About Us

Work Plan 2001

1. The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission was set up in June 2000 with a remit to provide the UK Government and Devolved Administrations with independent, strategic advice on developments in biotechnology and their implications for agriculture and the environment. It will look at the broad picture taking ethical and social issues into account as well as the science. Our full terms of reference are attached (Annex 1) together with details of our membership (Annex 2).

2. At our first meeting, we agreed some broad themes on which we thought we should work. These were set out in our Work Plan Consultation Document launched on 27 September last year. Over sixty organisations and individuals sent written comments. We also held a public meeting on 7 December in London, where over seventy people had an opportunity to explain their views to us in person. A list of those who sent written comments or attended the meeting (or both) is at Annex 3.

3. We are grateful to those who took the time to help us and have listened very carefully to what they had to say. The revisions included in this Plan were discussed at the Commission's third meeting which took place immediately after and was observed by many of those who attended the public meeting on 7 December.

4. The Plan is now being submitted to the four Government ministers to whom we report:

Mo Mowlam MP - Chair of the UK Government's Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification;

Susan Deacon MSP - Scottish Executive Minister for Health and Community Care;

Carwyn Jones AM - Welsh Assembly Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Development;

Sam Foster MLA - Minister for the Environment Northern Ireland.

5. We see this Plan as being an organic document and will always be pleased to have further comments or to answer questions on the Commission and its work. These may be sent either via our website (www.aebc.gov.uk) or to the secretariat whose contact details are at the end of this document.

Initial Themes

6. The Commission has set up six working groups of members of the Commission (membership of these groups is set out at Annex 4). Three of these have already started work on themes that we identified as priorities. The other three have a developmental role, each working on a theme for possible future inquiry by the Commission. The function of all the groups is to facilitate the Commission's work. They will report to the Commission, and the Commission as a whole may then decide to undertake further work and take further evidence before finalizing a report.

Priority Themes

Case Studies of Decision-making: The Farm-scale Evaluations (FSE) and Gene Flow (Sub-Group A)

7. We propose to undertake an immediate investigation of issues of strategic relevance to the decision-making process in biotechnology with respect to agriculture and the environment. This will take the form of case studies of:

(a) the current farm-scale evaluations; and

(b) gene flow.

8.  Although these cases have some different characteristics - the evaluations being a specific initiative and gene flow being an issue that cuts across a number of regulatory regimes - they are closely related.They are both matters of great public concern, where there has been a loss of confidence in the policy process.We wish from this study to be able to make recommendations as to how to improve and add value to the decision-making process in future, and to help the Government to understand better the bases of public views of acceptability or unacceptability of releases.In order to do this, the Commission will need to look at the farm-scale evaluations and gene flow in the context of the overall decision-making processes on releases of GMOs.

9. The objective of the first part of this enquiry is to evaluate the role of the Farm-Scale Evaluations in the regulatory process and in appraising the impact of GM plant technology on the environment. This will be done by:

i) reviewing the reasons for setting up the FSEs;
ii) reviewing the extent of governmental, commercial and public consultation and decision making processes used in agreeing the objectives for the FSE's and their implementation;
iii) understanding the agreed objectives of the FSEs, and the protocols used to carry them out;
iv) reviewing the parameters and extent of the data available to reach conclusions;
v) reviewing the public's opinions and perceptions of the FSEs;
vi) identifying the significant gaps in information that may remain following the conclusion of the FSEs relevant to appraising the impact of GM plant technology on the environment taking into account the public's continuing concerns about the application of GM plant technology.

10. The group has requested a series of papers to assist in its understanding of the decision making process relating to the Farm-Scale Evaluations and will be using these to inform its discussion of the issues to be addressed in an evidence taking session planned for the Commission's February meeting. It will also carry out a written consultation exercise and meet with local groups in some of the areas where field trials are being carried out. The aim is to have a draft report for consideration by the Commission at its April meeting.

11. In the case study on gene flow, which will follow that on the FSE's, the group will examine the issues surrounding:

i) gene transfer between species, for instance the spread of introduced genes from a GM crop such as oil seed rape to wild relatives of that crop;

ii) gene transfer within species, for instance the spread of introduced genes from GM varieties of a crop to non-GM varieties of the same crop;

iii) gene transfer to other organisms, for instance the spread of introduced genes from GM plants into micro-organisms in the soil.

Animals and Biotechnology (Sub-Group B)

12. We are aware of the very many ways in which animals may be affected by biotechnology and believe that these issues will become increasingly important over the next five year period. The issues are many and complex and the Commission wishes to be confident that all the issues are capable of being dealt with in an appropriate way.

13. The sub group will take as its starting point the question:

‘How well can current and likely future questions about biotechnology and animals, including genetic modification, be addressed by the existing regulatory and advisory machinery?’

