John Tierney: “I might respectfully just disagree with the gentleman on the last point, as I think the National Academy of Science…”

“I might respectfully just disagree with the gentleman on the last point, as I think the National Academy of Science does, when they indicated that they think this idea of having three different agencies with overlapping and different responsibilities would be better served to look at what other kind of regulatory structure we could put in place that would give us more confidence. Also I want to draw a point on the study the gentleman talked about on Starlink. One, I think we want that kind of information before the problem arises, and that is partly why I filed this bill; and, secondly, there is still some controversy swirling around the study the gentleman talked about and the results of it. I suspect from the gentleman's comments and the importance he puts on genetically engineered foods that he favors my bill, which would be a confidence building measure, if we set up the right kinds of test that people could have confidence in, if we set up the right kind of monitoring system that people would know would be something we could rely on, and if we had the right kind of regulatory structure, it would benefit people that take the gentleman's position, as well as people that might be skeptical or more on that. The idea is to follow the advice of the National Academy and do just that. Let them give us the advice through this study that I propose, to tell us what would be the best testing regime, how would you monitor it, and how would you regulate it.”