AEBC/02/06
AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
A
DEBATE ABOUT THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE COMMERCIALISATION OF GM CROPS IN THE UK
DRAFT ADVICE TO GOVERNMENT
1. The attached paper for discussion by the Commission on 18 April constitutes draft advice to Government about how and when to promote a broader public debate about the possible commercialisation of GM crops.
2. The paper develops the proposals discussed at the March AEBC meeting. It envisages a more regional and devolved focus to the organisation and evaluation of the debate and is more explicit about the objectives for the exercise. As requested by the Commission, it also has a separate annex setting out the proposed management arrangements for a debate.
3. The AEBC public attitudes working group is very grateful to those who have taken the time and trouble to assist it in the development of this draft advice.
AEBC Secretariat
April 2002
A DEBATE ABOUT THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE COMMERCIALISATION OF GM CROPS IN THE UK
1. We continue to believe that it is vital that there is a broader public debate about the issues around the question of the possible commercialisation of GM crops in the United Kingdom, consistent with the analysis in our report Crops on Trial. Government will want to pay careful attention in decision-making to intelligent information about public views. We have sought to design a process to elicit this information and to give a wide range of people an opportunity to engage with the issues.
Background
2. In its response to Crops on Trial,[1] Government asked the AEBC to provide advice, by the end of April 2002, on how and when to promote an effective public debate on the possible commercial growing of the Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSE) crops[2], who should be involved, and how to make the best use of the results of such a debate. The advice should also cover how to determine the public acceptability of GM crops, in particular cross-pollination thresholds and GM presence in organic crops. Government[3] said that the public debate on the possible commercial growing of GM crops will cover the FSE results and the wider review of the other information gathered to complement the FSEs.
Objective of stimulating a
debate
3. Government has stated that Ministers will have to decide, within the framework of European legislation, whether the crops grown in the FSEs should be commercialised; and that Government is committed to taking public opinion into account as far as possible through an open decision-making process. We have drafted our advice in the light of this unambiguous and clear statement from Government about its intention to take public attitudes into account. We believe that an effective public debate can help clarify and advance public views in the light of relevant developments in the United Kingdom and internationally (for example, the development of new crop varieties and increasing production elsewhere in the world of GM crops) over the past two years or so, when the issue of GM crops featured so strongly in newspaper headlines in the United Kingdom.
4. The principal objective of stimulating a public debate, therefore, is to assess the nature and spectrum of the public's views on the possible commercialisation of GM crops in the United Kingdom and any conditions under which commercialisation might or might not acceptably proceed so that the public's views can inform decision-making.
5. The primary purpose of a debate will not be to inform people. But a major outcome of the debate will be a better-informed public because that is what happens in good debates. The relatively small proportion of people whom we would envisage taking part in regional events, and in focus groups or consensus conferences as part of the programme of debate, will gain quite a lot of knowledge. Our aspiration is that many people not directly participating in these events will also become more aware of the science and the wider issues around GM crops.
6. In addition to a programme of organised deliberative events we want to foster debate in community groups and more widely. We want people to have the opportunity to gain the information they want and need to discuss the issues raised by GM crops. This wider debate cannot be evaluated in the same way as the deliberative events. But debate of this sort is one mark of a healthy civic culture, and valuable in its own right.
Information about public views
7. The information about public views to emerge from the debate will be qualitative rather than quantitative. It seems very likely to encompass a range of views, not a simple 'yes' or 'no' to commercialisation. The information should be professionally evaluated to incorporate the most informed academic understanding of the possible significance and meanings of the views that emerge and the results reported to Government at the end of the process.
8. The purpose of the debate will not to be to act as a quasi-referendum. Nor is the purpose to ask people in focus groups or consensus conferences to act as proxies for Ministers. It is Ministers who will make the decisions, in the context of European law, international developments and in the light of other factors. We note that within the present legal framework there is sufficient latitude for Government to take account of public attitudes, and other factors, in determining a management regime for GM crop cultivation, were commercialisation to go ahead.
