexibility is useful, and certainly as a member of congress, charlie, i know when you wrote rules and the laws you always thought about alternatives and things being flexible so we applaud that. but we need to make sure that fda creates a real method and process and system that produces an action create alternatives, published in and have been working on the ground. and so that sort of the idea on that concept. subpart c. talk about personal and qualifications and training. for us, the critical component here is that the way the rule currently is written, and this

gets very technical but for those of us in washington and the beltway, the rule talks about the need to training and education and experience in order to be certified as an individual. when you make all three of those things requirements, i'm not sure how a new employee would ever be certified, and ever be allowed to participate in this system. and the one of the things we've argued, this is i guess it's a minor fix, but the idea is that you should have the ability for individuals to demonstrate qualification separately, trading or education or expand rather than the and clauses. and that's a very technical but for those of you, especially for those of you out in the countryside, it seems technical. for anyone in the room you understand the sort of regulatory speak and how that could be a problem. subpart d., agricultural water.

this is a part of the rule -- e. has been very controversial. chris, you mentioned it in your introduction. i would say from western growers perspective, we do not support road testing the road testing programs. instead of what we think about is that the rule has to recognize that one size does not fit all, and water use in different agricultural, for different crops and different settings has different risks. and so that is part of the rule that we would like to see altered. and let me to you an example. testing, testing frequency, the testing criteria for lettuce, let's say, which is a crop that is intensely watered, water touches about crop all the time. the testing regime for lettuce ought to be significantly

different than a testing regime for an orchard crop where water is used clear to, you irrigate the crop, you are irrigating the tree come you are occasionally sprang into the tree for temperature control. but the testing regime and the amount of water that touches the crop, the edible portion of the plant in an orchard context versus a lettuce context are radically different. and so from our perspective, we think that programs the layout every single crop test, every seven days as i think the rule states, a certain testing regime and having apply to physical crop in their single growing region without variants, that doesn't seem logical to him. and what we want fda to focus on is the proper focus on the focus that chris talked about early on and the intent of this which is to focus on the wrist, right? how do we minimize risk?

we sorely are not going to eliminate risk in the system figures was going to be some risk by the idea of this is to make food safer. we acknowledged that, and the idea really than is how do you have water testing calibrator of programming for the risk associated with that crop, that cropping system, that region, that doing space? so that's on agricultural water, conceptually where we would like fda to go. on soil amendments, and you know, there is a large body of literature that talks about raw manure being a significant and animal feces being a significant factor of pathogen contamination. from our perspective we want to discourage all, i repeat, all overall and untreated manure on crops.

we are also similarly as a consequence concerned about some of the yard trimming standards that are in the rule. but from our perspective, you know, there is a significant, i think there's a significant debate around how to treat many were, how to heat treat it, how to compost it up properly to remove the risk factors of pathogen contamination that manure can have. that's a significant body of size. there is a lot of literature on the subject. i think that he is doing the right thing by re-examining that space, but fundamentally, making sure that we're all -- raw untreated manure is not in contact with product is absolutely appropriate, absolutely correct, and looking at the side sites to make sure t the science is right on soil amendments and making sure that we have the right standards set

for composting, for example, for organic product. i think that's another place were fda has gone back, is in the process of reevaluating. is another example of fda really handling this appropriate, which is going back, taking sure the site is right and what is a critical area. one of the things on soil amendment. imbecile a minute rule there is requirement to test for, i think it's wisteria. we're not entirely sure there is a valid way currently to do that. so it's a little, we are a little unclear what fda would be mandating testing for substance where no test yet actually exist, right? so maybe that's an aspirational goal, but that may be something fda wants to clarify. animals, and we have talked a little bit about animals and action works nice with this concept of manure in feces.

western growers was involved in the wake of the spinach outbreak that chris mentioned roughly 10 years ago. we were involved, heavily involved in writing was called the leafy green marketing agreement. it is a cloud of agreement between the industry, states and federal food safety officials. and it's an agreement that lays out, sets out comprehensive, very detailed food safety standards. and from that experience we have seen differences in how animals are treated in the food safety context. and the one thing that i'm will leave you with is the need, i think for fda, they need to recognize different levels of risk. initially on animals, the idea was to prevent animals from ever entering a field. there were scientists that would come out to her feels 10 years ago and they would would be aghast that birds were flying

above the field. god forbid that a bird actually and in your field and there might be feces on your field. it's not a sterile environment, right? and i think over time people have got that, but certainly the initial expense was to try to great a sterile environment, tried to exclude animals, remove all the while of habitat around the field, terribly destructive, frankly. but now over time in leafy greens we've learned and i think the state and federal authorities have been involved in this process have all learned, really have to determine the risk. so, for example, if there are deer prints in your field and it looks like do you have eaten your cabbage, let's stick with the cabbage analogy, maybe, and the rule now states let's cordoned off that section of your field, you just that section of the field, as a rather than setting 30-foot fences around every field in america with netting to prevent birds, let's have a safety program in place that identifies

animal intrusion. when you identify you cordoned that ofcom you cordoned that section off rather than what was the old practice which was i had to exclude everything, if a single to cut in fuel, you just the entire field to not just the section that the animals in but you just the entire field. so i think we are hopeful that fda recognizes that. thank you. >> next -- wrong one. thank you, dennis. our wrapup presented this morning is paul muller of fully belly farms, a certified organic farm near sacramento, california. poll? >> thank you, charlie. thank you to the farm foundation for having me here. certainly see the issues running

food safety as complex. of the food safety organ of food system that sources food from all over the world where there's issues to be dealt with there. we have complex agricultural system in this country with small farms and large farms, and each one occupying a different space in the market system. it's a complex issue where we fit into all skills and capacities of farms to go ahead and deal with the fsma rules that are being handed down and impose on agriculture. it's tending to say that one kind of regulation will fail. i think that may not work in the real world. the rule creates a assurance of action which i think you do need to bury preventative in, and looking at how we approach food safety but there are worlds apart with us walk around washington, d.c., i came from a from yesterday of walking around, it's a different world, a different reality. it's totally incredible space