We have deliberately opted for this inclusive and broad question since it will allow us to look at all the potential consequences of biotechnology in all animal forms. Initial scans will doubtless identify some issues which are of more concern than others and the sub group will then be able to focus its work. Existing work by a variety of advisory bodies and committees will provide a good starting point and ensure that we do not re-do work being done by others.

14. In addressing this question the sub group will:

i) identify and scope the current and likely future issues about animals and biotechnology. This work will have two streams: qualitative work with the general public to identify the issues people have with animals and biotechnology and input from experts and interested groups to learn from their work. This latter will take the form both of an open invitation to submit papers and briefing sessions. An early output will be a draft framework synthesising the issues identified. Contributors will be invited to comment on this and the extent to which it reflects their concerns.

ii) describe existing regulatory and advisory machinery and the way each part currently interprets its brief. The intention here is to look at both what the advisory and regulatory machinery can do within its terms of reference and to see how these terms are currently being interpreted and applied by the bodies concerned. The secretariat will be preparing a paper on the advisory and regulatory structures and the sub group will be seeking meetings with the Chairs of these bodies to understand better how they work. The sub-group will also be interested in the regulatory arrangements in other countries.

iii) map i) onto ii) and identify gaps and possible solutions. The sub group will want to identify those issues which are clearly covered and not a matter for concern; those that could be covered within the terms of existing arrangements, but are not being looked at currently and those which we think have no home. We will move on to make proposals for ways in which the regulatory and advisory machinery might need to be adjusted to ensure these issues are properly dealt with in the future. There may be further work for the sub group on a much smaller sub set of issues as a result of this wide scan of the area.

Horizon Scanning (Sub-Group C)

15. The Commission needs to inform itself about new developments in biotechnology and other relevant trends. This means looking not just at technological developments, but also regulatory, environmental, social and economic trends, in the UK and globally. We are keenly aware, as are many of our consultees, of the need to explore the implications for the UK of work undertaken outside the UK. We are also particularly interested in interactions or synergies with other major technological developments, such as information technologies. This sub-group will undertake this work on an on-going basis.

16. The terms of reference for the group are:

To keep the AEBC well informed about current and future national and international developments that are relevant to fulfilling its strategic remit. This will include information on:

i) trends in biotechnologies, in agricultural practice and policy, and in environmental issues;

ii) trends in other technologies, where these may interact with biotechnologies;

iii) relevant social, economic, legal and political trends i.e. those that will have a bearing on how biotechnology is shaped and how it is received by society.

The work of the sub-group will take into account the work of other bodies with a horizon-scanning role. The sub group will make regular reports to the full AEBC.

17. The sub-group will first scan for work on this theme undertaken by others, so as not to duplicate effort. We are very grateful for the advice of consultees on possible sources of information.

18. We explored the issue of confidentiality of information with consultees and within the group. This seemed likely to be more of an issue with developments that were near market than with those that were at an earlier stage. The sub-group concluded that it would be neither possible nor desirable to offer those providing information a guarantee of complete confidentiality. We recognise that this might limit the extent to which we are able to look into the future. At the same time, we hope to foster a climate in which researchers, whether from companies or academic institutions, believe that it is in their interests to share with us information about future developments so as promote early and timely debate about the wide range of implications of those developments. We are also grateful for the advice of consultees on scrutinising patent applications to get a sense of what kind of future developments are possible.

19. The sub-group is considering making this theme the subject of a consultative meeting. This would involve an inquiry not just into what technology seems likely to be developed in scientific and commercial terms, but also into what might be socially desirable and the future social priorities for advances in biotechnology. This proactive approach was recommended by a number of our consultees. Another avenue advocated was to look at what non-technological approaches might meet the problems to which biotechnological developments are proposed as the solution, a perspective that the sub-group will consider factoring into its inquiry.

Developmental Themes

Consumer Choice and Public Attitudes (Developmental Group A)

20. The Commission is interested to explore how biotechnology might affect the mix of farming practices that can co-exist in the UK (conventional, organic and other options such as integrated pest management and conservation grade grains), how compatible these might be, and how any changes to that mix might affect consumers' ability to make choices about food on the basis of how it has been produced as well as on the basis of its nutritional content and safety. We will also want to consider the impacts of the global supply chain on consumer choice.

21. The Commission also wishes to understand better the bases of public concern about biotechnology. The first step in this will be to draw together and analyse the results of existing research into public attitudes. Following an initial workshop involving academic and other experts in the field, the developmental group will discuss and develop proposals for a detailed inquiry. This may involve the use of consultative methods, such as a workshop, consensus conference or other means of exploring public views. The group will also bear in mind the Food Standards Agency's role in this area and liaise with them as appropriate in developing the theme.