9. Government should signal clearly at the start of the process what it wants to get out of it. We believe that the process should be conducted at arm's length from Government (see paragraph 36 below for our reasons). But it will only be a credible exercise if the Government makes a public commitment to the value of fostering a broader debate. Government should clearly and straightforwardly set out the legal, European and international context in which it will make decisions about GM crops and in which it will take account of public views in making those decisions. This will help make clear to people what use will be made of their contributions to the debate. It would also be worth in this regard the UK Government and the devolved administrations restating their respective policies on GM crops, so that participants in the debate understand the starting points and so that variations in policy within the United Kingdom are clear.[4]
Our recommended approach
General
10. The programme of debate should seek to involve as many people from as wide a range of backgrounds as practicable, in ways that capture their attention. It should also seek to gain a deep understanding of the variety and subtlety of public views about the issues around the possible commercialisation of GM crops.
11. Our aim is for a programme of events which would be an important example of public participation in genuine discussion of scientific issues. The programme draws on of some of the techniques for public engagement set out in the recent report from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology[5]; and in the twenty-first report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution[6]. We would hope that lessons can be learned from implementation of the programme we are recommending which would be of wider applicability to other areas of science-based policy-making. There are a growing number of initiatives in the United Kingdom, in Europe and elsewhere in public engagement in this area. If this programme of events on the particularly controversial issue of GM crops proves valuable, this would point to it being of value in other contexts.
12. We recommend a programme of interactive debates organised on a regional and devolved basis. The programme we recommend has several linked events, with local, regional and national components. The information about public views flowing out of them would be integrated and interpreted on a regional and devolved basis and also on a UK-wide basis, as elements of a coordinated whole. The programme is designed for implementation over a period of about nine months.
Framing the issues
13. Government has indicated the general area for debate: the possible commercialisation of GM crops in the UK. We recommend above that Government should make clear at the outset the context for Ministerial decision-making. But the specific issues the subject of commercialisation gives rise to should be framed by the public itself. We believe that a practicable way of doing this would be to recruit one or more groups of citizens - including adults and school students - to have a discussion to frame the issues around the commercialisation of GM crops which need to be debated.
14. The recruitment of the citizen groups should be undertaken professionally by a respected independent organisation. The group members should be composed of people with no vested interest in the outcome and who are not conventional stakeholders. This process should give some confidence that the issues for debate are not being dictated by Government or particular stakeholders. The process could borrow elements of the consensus conference format to the extent that this was useful for framing the issues. But one of the benefits of having citizen groups frame the issues is that they will do so in terms which are likely to be widely recognised by other members of the public. Turning the initial citizen groups into 'experts' in the way that a full consensus conference tends to do, is therefore neither necessary nor desirable for this initial exercise.
15. Nonetheless the independent facilitators would make sure that the citizen groups had access to sufficient balanced information to achieve the objective of framing the issues. Some information could be presented as pre-briefing at the first meeting of the citizen groups. The group members could subsequently ask for further information, having reflected on the material they had received thus far. Part of getting this further information could be by facilitated cross-examination of representatives of external organisations and experts (as happens in consensus conferences).
16. One option would be to have one or more citizen groups separately in each of England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland to frame the issues in each country. This would be a more expensive process, but would have the advantage of clearly exploring and taking account of any national differences from the outset. If not four groups, then the citizen groups certainly should be drawn from across the United Kingdom, to avoid any country feeling marginalized by having the initial group drawn exclusively from one country in the United Kingdom. Similar considerations apply to the balance between people from rural and urban backgrounds.
17. At the end of this initial stage, the issues for debate would have been framed by the citizen groups.
Programme of events
18. Having framed the issues, the next stage would be to stimulate debate about them. The main vehicle for this would be a broadcast quality film. The film would be punctuated by the specific issues for discussion selected by the initial citizen groups, probably drawing on their discussions of the issues and information and evidence the groups selected and their discussions. The film would aim to be thought-provoking, informative but not judgemental. It would be the main tool for stimulating debates at all levels. The reason for using a film is that it is a familiar, accessible and potentially attractive medium. A film would have limitations of length and depth, and for some of the deliberative events outlined below would not be the sole input, but potentially would be a good starting-point for a wide range of events.