between understanding of what goes on in a biologically-based agricultural system and the bagel that i had this morning, and i had a lettuce and tomato on them that was to live ethically in a complex chain of relationships that moved up from california to here. and i could consume it with relative confidence is going to be good but i think that we need to think about how we as urban consumers expect our food to be safe. we also expect it to be cheap. i think that's a conflict that is inherent in the system where we are looking at a system where cheaper food is mandated summit in the system and keeps on pressing agriculture i think integrator greater levels of concentration. far fewer people producing our food in the fields. there's fewer eyes per acre out there. people actually responsible for the product and out of that field. today with less than 1% of the

u.s. population that farms. we pay 9% of our disposable income for food. far less than any industrialized nation. i think on the whole, agriculture has been safety within a pretty good job. there are tragedies that shake all of agriculture to its roots. as far as i talk to have incredibly been affected by the virulence of some of the microbes and how those can pass through a system. and it becomes an indictment of the whole system, becomes the indictment of reform. i think that's part of the tragedy that is taking place right now. i wanted to bring to this form of a small farms perspective. our farm is like a lot of other farms. it started about 30 years ago. i grew up on a dairy farm in san jose, california. we have a farm about 350 acres now. our farm has been focused on growing about 70 different crops on those acres and we're focused on the health of us will come on stewardship, of natural resources, fostering more life

and health in this welcome growing farm pollinators in a diverse system where we are trying to create a form that is ecologically sound and impact. we are looking to create market access as passionate as a beginning farmer. we started with borrowing $10,000 trying to figure out we buy a tractor. that some of the skill you're looking at. we -- where to go in able to get into the farming business? a lot of young, small farmers are asking the same questions. we were interested in country at we deal with pesticides and food. fair return for our workers. the health and vitality of a form that can be generated several communities once again thrive but the issue of food safety needs to be put into this larger context of this larger matrix of issues around agriculture and rural communities. that is not sustained or in its focus, that it will, in fact, destroyed a lot of the people that i think are producing high according fruits and vegetables in this country through

excessive amounts of paperwork, regulation, oversight, et cetera. we focus on marketing locally. about 95% of our commodity or product that we produce is sold within 150 miles of farm. we're focused on relationship driven marketing. most of our customers will notice for 30 years, we still include customers whose children have been raised on our food. in those 30 years of selling produce locally we've never had a food incident, any kind of incident that we know. we sorting don't know everything that happens in someone's kitchen but we feel fairly confident the food we're selling is healthy, wholesome and vibrant food. we have 30 years of direct conversation with many of the customers about the quality and safety of the products in our field. i think our science-based approach to food safety is that we have intimate trade stability with the customers we serve. i think we represent many of what are called these food systems, new urban edge phones,

small firms run the country that are beginning to crop up. we've never seen on our farm so many people applying for internships with us, so many young farmers interested in beginning in agriculture. a lot of them are not from a farm family to a lot of them are looking at this issue and wanted to find someplace where they can make a positive change and the larger issues about food, obesity, diabetes, the fact that half of our population has a health related right issue, or diet related issue, i should put it that way. looking at these larger issues in trying to figure out what kind of farms to we really want. this is not intended to be a criticism a large-scale agriculture. this is intended to be a focused discussion on this month and how fsma will, in fact, create burdens to entry, create burdens to compliance, create burdens to moving up for farms that are in the middle and needed to supply

local and regional markets. i didn't have a slide presentation because i'm not that slick, and i don't, not criticizing you guys. i didn't actually realize what i want to say into last night. my wife and i love said don't give them hell. i molded over and about midnight after couldn't sleep because i was nervous about talking to all you guys. i had, i came up with an idea thaand that even though it may e too late to deflect fsma's implementation in the produce rule, hoping we can affect the produce rule in these ways. i think i want to say that fda, some of this is the wrong way. we're going the wrong way with his rule ever going to wrongly because of the impact on small and mid size from come on the risk activities. we are going in the wrong way

because we know that we need the people eat more fresh fruits and vegetables, and we don't want them to be frightened of the food safety issues associated with those. we want them to be knowledgeable to whether produced and how they produced and the care that is taken in going to get we want money to circuit locally. we know that in sacramento area, for example, close to where we live, $8 billion in trade and food in that region that could be sourced locally. or a percentage of that could be sourced locally. you can begin to create jobs and economic movement around agriculture that can exist in places like sacramento and cleveland and boston. food systems thinking is becoming to become part of the discussion that we create a safer food system. i think we're going the wrong way because i think farmers are being put into a box and there are being put into the box where -- i could use more, if i could. being put into a box where there can be chilling to the idea of

stability. they are beginning to say that, that we can control risk and create a more sterile and vibrant after in the fields that will, in fact, make food safety. we can control all the points of potential contamination in our fields in these widely dynamic biological systems. and individually that point i think you will get themselves in trouble because once you in that box you can't get out of it. initially i think farmers were so taken aback by this is that doing everything they can to seek to comply with any point of contamination. i have farmers who talk to me, talked last week visited the coyotes are driving us crazy, there's no water. they're coming in and shooting up our orchards. in california's drought, in california's drought there is no green space for wildlife to go

in a few. kind of space around on the field rededicating and growing are covered crops and other things. we are involved in this dynamic system, not approach are saying that turkeys are coming in and out of and how to keep them out. to what i going to do? are going to destroy the wildlife after i going to fans it and turkeys are to because they will go over a 10-foot fence. are you going to begin to say it made we need to rethink this little bit my point here today is to say that i think we've gone the wrong way in understanding biological systems. i'd like to point out that each one of you has 100 trillion bacteria right now working in each of their bodies, 100. 10 times more than the cells you have in your body. you may have taken a shower this morning and you might have not that that a little bit but for the most part they are there in every one of us. we don't understand our fundamental relationship with the microbial world.

