and i consider that probably the most dangerous aspect of government. >> secretary glickman. >> several things. one is i do think there is a kind of growing lack of trust by americans in all of their institutions. government, politics, business, regulation. and i think that while i agree with both of you on the gmoo issue and i eat those foods and they're perfectly safe but we have to make sure we have regulatory system that is modern and deals with these issues as they are now because the whole field is changing so dramatically. there's new ways to manipulate genes that we didn't have before, and in order to give the public the trust that the decisions are made independently and on the level, and that doesn't mean excluding industry from this process. but it does mean that just saying something is safe doesn't make it safe unless you have a regulatory process that people believe that fully examines these particular issues. while in the house i was involved in the organic standards act reauthorization, and then while at usda we implemented the organic standards act, and the act created

dan glickman is one of our co-chairs and he spoke this morning. but the breadth and depth of people that we have are just -- have been really incredibly innovative and creative in terms of identifying, not only the problems. we've done a very good job as we say at the meridian institute, we've admired the problem long enough. so the first two years from 2011 to 2013 was, okay, let's admire the problem. let's define the problem. let's see if we can even get along with one another in the supply chain. very tricky. the supply chain is not a monolithic group. it's very, very diversity. people in production agriculture whether it's fruits and vegetables or organic or large scale monoculture are not really sure what walmart is up to. it's their customer, ultimate customer, but it's a scary organization when they tell the supply chain thou shall be sustainable or thou shall do things that improve nutrition or how do you deal with your workforce? those are all value statements that are coming down the supply chain or up the supply chain to production agri

. >> secretary glickman? >> i agree with much of what donna said.when i was at the motion picture association we were involved in the ratings movies. most fun things i ever had in life was to look at this movie and kind of hope that others make a decision. we went to this thing where we added smoking as a factor in the ratings of movies. that when you see a movie it is rated and they give the descriptors it was a gratuitous smoking are accessible to. at almost will always come almost always caused the movie to be rated r if there is lots of spoke a committed group of people, from a nutrition professor we want any movie that shows high fat foods to have an r-rated movie in a. and i said i don't think we can do that. because of the foods are not inherently unhealthy. smoking is inherently unhealthy. it depend depends on how give ef foods and all that stuff. to just talk about the complexity of the situations spirit and portion control in the movies? [laughter] speakeasy tom cruise eating a half piece of pizza and i would be pg-13. a couple of things.

. >> you have, but secretary shalala and secretary glickman have not. would you like to comment? >> i want to go back to the reorganization issue because i assume it doesn't surprise you that none of us think that the next president should spend a lot of time on reorganization. though they will because they'll be people in the white house that think that we ought to have a rational system, there be people in omb in particular that think we ought to rationalize the system. the problem we have is high government officials, is that we have seen the energy wasted and we so the politics as wearing us down on the reorganization. every one of these agencies or responsibilities has their own constituency and to go through that when there are so many more important issues, both my colleagues here have pointed out, it doesn't seem to be worthwhile to us and so we always get recommendations of rationalizing the structure. the briefing book that's now being prepared for the next president will have a recommendation, let me assure you, for rationalizing the structure both in food safety as we

to call on people who actually know what they are doing and calls up secretary shalala, secretary glickman, a measure hamburg, and asks the following question. i have decided as president to create a new office in the white house, the office of the national food czar. as food czar, assuming you accept my appointment, they are to issues that are want you to focus on. at the moment we now have 15 federal agencies responsible for burying part of food regulation, and as former governor of officials we all know the three most dreaded words in the english language for people who work in government are, in the agency coordination. we all fear that. so the question is what changes, if any, would you recommend to the structure of our food regulation process in the united states? and if so how would you do it? the next question is what would be your first two or three policy initiatives which you would suggest i move forward, recognizing that in virtually every administration you have two years of grace before congress which is over and you can't get anything done? we will start with that simple que