19. The film would need to contain sufficient information about GM crops and the background to the issues around commercialisation to facilitate informed debate. The way in which the material was put together in the film should be under the editorial control of the filmmaker. It would need to be a balanced presentation. The steering board could set the basic parameters for the production.
20. The film would be distributed in video format, perhaps with supporting literature, along with a response form so that people could give written feedback. It would be used in three or possibly four distinct contexts with the results ultimately integrated. First, to stimulate grass roots discussion of the issues at a very local level at meetings of community councils, Women's Institutes, Townswomen's Guilds, Mothers Unions, parish councils, farmers' groups, church groups, ad hoc community groups, schools, university societies, museums, science cafés, science and other festivals, etc.
21. The results of these discussions could then be brought, by representatives from some or all of the discussions, to regional or national events in each region and devolved country respectively, where they would be further discussed. Evaluators at each of these regional or national events would assess and report on the overall findings. Interactive voting technologies might or might not be used at the events.
22. Second, the film would also be used as a prompt for focus group discussions, also in each region and devolved country (probably around six to eight focus groups in each region). These 'controlled' exercises would be conducted professionally, and will act as crucial comparators for the views emerging from the various grass roots discussions and regional and national events. The focus groups would add an element of depth, for example throwing light on the question of whether the grass roots debates have or have not been 'captured' by special interests, as some fear might happen. The regional and devolved analyses of the focus group discussions would also be analysed collectively.
23. Third, in addition to the focus groups, consensus conferences - which are panels of sixteen or so citizens recruited to discuss the issues in depth - either in each of the regions or devolved countries, or a single, UK-wide conference - could use the film as a starting point for their deliberations.[7] They would start with the issues defined by the initial citizen groups, seek what information they required through cross-examination of witnesses and through further information.
24. The purpose of having one or more consensus conferences in addition to focus groups would be to explore further than generally is possible in the latter the extent of people's agreements about possible ways forward in dealing with the issues, on what the solutions might be. The objective for the participants could be to explore the extent to which they could agree on those solutions and to come up with recommendations on the way forward. The outcomes of the consensus conferences would be published and evaluated along with other material arising from the other events. The consensus conferences would add a further valuable element to the debate. They also unlike focus groups have a public dimension (public audiences and the media are usually invited to the latter sessions) which could be useful for stimulating wider public discussion. [8]
25. In addition, like the focus groups, they would provide a means of benchmarking the 'uncontrolled' debate; and assessing the extent to which organisations campaigning for or against GM crops are in line with public views. But while it would be good to have both, it would be possible to have a credible programme of debate using one or other of focus groups and consensus conferences to give depth of understanding of public views and to act as 'control groups' for the outcomes of the grass roots debates and the views of stakeholder and campaigning organisations.
26. Fourth, perhaps chronologically after the above three uses, the film would be used as a device to seek the views of campaigning and other conventional stakeholder bodies (NGOs, interest groups, professional farming organisations, etc) who would be invited to respond with written comments. The main aim of the programme of debate is to reach those who have not expressed a view. The views of campaigning and existing stakeholder organisations are well known by Government. But that does not mean that those organisations should be excluded from this programme of debate. The views expressed by campaigning and stakeholder organisations would in fact be compared and contrasted with the responses from the grass roots local discussions, focus groups and/or consensus conferences. As discussed above, this would provide an opportunity to assess the extent to which those organisations are in step with how people at large are thinking about the issues.
Other elements
27. In addition to these three or four targeted uses of the film, it might be possible to interest other organisations such as the big supermarket chains and others which broadcast film clips at checkouts or other public spaces to draw on clips of the film or all of it as part of raising awareness of the issues and to get people talking. There should also preferably be one or more interactive website with information and an opportunity for people to post views on it.