we don't understand but we don't understand how we begin to create healthier outcomes by understanding our relationship with the microbial world. we are shooting from the hip in these standards by creating mechanisms, which again, prevention is important. as a small farm we have a gap program. we're looking a point on our farm where we may have problems that could arise in our whole chain of relationship between ourselves and the consumer. but, in fact, we don't understand, and we don't argue for, the fact that we live in a biological funk. that the food, and in your very got, the food that you consume inoculates your very got with the beneficial, hopefully beneficial microorganisms. that creates everything that you need to become your own ecosystem. robert dunn of the universe of north carolina, a biologist calls it wildlife in our bodies. stanford michael biologist

justin sonnenberg talks about the kennedys of bacteria in your system. how your indian system is really a microbial interaction system. we are just beginning to understand the science, and this is where we want science-based rule but we are excluding the whole area of trying to understand the science of complex microbiology and how that affects the very healthy plant, also held as part of this dynamic of how you grow healthier foods, out each one of us is impacted, has a distinct relationship without food, how your dog can be of greater source of inoculation for you than most anything else, it links you and your family becomes a biological community because you are sharing microbes. it's a fantastic, elegant, complex world that we're just beginning to understand. we are just beginning to look at. you take the fda rule, and i

think the way farmers look at it, is that i can't monitor all of us. i can't do what is required of me to monitor my fencing every day, go and check for any potential source of contamination, this king of you wanted your walks across the because he may have a suspected fecal contamination. i think we need to begin to think about, isn't really a source of contamination. r. r. which is jumping to conclusion. and with all due respect to consumers that are out there that had kind of tragic incidents of foodborne illnesses, i think we have to look deeper. we have to look deeper at this whole level of soil, human, plant interaction, and how we began to shoot for a healthier outcome. i wish that we would have called this food safety modernization act, food safety more better health outcomes act. because it's not an absolute.

i think, i think that farmers gave up a lot just in calling this a modernization act, because if it seems that the way it is presented to us, we had seven years of stagnation in agriculture, and farmers haven't changed over the last seven years, and thank god we've done something. it's important we do something and it's critical that we begin to think about prevention. but it's critical we begin to think more broadly about the ecological framework, that the prevention is placed into, and we think more broadly about how we are a part of a complex microbiology coal system, that if you deny your existence committee tried to great star really, if you claim that some consequences that are profoundly off target, a third of people going to hospitals these they would have some form where they have diarrhea, that somehow created by the environment, overuse of antibiotics.

they are doing fecal transplants into gut is that the vector load that they need in order to be healthy. is a crazy idea. it's what's happening. ..

all right. i'm going to stop there and give >> we need to solve the pattern. for pattern. gregory basin talked about solving for pattern. these issues are much broader, much bigger and we don't want to take the wrong action. we want to ask for the science, create preventive measures and look at the greatest source of risk but not create perhaps impediments for some of those most interesting areas where there is innovation, entrepreneurship and renewal going on in urban areas. so thank you very much. >> thank you, paul now it's your turn. i want to thank c-span on behalf of the foundation for covering this this morning. the purpose of the floor in the

foundation is to bring education to the 300 million americans that enjoy the food that is produced in the united states so we thank c-span for making this coverage and the panelists for sharing their views. now it's your turn. to those on the audio cast, please send us your questions. to those in the room, please come to the microphone and state your name and organization. i am charlie stenholm former member of congress now with the law. i'm a member of the house and do not dissipate in filibusters. i will recognize you as soon as someone gets a question. [laughter] and announce your name come who you're with and state your question. >> thank you for the presentations. i name is well fischer with the institute of technologists into the food global traceability center. i have a two-part question and richard, this might start with you. how well has this new law -- i

will try that again. how has this new law been accepted and understood by countries outside of the u.s.? and the second part of that is what are the educational outreach efforts and how are they going? >> well, i will base my answer on the question mainly on our experience in china, which of course is a huge market for u.s. consumers. the fda has located a number of offices in china. they have the level of collaboration between the fda, usda and counterpart organizations in china, the

ministry of health, ministry of agriculture, has a frequency in the training courses, the conferral systems has improved greatly, and that's hosted to a large extent by the drafting of the food safety law as it was last amended in 2012 in china. so the architecture i would argue for that collaboration is now better than it ever was. as far as probably implicit in your question is how deep does it go in terms of the education and what are some of the flashpoint. the biggest flashpoint from the

perspective and there are counterpart agencies in china to our knowledge is the third-party certified auditor system. it still hasn't been resolved. as to the status of that organization namely the independent certifier and above regulatory body responsible for the trade in china wants to be responsible for those auditors and for the certification and training of those auditors. the argument is mainly a question of how trustworthy is a

third-party independent particularly in the china context. there've been lots of articles i'm sure many of you have read about the risk that might be incurred if there is training in the third-party certified auditor in china and that party sets up its own certification organization and it sends out auditors, certified auditors who are not indeed certified, but nonetheless, the original owner is certified that dilutes the effectiveness of the program. that is the argument it presents for its position to be the sole

party responsible for auditors in china. there are cultural questions as to the level of intrusiveness that compliance might require with respect to fisma there is a little different approach. nonetheless, there is certainly acceptance and a recognition of its importance commercially and its contribution to the health example for china itself the new food and drug administration is styled in my opinion after the fda, so this is really catalytic in its broad reach in terms of

trying to service its domestic and foreign markets. >> if i could add to that, once the rule is finalized, they will have a big job in trying to communicate with the final rule to all the different countries that import to us and communicate the different entities and doing a lot of training in that regard into the technical assistance. there also has to be a lot of training in their own staff comes about when the inspectors are going to the food plants were going overseas, they are inspecting to the new model as opposed to the old model they were going in and doing the top to bottom inspections. the whole inspection has to beat me trained so that they are giving fisma inspections in looking at it in that context as opposed to their old one. >> i am the director of the equitable food initiative which is according to the compliance

for the food safety labor and pest management. i'm curious about the role of the farm labor in this discussion. dennis mentioned that the produce full of talked about training and so forth that we would see the farm workers not only as a potential risk factor in terms of the pathogens but also as a part of the solution and i'm curious to hear your thoughts about the role of the leader in fisma. >> i can answer that. our workers are all given food safety training for the design of the farm is that we tried a five-year deployment for the workers and that makes them invested in the success of the farm and full-time observers and all across. they have the food safety training and there are talked about the cleanliness and hygiene. one of the things that is left out, there's a larger chain of relationships we have an essential valley of california one of the greatest fruit, nuts

and touchable producers in the world and the poverty that is far greater than any other part of the country and it is linked to people who are a part of the farm working through the system working the fields. this is poverty i think there are a lot of people that are working that are undocumented. i wish that you would include and folding to the discussion something broader in king about immigration. how are these people's lives when they are home? if they are living an unhealthy conditions because they are not paid fairly or they are living lives where they can actually be healthy or they are not given the tools to be healthy we are expecting them to com come out o the fields and wash their hands and i think we have a much bigger issue. most every farm is talking to their farm workers about how to do personal hygiene, how they take care of the requirements for bathrooms and sanitation of