28. Depending on whether significant differences were detected in the framing of the issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, if it had been decided that this should be done through separate citizens groups, it may be that separate versions of the film would be needed. Clearly this would have cost implications.
29. A further option as part of the programme would be to arrange a UK-wide event bringing together people involved in different regional elements of the programme. This would draw the various threads together, compare and contrast regional and national responses and publicise the whole programme of debate. This would be desirable, although not essential, to the programme of events outlined above.
30. At the end of the organised programme of events above, there might be merit in providing modest material or financial assistance to local community or ad hoc groups to use the results of the debate, for example the reports from consensus conferences.[9] People would be assisted to pursue their own ideas for local events and debates about the issues raised in the course of the debate. This would provide a further 'bottom-up' element to the debate in addition to the initial citizen groups for framing the issues. Government could explore this possibility, perhaps as part of a programme of fostering debate on contentious public policy issues.
Interactive television debate
31. It may be that a national broadcaster would be interested in working with the steering board in producing an interactive television debate. There is certainly interest among broadcasters in engaging with people in novel ways on political topics. If a national broadcaster chose to get involved, they would of course have editorial control over broadcast material. But it may be that they would be interested in drawing on the work which would have been undertaken prior in the various discussion and in producing the film. A web-based discussion forum - in addition to the website for the whole programme of debate - would probably be associated with any television event. The broadcaster of course would fund production of any television programme and material produced for it.
32. We believe that this is something which would be worth pursuing. It has the potential to bring the issues for debate before a large number of people. The AEBC would be happy to explore the options with national broadcasters, fully recognising broadcasters' independence. The AEBC would do so with the desire to see a balanced and informed presentation of the issues in the course of any television debate.
Engagement with other parties
33. The programme of debate we are recommending, if implemented, will not be the only show in town. The mass media will continue to write and broadcast on GM crop issues. The Westminster and devolved Parliaments and Assemblies will be examining and debating the issues. Non-governmental environmental and industry organisations will be seeking to play a role too. It would be naïve to assume that 'command and control' over the national debate will be vested in any deliberately engineered programme of debate. There will inevitably be interactions between whatever programme of events is set out by Government and other events outside that programme. But given the all too familiar scope for public discussion to become polarised along familiar lines, the object of the programme above is to avoid polarisation as far as possible and to get to the heart of the issues.
34. Indeed, we hope that the national and regional media might be interested in the programme of events and it would be worth trying to engage national and regional journalists where possible, including by inviting them to different events. Other techniques should be explored. For example, production of a radio tape incorporating an audio version of some of the content of the film, perhaps combined with an interview from the chair of the steering board for the debate, could be sent to regional radio stations for broadcast use.
Timing
35. Government has said that the debate should cover the FSE results and the wider review of other information gathered to complement the FSEs as outlined under the AEBC’s recommendation in Crops on Trial. A programme of debate which did not encompass the FSE results and other associated data would look as if it had been designed to end somewhat prematurely. We suggest, therefore, that the programme of events should be designed to last some nine months, starting in autumn 2002 and running on past summer 2003, when it is planned that the first set of results from the FSEs be published. An indicative timetable is at Annex C. The provisional timetable for the FSEs is at Annex D.
Management of programme
36. We believe that the debate should be conducted at arm's length from Government by an independent organisation. Why at arm's length? First, to help make clear that the debate is not the same as a detailed consultation with stakeholders and the public about specific pre-determined aspects of a proposed Government policy. Such consultation exercises would normally be carried out by Government. The issues for debate here are likely to be more wide-ranging. Second, because outside organisations would probably find it easier to engage the public than Government because, rightly or wrongly, there is some public mistrust about Government's intentions in this area. Third, because using outside bodies will draw in external expertise about engaging the public on science and society issues. Finally, it makes it easier for Ministers and officials to stand back and look at the results of a public debate if Government has not been involved in the detailed organisation of the programme.
37. Government would need to fund the programme. There should be an independent steering board to oversee the programme of debate. The AEBC would be willing to be part of the steering board. The steering board would be separate from the independent evaluators who would report on the contributions made in the course of the debate. The evaluators would send the report to Ministers through the steering board. The practical task of managing the programme of events would be for the prime contractor, supervised by the steering board. Further details of suggested arrangements are at Annex A.
Costs
38. Production and distribution of a film is likely to cost in the region of £70,000. The whole programme of events including the film would cost several hundred thousand pounds, the amount depending on the extent to which the programme is run on a devolved and regional basis and the nature and number of deliberative elements included in the programme.
Learning from the process
39. Assessment of the programme of debate would also be worthwhile. Was it an effective means of stimulating public debate? What could have been done better? How applicable is it to other complex areas of policy? Did it give value for money? The process accordingly should be monitored from the outset, by a small group of suitably qualified individuals, who would draw up an assessment at the end of the programme of events of the lessons learned.
Summary of suggested programme
· Citizens frame the issues for debate
· Make a film about the issues
· Send film to local groups and stakeholders and get feedback
· Invite local group representatives to regional/national events
· Use film in regional focus groups and/or consensus conferences
· Report to Government drawing together findings from debate
· National broadcaster runs interactive television debate (possibly)
AEBC
April 2002
ANNEX A
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
General principles
1. We believe that it is important that the programme of events and activities should be organised at arm's length from Government.
2. There needs to be proper accountability for spending public money on fostering a debate. The contract for the organisation carrying out the work on behalf of Government must be properly managed. Government must have sufficient oversight of the process to ensure this.
3. The various elements of the debate will generate information about public views which should be evaluated independently in line with best academic and professional practice. We also believe that the whole process should be separately assessed, to determine the value of the exercise for other areas of public policy.
Arrangements
4. Taking account of these principles, we suggest the following arrangements. Government would tender for a suitably qualified prime contractor to take responsibility for the whole process. The prime contractor would be a company or organisation qualified to undertake public engagement. It would sub-contract as necessary to other organisations or different elements of the programme, including production of the film. The prime contractor would run the programme across the United Kingdom.
5. The process would be overseen at a strategic level by a steering board. The membership would be a matter for Ministers but the AEBC would be willing to contribute to membership of the steering board and the AEBC Chair would be willing to chair the board. We would expect Government to wish to be represented at official level on the board not least for reasons of financial accountability. In addition to a few AEBC members, one or two other independent individuals from respected organisations involved with science and society issues might be invited to serve on the steering board.
6. The steering board could offer advice on drawing up the specification for the tender to find a prime contractor. The steering board would be responsible for supervising progress in delivering the programme, giving strategic guidance on the different elements and providing advice on resolving any significant difficulties which arose in carrying out the programme. The chair of the steering board would regularly report progress and any serious problems with the programme to Ministers. Day-to-day supervision of the project would be the responsibility of Government officials who would report progress and any significant difficulties to the steering board. The steering board would have a joint secretariat drawn from Government officials and the AEBC Secretariat.
7. Separately, an Evaluation Group should be appointed to independently analyse and interpret the results from the various elements of the public debate. This group would be composed of the prime contractor, assisted by a few other professionals: social scientists, and one or two respected individuals with experience of wider science and society issues. The Evaluation Group should be appointed at the outset of the process. They would have a more hands-on job to do than the steering board. It would have responsibility, under the supervision of the steering board, for producing the report to Government at the end of the debate about public views.
8. We would expect the prime contractor to be responsible for the bulk of the work of evaluating data from the debate in the devolved areas and the regions, using national and regional evaluators respectively, to the extent that the debate had separate devolved and regional elements. The Evaluation Group would draw this together into a UK-wide report to Government which they would present to Ministers through the Steering Board.
9. There would also be value in forming a separate small group of people to assess the process with aim of testing its applicability to other areas of public policy. We suggest that this could include officials from the Centre for Management and Policy Studies in the Cabinet Office, social scientists and a member of the AEBC. It would be worth forming this group at an early stage. This group would have less of a hands on role than the Evaluation Group.