those things are in place. but in fact the bigger question of who is picking our food and how are they living in a much larger context i think is left out entirely. >> i entirely agree tha that farmworkers are a critical element of any food safety system. what i talked about in my presentation, animal intrusion in the fields, the old paradigm was much like what paul was talking about the sort of sterilization field and build fences and keep everything out, the new paradigm certainly in the marketing agreement and subsequent agreements and other crops is more nuanced, and you have to identify risk and to identify and intrusion, and you corner off an area tha that maye had an intrusion and that portion of the field, rather

than the whole field, is what you would prevent from being harvested. it's obvious that the individuals who were doing the identification, the individuals identifieidentifying the intrusd individuals are going to be farm labor and farm workers and those workers have to be trained adequately. so clearly there is a critical element to implementing the food safety rules and having a formulary part of it. >> we see a huge role for the farmworkers and as an element they are the eyes and ears in the field. they know what's going on and they can provide that sort of first alert went to be able to identify problems when they exist you have to create a sort of culture on the farm to bring those problems up. so i'll call the farmworkers too be able to raise those issues that they are sort of a key element. if you look at the processing

plant all of the workers are trained into safety and understand it's a critical component of the jobs and bringing that into the farmworkers to i think through the education and training is only going to enhance the efforts. >> i am with the progressive farmer and i have a question for paul. you express concern generally with the direction the fda would go and i gather that is not likely could you point out one change that could be made in one rule under the proposed rules

that would relieve a significant part that you are feeling about this? there are ways that the group gets together. we as a small farms and many other farms are focused on the market direct, marketing directly to the end-user. it's the only way you can survive in a very competitive and efficient produce industry. one they need to take a good look at is the definition of the facility if we are a farm that is growing our own product and cleaning it, putting it in a box and giving it to consumers, we are a farm, not a facility. we have information on how to keep all of the processes healthier. i think i would ask the fda to step up a bit and offer guidelines, but what is

happening is i think the insurance industry tells the supermarket they need to have the information there's a chain of relationship and in one way it works really well and in another way it walks up the small farmers from entering those markets. so i would ask them generally to step back and look at the low risk activities that are perhaps more focus on the test side of this and not the same basket as one facility. >> i am vice president of international relations for the international food information council and foundation. i would like to ask a question initially to eric but would welcome comments from the rest of the panel, too on behalf of our organization, and the

international networks that we helped to facilitate an alliance to be the future, educational outreach program, and an international center of excellence in the food risk communication. this builds on another question about education, and i know the panel has elaborated the focus on communication to protect food against contamination and that is the ultimate goal. as highlighted the major potential for international misunderstandings and we don't need to think too far many issues where different countries around the world see the same set of scientific facts in a totally different light. he also highlighted a significant importance of consumer health and consumer confidence. this raises the question of public outreach and education and a stakeholder outreach and

education so i would like to ask the panel if they could elaborate on any initiatives they have or are aware of that moving to the area of public education so that consumers understand what's safe and what isn't and these good measures are being put in place. and i would also like to ask them to take it a little bit further and ask them if they see locally, regionally and internationally opportunities for coordination and public-private partnerships, which i think may be a very important element in making this whole thing extremely successf successful. >> thank you, randy. good to see you. i consider that a very friendly question. because in the mission that we are trying to correct our attention to in the global food

safety form, we do kind of conventional modalities that are quite standard and with different levels of conferral but the new and the most exciting initiative that we think is to offer these courses which we are now in the process of designing and targeting chinese corporate managers, the technicians for operating systems as food safety regulators we are meeting with the regulatory counterparts in china to get their support to bring this on our endeavor as

well as those others to collaborate with other organizations. to get as diffuse as possible into china. i think it's important also to realize that in china the system in the food safety regulation which had to be done in a very accelerated rate because of the abuses was and has been a top-down approach directed from the central government, and what as a westerner was brought home to me was that that's best only half the story, and i think that's kind of part of the

section that's in your question and an answer to your question because reaching the level of popularizing food safety and raising the consciousness has to be the introduction of novel my the regulatory piece, but the educational piece at the provincial level. and i've often said also that with respect to fraud, the system isn't in china going to change until the costs of fraud are recognized as greater than the benefits and there is a long way to go as far as that is concerned. but we are trying to do our little effort and try to leverage that as best as we can

through these new electronic means it through the broadening of our network to raise the consciousness, which is absolutely essential you are quite right. it's in the domestic model in the case of china. thank you for that question. >> it is going to be relying on a lot of public-private partnerships to get education out the stakeholders so they have the safety alliance working on the training programs and also one getting information out about fisma they have a preventative control alliance that works at the industry to give guidance, documents and those sort of things out to get information to the members, consumer groups and public i think they are going to be relying on those different elements that are out there to sort of spread the word once they have the final rules everybody knows here's the new law of the land.

>> you raise a question about the opportunity to create public and private partnerships. not only is it an opportunity, it is already occurring. at least here domestically. i mentioned the marketing agreement. that was an attempt to near zero where you have industry groups working collaboratively with the states authorities, federal authorities is a variety of other efforts in california and there is a wonderful effort in florida for the tomato industry in florida has worked collaboratively with the states to create food safety regime's. part of that regime structure is not only to help create the standards, but also to help enforce the standards and then also to help educate members on what that standard is. so i think there is a half dozen or so examples already in place

of the public-private partnership. i should note from our perspective those existing public-private partnerships, those existing standards are somehow incorporated into these rules. there is specific industry guidance for tomatoes in florida the leafy greens in california, cantaloupe, etc.. in some ways that will be location specific and it is more comprehensive than anything that the fda could create a sort of macro level. so we do hope at some point they will begin incorporating those systems partnerships concretely into the framework that they already have. >> at one piece to that. we talked to consumers all the time and they have no idea what the reality of agriculture is and what goes on in the farm and