ANNEX B
|
Date |
Milestone |
|
April
2002 |
AEBC
advice to Government |
|
June
2002 |
Government
responds |
|
June
2002 |
Appoint
steering board Appoint
evaluators and assessors Seek
to confirm broadcaster involvement for TV programme |
|
July
2002 |
Tender
for prime contractor Tender
for (i) professional evaluators of the data from the debate; (ii) assessors
of the process |
|
August
2002 |
Appoint
contractor Recruit
people to serve on initial citizen
groups |
|
October
- November 2002 |
Hold
group discussions about the issues for debate Make
film Plan
focus groups/ consensus conferences |
|
December
2002 |
Distribute
film to community groups, schools etc Broadcast
(possible) interactive TV programme |
|
December
2002 - July 2003 |
Focus
groups/consensus conferences around country Collate
feedback on video from community groups/schools etc. Regional/national events with community
representatives |
|
August
2003 |
Professional
assessors prepare report on outcome of debate (including public reaction to
published FSE results) Possible
UK-wide event for participants |
|
September
2003 |
Report
on outcome of debate and public reaction to FSE results delivered to
Government by UK Evaluators |
ANNEX C
FARM
SCALE EVALUATIONS: PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE FOR REMAINDER OF PROGRAMME
|
March
2002 |
Routine
news release announcing locations of spring maize sites |
|
End
April 2002 |
Agriculture
and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide further advice on how and
when to promote public debate on possible commercialisation of FSE crops |
|
July
2002 |
Routine
news release announcing locations of winter oilseed rape sites |
|
Autumn
2002 |
Field
work (data collection) ends for FSE spring 2002 crops and researchers begin
to collate results |
|
Early
2003 |
Researchers
send draft report to Scientific Steering Committee to validate research
results for spring-sown crops |
|
Summer
2003 |
Final
results for spring-sown crops published in peer-reviewed scientific journal
at same time as SSC provides advice to Government. Results considered by Advisory Committee on Releases to the
Environment and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Results available for
public comment |
|
Autumn
2003 |
Field
work (data collection) ends for winter rape 2002 crops and researchers begin
to collate results |
|
Early
2004 |
Researchers
send draft report to Scientific Steering Committee to validate research
results for winter rape crops |
|
Summer
2004 |
Final
results for winter rape crops published in peer-reviewed scientific journal
at same time as SSC provides advice to Government. Results considered by Advisory Committee on Releases to the
Environment and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Results available for
public comment |
Notes:
(i)
Timings
are approximate
(ii)
The
FSE results will be presented on an individual crop basis. There are three spring-sown crops (oilseed
rape, beet and maize) and one autumn-sown crop (winter oilseed rape). The results will therefore be published in
two tranches.
DEFRA GM Crops Policy Branch
February 2002
ANNEX D
Extracts from Government Response to ‘Crops on Trial’
(presented on behalf of the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland)
Recommendation 6:
Commit to an open and
inclusive process of decision-making around whether the GM crops being grown in
the FSEs should be commercialised, within a framework, which extends to broader
questions.
Government Response:
Ministers will have to decide, within the framework
of European legislation, whether the crops grown in the FSEs should be
commercialised. Government is committed
to taking public opinion into account as far as possible through an open
decision-making process. There will be
a public debate on the possible commercial growing of GM crops. The debate will cover the FSE results and
the wider review of the other information gathered to complement the FSEs
outlined under the AEBC’s recommendation 4.
Members of the public will continue to be able to make their views known
on proposed variety listing, on the National Seeds List or EU Common Catalogue,
of the crops involved.
Government asks the AEBC to advise, by the end of April 2002, on how and
when to promote an effective public debate on possible commercialisation of the
FSE crops and how to make the best use of the results of such a debate. The
advice should also cover how to determine the public acceptability of GM crops,
in particular cross-pollination thresholds and GM presence in organic crops.
The
AEBC are asked to be imaginative in the options they consider but to bear in
mind that their recommendations must be practical and cost effective. The debate should involve interest groups
but also reach beyond them to the wider public. The methods advocated by the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution in its 1998 report on environmental standards and in the March 2001
report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (Open channels:
public dialogue in science and technology) should be considered. The AEBC will not necessarily be asked to
carry out all aspects of its recommendations – DEFRA, the Devolved
Administrations and Government Offices might each participate in different
areas of the dialogue with the public.
AEBC should advise on which are the most appropriate organisations to
carry out the different parts of the process….
Recommendation 8:
Improve understanding of
the basis of public views by drawing on the work of social scientists in this
field.
Government Response:
We acknowledge the need for improved understanding
of public views. This is an objective
for which all involved in the GM crops debate should strive. It would be helpful if the AEBC would consider
this issue further and take this work forward as part of the advice requested
in paragraph 30 of this document, under recommendation 6, as to the best
methods of promoting an effective public debate on possible
commercialisation.
Recommendation 10:
Include specific
consideration of the future of GM crops in the discussions about the future of
agriculture in the UK.
The various strategic reviews of farming and
food being undertaken by the UK administrations should explicitly address how
to promote the co-existence of different forms of farming in the UK. There should then be a wider public debate
involving a series of regional discussion meetings to consider what role GM
crops might have in UK agriculture in the future. The AEBC is willing to contribute to this process.
Government Response:
We welcome the recommendation that there be a wider
public debate on co-existence between the different farming types. Government acknowledges the suggestions made
in paragraph 69 of the report about the form of such a debate and is pleased to
note the AEBC’s interest in advising on the development of this process. Government is taking up this offer in asking
the AEBC to advise further on how a broad public debate might be achieved and
how the outcome of such a debate should be used (paragraph 30, under
recommendation 6 refers).
The report refers, in paragraphs 57 and 58, to the
independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food that is to
report to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs by 31 January 2002.
The Policy Commission’s terms of reference are wide-ranging and relate
to England only; however similar exercises are being carried out by the
Devolved Administrations. We will take
into account the AEBC's recommendations in considering our response to the
Policy Commission’s report.
DEFRA has been discussing with the various
interested parties what measures might be necessary to allow for practical
co-existence of GM and non-GM crops.
One of the key issues underpinning this process is whether there is
public acceptability of the presence of GM material in non-GM produce and if so
at what level that might be. Further debate is needed on this issue. Agreement
upon this issue could provide a way towards practical measures to preserve
consumer choice within the context of commercial GM cultivation, were that to
occur. It is against this background
that Government has asked (in paragraph 30, under recommendation 6) the AEBC to
consider further the issue of public acceptability.
ANNEX E
AEBC
Terms of reference
In 1999 the Government reviewed its advisory and regulatory framework on biotechnology. It concluded that a broader approach was needed for strategic issues. The Agriculture and Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) forms part of the new strategic framework.
The Commission will:
¨ offer strategic advice to Government on biotechnology issues which impact on agriculture and the environment;
¨ liaise closely with, but not duplicate the work of the other two bodies which together with the AEBC form the new strategic advisory framework i.e.:
¨ the Human Genetics Commission (HGC) which will advise on genetic technologies and their impact on humans; and
¨ the Food Standards Agency (FSA) which will include within its responsibilities all aspects of the safety and use of genetically modified food and animal feed.
¨ keep under review current and possible future developments in biotechnology with actual or potential implications for agriculture and the environment;
¨ advise Government on the ethical and social implications arising from these developments and their public acceptability; and
¨ consider and advise on any specific issues relating to relevant aspects of biotechnology as requested by the Government.