how food is actually produced. and in fact, the guidelines are seeing visitors to the farm is potential biohazard. the whole system needs to be more transparent and open and we need to be able to bring people to the farm so they understand the processes are. but it's catching on. people are talking about local food because they have a relationship that is a fundamental relationship in the place anface and it is becomingt of the dialogue. it is a place to demystify the food production and begin to change the relationships that are healthy, not top down and are bottom-up and they are based on a direct relationship. we have to grow. two worlds. somehow those have to inform each other how we create a

healthy outcome. >> i would like to make an observation at this point. this is a law that was created by congress. very few created by congress are perfect and therefore they aren't obligated to the regulatory body to implement to that which congress in its wisdom decided needs to be done. to those that may have gotten your a little bit to invite to participate but that is what they should have done. but i can guarantee you that a bunch of them are listening into this discussion because it is this discussion at which they are now having to do which i would guesstimate very few ever have a clue what goes on on the farm. that was not of their predominant reason of being. and now they have been told by the congress to begin regulating in the areas in which they have an educational curve to bring themselves up to also, and they

are going to try to do that. but it's a complicated procedure that we are going through. and this morning i think hopefully will be an additional educational efforts answer many of the questions that have already been posed. >> i have a question about the import and environmental also touches on the u.s. consumers as well and i think we have a sort of chicken and egg problem. i know that the usda that -- [laughter] the linchpin seems to be as far as the imports are concerned. but in order to get confidence and this is where the consumers link in to have the confidence you need to have systems in place that will allow the importers to verify the safety of the food. how do you do that short of

having these equipment unseen mutual recognition regime's in place which take a long time to establish and are not based on adopting u.s. rules but sort of rather a mixture as i said in recognition and so forth? it seems to me that there's going to have to be an intermediate step of recognizing and accrediting if not auditing bodies and testing companies in order to do some of that work partly because of the confidence of how do i know that companies -- backcountry has the right to food safety mechanisms and standards in place? i have more confidence that this international testing company is going to be able to go to a facility and make sure the control points are in place etc.. i would be interested to hear from what can be done to

establish the fsvp and from the consumer perspective, u.s. perspective, what is going to provide the confidence that india there are equivalent levels of safety in the foreign market. >> of the important thing is very complicated you point out, and the fda has never done a lot in that space. they have inspectors at the board and wait to come in and expecandexpectedandexpected they are not really catching. they are all interlocking so they almost have to work together in the third-party certification program has to sit with the verification program as well on the comparability side. all of that has to kind of work

together and it's a little unclear how they are going to start falling into place. that i think that the intent is to push a lot of th it out of ty requirements back into the foreign country city made sure that they are developing the systems that would assure them that their suppliers are producing food safety and the fda to work in the country to make sure that regime is up to speed and to be able to enforce some of their lives and the third-party certification, which is sort of limited and what is going to focus on sort of higher risk areas where the fda deems there is a need and i know i'm not giving you an exact answer to your question but all these systems have to walk together to create that assurance.

>> i think we provided a partial answer that it is -- that there has to be a synchronization of that in the systems and from the china perspective that the match is end of their i could pick up the point that paul has made in the u.s. context that has relevance with respect to your question in a broad issue of the impact of regulation in china is that the only compliance to the extent it's uniform and successful is in my estimation only at the largest company level where there's innovative operations and the documentation

from the point of origin to the point of delivery is secure. so there is also to take an example in the sector in china there is a very intense and accelerated consolidation trend in china. and certainly part of that is incentivized by the need to respond to the foreign market requirements but also by the regulatory requirements designed to match and spend and satisfy fisma in this case in the european case. so, but if you -- the minute you start to address the question at this level, certainly the small-scale level which by the

way does enter the global supply chain because even the integrated food and feed the companies have to go outside of their own integrated operations to source the product because they are operating at 100% capacity. so, it's a huge problem. in my estimation in the china context, there's no way that it's going to be solved overnight, and the infrastructure and the technologies required to achieve that level are not there. >> the further you get away from the source of the production the harder it is to understand and control all of the pieces of the supply chain and to think about the farmers that might be supplying the leafy greens to california or the u.s. to mexico or do they have the capacity to

test the water every week if they are getting it from a source that surfaced that water. i don't think that capacity probably exists. you have multiple layers of problems that you need to develop the infrastructure for those problems to have guarantees that they are being adhered to. if you look at organic production there is a bit of a model that the program has already developed standards where you can't use it in organic production. they have the standards in place. fisma has looked to sort of plant goes against the congress as well but there is an international standard and a body that oversees the implementation of the organic food internationally. they've developed uniform standards and protocols for inspections. is it foolproof? i'm sure it's not that it's probably closer than at the international body looking at

the regulating of the smallest producers serving the large international market. >> with cornell foods we talked about collaboration and private efforts but what are your thoughts from each of the panelists with regards to the fda collaborations in the states? we are looking to add 50 different states and rules. but is there an opportunity in your opinion for the collaboration with the state department of agriculture to the department of health in understanding the fda limited resources and particularly of limited resources being able to train people quickly enough to get an implementation to understand agriculture farming etc.. is there an opportunity here? >> they are going to be working with the states in terms of inspections and outreach and those sort of things, and they

recognize that the workforce isn't big enough to conduct the inspections and they historically work with the sta state. so they are making sure that the state capacity and the states training and ability to conduct those types of inspections for the fda is equal to what the inspectors would do so we want to make sure the states have the resources to do those inspections but also are doing them in the same level we would expect an inspector to do when he goes into a food plant. they will rely almost entirely on the states to work with farmers and to then conduct any kind of inspections work investigations. it simply doesn't have the capacity to be on the farm. they will be able to go on the pharmaceutical them or if they are investigating something, but they've pretty much said that they are leaving that up to the states and work with the states on that and.

>> there is a structure in place we have the land grant colleges that have offices in almost every county in the country and those extension offices or give it a suicide us testified usinge farmers with information about their -- how to do best practice for a lot of things but i think that they could be involved in the discussion on best practices thabut we have defunded a lot of the extension, the services are a fraction of what they used to be. and if you are asking for a relationship driven in an accountability change and if you are asking for those folks to be involved and they have something else to fund them, i would say that is a good place because a lot of those folks understand intimately the agricultural environment that they are working in and they are the working directly with farmers. >> we have a very, very good organization with the national association of state department of agriculture that if the fda

isn't working with that entity, consider starting this afternoon. >> i'm with the american veterans association. and my question pg backs off of the last question of the state involvement of how are we planning on thinking fisma with county level regulations because say you are a small agricultural producer you might need a permit and different levels of safety to sell in five different counties and that can make it economically impossible for you to attend farmers markets and a lot of that work is coordinated by the agricultural extension offices which are severely underfunded and understaffed right now. you have any further thoughts about the county level? policies and how the extension would be involved ex- >> what you are seeing the

county offices become much more involved in this discussion of how do they support their regional agriculture? so they are looking at all of the mechanisms to create a prosperous agriculture because that is where their purview is. they are doing certification, promotion, education, farmer and outreach as the best practices that might be doing watershed management work and a lot of the holistic thinking about how to make that integrated with what they are providing further farmers. that's not true across the country. you have a lot of offices that need some a shot in the arm they need people who are talking about this whole notion of there being proactive and creating a much healthier local system so that they are prospering and can make better choices in food safety. so i think that they are a

critical piece to this. you know, that -- they've done some really interesting work in convening people around soil and i think the other place my talk was about how do we enliven soil so that it is incredibly viable to be the viable and that every piece of that chain is a healthier outcome because soil is more vigorous and this complex biology of microorganisms and a billion are working in a healthy manner. it goes back to soil and that fundamental work i think could happen in the county offices. they are the places that farmers can begin to learn how they fundamentally change from a very singular focus on the nutrients to a biological focus on making

soil a cornerstone to the processes. the national association from the state department is standing and he may ask a question it's very clear that they understand their own limitations. there is no -- i've never had a conversation where they wish to have the 50,000 employees or doing this so they understand their own limitations. they need to and will be accessing existing systems. certainly the state inspection systems are part of that and they won't necessarily have to be part of this process.

certainly in the last several years they have had intense conversations in the department of agriculture and how the department of agriculture can be part of this and that the education and training for the e department of difficult or has gap certification process. how was that a part of this? how were some of the public-private partnerships that i have mentioned part of the system, and so from that perspective i am quite heartened because i think that the fda over the last several years as charlie has been ginned as they have gotten educated about thise same as they have gone from book learning to practical learning, they've gotten very good at understanding the systems and how to integrate the systems and, you know, certainly all of us on this panel are going to be part of the process to make sure that they are guided. but i have a fairly high degree of confidence that the fda will be integrating with some of the county extensions and usda systems in the state systems

that are collaborative systems already in existence to try to execute what is a very completed process. congressman, thanks for the pl plug. i will say the fda has done a lot of work so far and i would also say that they have a lot more impact before these rules will be implemented. we are in discussions with them that the implementation can happen any time soon. because you mentioned the gap i feel i just want to make one other statement. we are finding the requirements of the certification on the gap versus what is going to be required for fisma are yards

apart. we are worried about the message it actually gets to the farmers because we have said if you are there you are partway there. i think anybody that knows and understands a is much further along, but the purpose of something to look at quality versus food safety are magnitudes apart and we have a long way to go in making that happen. education, the amount of education, for the most part, the farm activities have never been regulated before. so now we are moving into doing that to make sure people understand where we are going into the value of having the farm assessments done we actually look at what is going on to be an extremely helpful thing to make sure that we get to that point. and some of the things almost all of the things we have been talking about i keep finding myself going back to the work funding.

the fda has funding to get where they are now or at least through some parts of the implementation plan. there is not funding or a stream recognized how they are going to get from where they are today to something beyond this including working with the states and the question about the county's. they are pretty clear about the need for the collaboration of the federal state and local food safety system. so there's a lot more effort that needs to happen at the county level. i don't think it is any secret that the budget will come out and about a month is going to propose the fees as a way of funding a good deal of the programs. they do that traditionally it is the way that the model they have is based on what they do so now we are expanding in the area of the food safety.

i would like to hear how people view the right way. i don't think there is a right way that the right way to fund the activity to get from where we are today. >> we have long said that they need additional funding not only to do the basic job is to implement fisma as well as of the other responsibilities. it's been a long-term problem to get the resources they need to do the job to protect the public health and to ensure that it has those resources. in the past several years the congress has providing the fda additional funding and there've been small increases but it's also been doing very tough budget times, so it's been hopeful and so the congress i think is recognized the importance and the need to continue funding and has recognized fisma.

that needs to contie and we would like to see it grow. we would much rather see that the appropriate funding than to start turning to the user fees on the food side. however, we have been willing to think about that user fee if that is a way to bring in some sort of resources for the fda and get at the resources that it needs. so we would rather see the appropriations and we are looking to have a conversation about the feed to see if that in get some sort of information. we don't think it needs to be defined in the same way and it shouldn't be designed in the same way on the drug and device side it should be more of a regulation food facility fee. but it's -- i would say the next five years we need to do a lot of hard thinking and try to figure out how we can get them the resources that we need. >> i teach a state at the university on monday nights we had a good discussion of this

issue in this last monday and i want to give some opinions. as i tell my class i'm going to share with you my opinion based on 26 years of experience in the congress and the before and after. and they always ask, you know, do you gave p-papa tests? though i don't. i'm going to give you opinions. how can i greet yo grade you dor opinion is different than mine when you may be right? do with that disclaimer, i want to make some observations and i would appreciate the reaction of the panel on any or all of them. i think the name of your farm was a very good educational operation for the panel today. when you have extra costs on those that propose the food, who

is going to pay for it? the people. who can least afford the amount of paying for the additional cost? those on the very poorest end of the scale. so when we start talking about regulations that satisfy someone's opinion, rather than really dealing with the problem, we are not living in the right direction. i put my budget hav budget hat i wouldn't be very supportive of giving the fda any more money or any other regulatory body until they demonstrate a better job of doing what they were supposed to be doing in the first place. my question to you is anyone on the panel of where anyone that doesn't believe these decisions should be made on the sound science consensus sound science? you can drive a mack truck through sound science can't you? how much science in this country

is influenced by the questions asked and how the question is framed. >> and the opinion of the investigator. i think that if you define the very sound science as being open and looking at all of the issues that are not starting from the point of assumptions. >> you know, chris, you mentioned the 126,000 hospitalizations. that is a pretty big number until you look at the over 1 billion that occur in the united states to get to 126,000 hospitalizations. are you aware of -- do we have a trendline is food safety going up? i mean hospitalization, foodborne illnesses going up in the united states and at what rate? >> we do not have the data to be able to look at the trends over time. they have been able to do