As part of this process the Commission is expected to:
¨ identify any gaps in the regulatory and advisory framework;
¨ consider the wider implications of the lessons to be learned from individual cases requiring regulatory decision;
¨ advise on any changes which should be made to Government guidelines which regulatory bodies are required to follow;
¨ make recommendations as to changes in the current structure of regulatory and advisory bodies;
¨ co-ordinate and exchange information with the relevant regulatory and advisory bodies;
¨ seek to involve and consult stakeholders and the public on a regular basis on the issues which it is considering; and
¨ operate in accordance with best practice for public bodies with regard to openness, transparency, accessibility, timeliness and exchange of information.
¨ in carrying out its work take into account European and global developments;
¨ nationally, adopt a UK perspective taking appropriate account of legal and other differences between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and
¨ draw up a work programme.
The Government may also ask the Commission for advice on a particular issue and, if necessary, direct it not to become involved in an area if this could be better handled elsewhere.
* In the context of the work of the Commission ‘Government’ comprises the UK Government and the devolved administrations.
ANNEX
F
AEBC Members
Professor Malcolm Grant (Chair):
Pro Vice Chancellor at the University of Cambridge
Ms Julie Hill MBE (Deputy Chair)
Programme Adviser and former Director of Green Alliance
Reverend Professor Michael Banner
Professor of moral and social theology at Kings College, London
Ms Anna Bradley
Director of the National Consumer Council
Ms Helen Browning OBE
Tenant Farmer, Eastbrook Farm; Founder and Director of Eastbrook Farm Organic Meats Ltd
Dr David Carmichael
Arable farmer concentrating on seed production from combinable crops
Professor Philip Dale
Leader of the Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research Group at the John Innes Centre, Norwich
Dr Ed Dart CBE
Chairman of Plant Bioscience Ltd
Dr Matthew Freeman
Senior Researcher at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology
Mr John Gilliland
Arable farmer with a particular interest in sustainable production systems and the pioneering of non food crops.
Professor Robin Grove-White
Professor of Environment & Society, and Director of the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University
Dr Rosemary Hails MBE
Ecologist, and Principal Scientific Officer, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Oxford and lecturer at St Anne’s College Oxford
Ms Judith Hann
Freelance Broadcaster and Writer who presented Tomorrow’s World for 20 years.
Ms Chi Chi Iweajunwa
Member of executive evaluation group for NHS Direct and member of Partners Council for NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence)
Dr Derek Langslow CBE
Scientist specialising in nature conservation/biodiversity and former Chief Executive of English Nature
Professor Jeff Maxwell OBE
Former Director, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute
Dr Sue Mayer
Executive Director of GeneWatch UK
Professor Ben Mepham
Director of the Centre for Applied Bioethics at the University of Nottingham and Executive Director of the Food Ethics Council
Ms Justine Thornton
Barrister specialising in environmental law
Dr Roger Turner
Chief Executive Officer, British Society of Plant Breeders
[1] The relevant passages from the Government response are attached at Annex D. The full text, along with that of Crops on Trial, are available on the AEBC website, at www.aebc.gov.uk
[2] The FSE crops are genetically modified herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape, sugar and fodder beet and forage maize.
[3] 'Government' should be understood throughout as meaning the UK Government, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and Northern Ireland Executive.
[4] The most significant variation is that the Welsh Assembly Government has a policy of operating the most restrictive policy possible within the context of existing EU legislation on future GM crop development within Wales. The stated position of the UK Government, on the other hand, is that it is neither for nor against GM crops.
[5] Open Channels: Public dialogue in science and technology, POST Report No 153, March 2001.
[6] Setting Environmental Standards, Chapter 7, The Stationery Office, October 1998.
[7] The consensus conference technique originated in Denmark and has developed over the past couple of decades subsequently to examine a number of complex but difficult policy problems in various European, North American and South East Asian countries. In the United Kingdom this has included plant biotechnology in 1994 and radioactive waste management in 1999. Participants at these conferences are selected on the basis that they do not begin the process with strong pre-defined views.
[8] Focus groups are closed participatory events designed to elicit in depth participants' views on particular issues.
[9] Such support has been given to local groups in Denmark by the Danish Board of Technology.