estimates. so they have done a new estimate and that is where they do that, that they haven't been able to say year by year, the hospitalization or death number of hospitalization. >> said about to be a little bit comforting to all of the policymakers. if we really don't have that information, then how much credibility should we put in someone's opinion. the hospitalizations out of a building in him is it possible that we would ever get to zero? i want to answer my own question. i am aware of people that have had and are having a tremendous amount of influence on the food safety questions that are not using the sound science. of those that oppose the biotechnology of those that oppose genetically modifying plants. they have opinions that they are welcome to. they may be right. but until there is some

scientific evidence that they are right, why should we either by law or by a regulatory body and whose cost on our food industry without at least acknowledging that we are going to do tremendous damage to the hungry in the world packs i oppose that as a question but in all of the discussions we have particularly bad that gets a lot of attention it is alleged that biotechnology is harmful for the human body without any evidence as of yet been put forth except by a few that have their opinion. i think we need to take that into consideration. user fees i render that argument from my days on the house agricultural committee and the meat and whole tree area. you have a little problem. if you are going to use the user fees you are immediately going to have criticism from all of the folks that are opposed to

the way that we produce food today. the food factories as they are called. then you are going to have them paying for the food safety and criticism and it is just a round circle coming back. so these are the areas that we need to acknowledge in the discussion. you said we need to have the best and safest food supply at the lowest cost of any of the people around the world. he and i made this statement many times and i've been challenged by some of our international friends periodically. they would say you have the safest and i said i have the best supply and safest at the lowest cost. there has to be a trade-off.

>> 126,000 hospitalizations, that's not an opinion. the cbc has done scientific work and they've done the estimates. there is good science behind those numbers. >> what is the trend we had ten years ago? >> i don't know. i don't study those numbers. but here's the thing. we have seen increased outbreaks linked to certain products and so that raises concerns. we have the produce industry recognizing that they were seeing a lot of outbreaks like the spinach and peppers and those sort of things and so they were actually supporting the food safety modernization act it wasn't just based on those. it was a recognized problem and this was the congress' attempt to recognize those. >> we look at this from the perspective of small and for us to be diverse farmers, black

farmers, latino farmers out in fresno and also the farm workers. and i think it's been a really interesting discussion and really what the overall context of my question is is how do we know what is going to work? you know, where are -- where is the lack of safety coming from? we try to work with insurance companies to figure out if you worked on farm worker health and safety and so forth, would you improve your insurance ratings by having safety on the foreign? small farmers we have been training them for a lot of years in the gaps. now they do need to have another system. but, you know, or the problems arising from the smaller forms, from the larger farms, what can we know from where the outbreaks are into the question has come out about the biodynamic farms and there is a history of wheree a lot of our producers are

diverse fruit and vegetable growers. how do we figure out what's going to work and what systems really show the results? that is a good question and part of the answer at least from our perspective is that as the fda is crafting the rules, for example for the produce, the notion of flexibility and that i talked about one size does not fit all, making sure that is in the rule and that there are not only -- that there are pathways whereby producers can identify different ways to accomplish food safety, i think that as chris talked about in his direct presentation, the american public at the moment is very focused in the safety of food

that they fit the second concern to the public into that concern is reflected not only in the legislation but frankly it is reflected on every single retailer in america. to varying degrees they demand food safety being placed before the retailer is going to be purchasing the product and entering the commerce streams. it is the wholesalers paul is using for some of his products that are going to demand that as well. understanding the food safety system and the fda establishing the standards and rules. but then also recognizing the diversity of the production systems, the diversity of the production climate, understanding the risk factors and then allowing the variability and alternatives in having the avenues to have alternatives and differences from that standard will.

that is a big part of the answer to make this work across the diversity of the landscape that we have in the united states. >> i was hoping that is what i was trying to get to in my comments trying to think more broadly be under 26,000 hospitalizations and the estimates of where those foodborne illnesses come from, 40% come from homes. you can argue whether that traces back to the farms or not, but the rest of them have been in the supply chain. in the transportation where you eat at your restaurant, 3% according to the cdc go back to the farm 3%. that's not a bad record. we have to know what target we

are aiming at if you look at the agricultural systems to make them healthier you have to look pretty deep. what we are really looking for is movement towards healthy outcomes that are measurable. we are looking for trying to identify the risk factors and it's much for difficult when you have multiple sources coming from the international products was it blueberries that were processed in turkey that came to the california organic producer that was put into a drink that made people sick it's an international issue in some ways but it's a very intimate local issue. charlie had mentioned that we cannot load more on the cost of food. i would argue that farmers are consistently hit with that argument and we cannot see more profits in agriculture and really it is if you have fair returns for farmers to have more time and resources to the vote.

regulations gets dumped down to the bottom and they hit the hardest on the bottom. so i think that we should be arguing for fair wages, minimum wage so people actually have the resource to pay for food. we should be arguing for jobs that have some level of permanence where you're not looking to be a part-time worker but rather to go back to encourage full-time employment for most people in the workforce. they are much more complicated issues and i think the food pricing often times is dumped on farmers and the cost of the regulations if they get dumped on farmers, the impact will be huge. we need to consider carefully what we are targeting. the healthy system that we are shooting for that we understand is much larger community. and that we actually need to pay

attention to that because we don't want to create rules that run counter to that new emerging knowledge about how the systems work. >> that's the last word before i turn it over. if you would come forward now it is time to give the panel a hand. [applause] two additional comments i would make for in a were in an internl marketplace whether we like it or not. we are in an international marketplace. you have heard a discussion of that and establishing the scientific-based decisions is going to be extremely important. ..

wechsler me in my returning to my itinerary. this is reflecting the all of the above. mentioned fossil fuels, efficiency, and renewables. tomorrow, i will be traveling to georgia to finalize a loan guarantee the construction at

the global plant. offeredrtment of energy commitments for a $.3 billion in loan guarantees to support construction of the first new nuclear power plants in nearly 30 years. three separate commitments were made to the owners of the plant. the department is closing on two of those commitments. 6.5 billion dollars of loan guarantees. i wanted to emphasize we are working across the board to try to push the technology forward into the marketplace for all of our energy sources. nuclearll be two

reactors. in fact, earlier, they are moving towards design certification of this another react or zone to the program. they will produce enough energy to power 13 5 million homes. the president did make it clear that he sees nuclear energy as part of america's low carbon energy portfolio. >> see all of that later today at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> of the creation museum, we

teach people the difference between beliefs and what one can observe and experiment with. i believe we are teaching people to think critically and to think in the right terms about science. the creationists should be educating kids out there. we are teaching them the right way to think. we admit our historical science is based on the bible. i'm traveled -- challenging them to be out -- i am challenging them to be upfront about the differences here. >> why we should accept your word for it that natural law 4000 years ago, completely, and there is no record of it. there are pyramid's older than that. human populations that are far older than that. their traditions go back farther than that. it is just not reasonable to me

that everything changed for thousand years ago. by everything, i mean the species, the surface of the earth, the stars in the sky, and the relationship of all the other living things on earth to humans. flex -- >> the debate tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> ahead of that debate, we're asking you your thoughts on evolution versus creationism. add your comment to facebook.com. that is our 8:00 program.

that gets underway tonight at 8:00 eastern. on c-span. his american history tv, including a look at john wilkes booth co-conspirators. in the ukraine, violence continues with the associated press reports at the office of the ukraine president says he and the leaders of the countries protest of called for a truce. the statement late today came after president that your ink of it should met with the top leaders of the protests. next up, a focus on u.s. iraq relations. the ambassador to the u.s. talked about his country's current political climate and the relations with the u.s.. he spoke at american universities.

it is an incredibly interesting time to be the ambassador here in the united states working on such an important set of issues. he is certainly the right person for the job. he previously was serving as the iraq ambassador to japan. corer to joining the commie lived in united kingdom for 29 years working in the

i.t. sector. he held senior management positions inter-american -- into american companies. he played an active role in advocating for democracy and the rule of law and iraq during a period when iraq was under the dictatorship of saddam hussein. he is fluent in english and kurdish. he was born in baghdad. you can follow him on twitter. presiding over this event is our wonderful professor known to everyone not only here, but any sisent who has ever been to , knows professor site you'd -- professor sayid.

as i tell them when i come back , he remains a rock star. when i reassure them that he is still teaching, they are pleased to hear it. he has a variety of expertise including broader issues of peace and conflict resolutions. on conflict work resolution is being honored in march of the international studies association meeting in toronto. there will be a panel that sayid.s professor thank you for organizing this event. thank you for coming back to

can 10 you -- as you continue your service. [applause] >> the ambassador will speak for about half an hour. we will have questions and answers for about another half an hour. recorded.event is i will leave you here and join you during question-and-answer. >> good afternoon. for givingery much me the opportunity to share with you the iraq project. and also thanks for allowing us this opportunity at this great

opportunity -- this great opportunity at this great university. i will give you a quick overview of the process in iraq with its challenges in aspirations. as to what is taking place, and what should take place, and more important way, why it took place. the talk will cover the history of iraq, just to give you a high-level data on iraq, the impact of dictatorship on abouties, and we talked in our short talk with the professor about iraq in the 40's and 60's. the difference has been the adverse impact of dictatorship.

i will talk about the social transformation under dictatorship. i will also talk about the democratic process in iraq, and the foreign policy of the government and the roles of the embassy here, to give you perspective will what we are doing. as a country, the size of it is not that big. as a geography, it is in the heart of the middle east. it is in the heart of the old land where civilization started from. is core geography, the , theaphic fault lines

sectarian fault lines, a country , andich turkey and iran more importantly, the various civilizations of humanity either started from her was in interaction with. inhabitedsulate been -- it has constantly been inhabited. the country is divided into provinces. land primarily in the south.

these civilizations, they have the same jogger the more or less. -- they have the same geography more or less. it is the same evolution process of the same land. that is the key difference between iraq and every other country. you have somebody civilizations havep of each other which not had a marker significant signature. it has made no single province that is representative of two iraq, because of the diversity of where civilizations used to occupy various parts. the key difference between iraq and other countries, the

character is developed by the ofious roles, and signature each civilization on its character. bear that in mind. country fromt the a data point, population is about 32 million. it is increasing by one million every year. it is one of the highest growing populations in the world. it is significant. also rich.ty is , the various religious aspects as well. range ofa median around 20 years old. it is significantly young. are high-level numbers

which will present a society which is developing in population growth. it is rich with culture. it has different nationalities as well. uniqueness do not apply to a single offense. you will find people of different backgrounds. ,hether they are arabs or kurds or christians and muslims, or sunni and shia. that is why you can never cut , it doesn'tparadigm apply. it is too simplistic and too superficial of an understanding

of that. i am occurred and the shia -- i am a kurd and a shia. if we just look at the historical perspective, you have two key cities which represent different civilizations. the british mandate, after the first world war. iraq was always rich within the region. kids to to send their university. it was a key member in the united nations before the arab league. a monarchy until 1958.

from 19:50 a.m. the military -- 1958, bathas ruled until 1968. from 1968 to 2003, saddam ruled. he was ruthless, which had an adverse impact on the character of the as iraqis -- on the character of the iraqis. molded to the desires of the dictator and now with the people want. the kuwait invasion in 1990 followed by the sanctions. most sanctions.

2003, the u.s. invasion. since then, we had a number of milestones from a democratic point of view. we have the elections, provision elections, the national elections three times. the ratification of the constitution. theddition to that, transformation of a society from a dictatorship to democracy. to evolverm, you have from one place to another. that evolution plays -- the evolution process may not be controlled and should not be compared to a mature democratic process, such as the u.s. see has been, as you can

from the number of elections , bearing mind the security has always been an issue, the willingness to participate has been very high. the people want democracy. they are willing and eager to embrace it. by the way, there is an election which will take place in april. this will be the fourth national election for parliament. if we talk about prior to 2003, the key issue has been the adverse impact of sanctions on , and more or less removed

the class of the society, which means that you no longer can change the society into a manageable >> that is the key issue. that happens because of u.s. sanctions. other social political reasons as well. that increases the national debt. the inflation purchase was one in 10,000.