Bioremediation (Developmental Group B)

22. Bioremediation involves current and future potential applications of biotechnology to clean up contaminated land. This raises a number of issues, including the potential problems involved in treating large areas of land, the problems involved in detecting contaminants, the relative economic and environmental risks and benefits of using biological, chemical or physical methods of clean up, and the potential use of modified micro-organisms in bioremediation. The following activities are proposed for follow up by the Commission as resources permit:

i) produce a paper summarising the current state of the science in the UK;

ii) seek expert advice on the potential risks to the environment;

iii)increase public awareness of the issues;

iv) perform a horizon scanning exercise to anticipate future needs, products and potential risks;

v) monitor the recently launched BBSRC funded study by the University of Nottingham to explore public attitudes to bioremediation;

vi) provide government with independent strategic advice on the implications of bioremediation for the environment.

Liability (Developmental Group C)

23. The Commission is aware of concern about the adequacy of the existing regime for legal liability when it is applied to genetic modification. The developmental group proposes to:

i) identify and consider the questions that need to be addressed in any debate on liability (and how they might be debated);

ii) survey and monitor existing laws and proposals for reform.

Following this the group will report to the Commission on the form that a Commission inquiry might take.

Additional Topics

24. While generally supporting the Commission's proposals as to initial work topics, consultees identified a number of additional areas which the Commission might address. These varied from the broad to the specific and detailed. Examples of the former include the social impact of biotechnology - possible benefits and potential dangers - and developing an appreciation of the relative expenditure on biotechnology research as compared with other areas. Suggestions for specific topics included the implications of GM crops for bees and bee keeping, the use of 'terminator' gene technology and non-food crops (eg chemical feedstocks and fuel).

25. Some of these issues fall within the scope of the work of the six existing groups. The others will not be forgotten but will be brought into consideration as and when we revise our Work Plan.

Working Methods

26. The Commission has agreed that:

i) we shall hold our formal meetings (around 4 or 5 a year) in different parts of theUnited Kingdom, including the devolved administrations;

ii) we shall adapt our working methods and communications according to the type of inquiry being undertaken;

iii) we shall aim for active public involvement and we shall consider innovative means of gathering public views;

iv) we shall recognise that there may be occasions when we wish to meet in private;

v) the final deliberation on all areas of inquiry carried out by sub-groups will be by the whole Commission.

27. The working methods below may be appropriate in general terms to the inquiries being developed by each of the sub-groups. It is likely that not of all these activities can be practically or productively used for every inquiry, so we will be looking for a good mix for each one. This list is not exhaustive, and each group will identify via minutes of meetings or other information on our website the methods which it proposes to use.

28. Possible working methods:

i) background briefing papers to provide an overview of the issues. These papers will be publicly available on our web site, together with minutes of meetings;

ii) informal and formal briefings from experts and stakeholders;

iii) visits by members to, for example, field plantings of GM crops and to other sites if appropriate;

iv) paper submissions froma variety of sources including NGOs, scientists, policy makers, the producers of GM material, and the public;

v) evidence-taking sessions giving members the opportunity to question key players on the basis of their submissions;

vi) consultative meetings giving members of the public the opportunity to ask questions of the key players, and also to give their views;

vii) focus groups or workshops on specific issues involving members of the public and/or key stakeholders, including, for instance, people local to the sites of the Farm-Scale Evaluations;

viii) reports to the Commission drafted by the Sub-groups;

ix) deliberations by the Commission on draft reports, which may be in private or in public;

x) press launches of reports, which may be events including stakeholder groups, or large public events with the opportunity for members of the public to make comments.

Openness and Transparency

29. The Commission is committed to maximum openness and transparency. We will be holding further public meetings and will experiment with in-depth ways of understanding public views such as focus groups and workshops. We particularly welcome the comments from consultees on effective ways of reaching beyond known 'stakeholder' or interest groups to a broader cross-section of UK citizens and will be looking to develop these further.

30. The minutes of AEBC meetings (including sub-groups) are publicly available, and posted on our web-site, www.aebc.gov.uk, as soon as possible. Background briefing papers are also being made available. We will continue to develop our website so as to make information easily accessible to those who wish to follow our work.

31. Those who do not have access to the internet may obtain information by contacting the secretariat at the following address:

AEBC Secretariat, Room 1/5 Albany House, 94-98 Petty France, LONDON, SW1H 9ST;
e-mail aebc@dti.gsi.gov.uk
fax 0207 271 2126
phone 0207 271 2028

AEBC : January 2001

Annex 1
AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
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 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.

The Commission will:

• 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 2

MEMBERSHIP

Chair

Professor Malcolm Grant
Professor of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge

Deputy Chair

Ms Julie Hill
Programme Adviser and former Director of Green Alliance

Members

Professor Michael Banner
Professor of moral and social theology at King's 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
Ecologist, and Principal Scientific Officer, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Oxford and lecturer at St Anne's College, Oxford

Ms Judith Hann
A freelance broadcaster and writer who presented Tomorrow's World for 20 years

Ms Edith 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

Professor Jeff Maxwell
Director, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

Dr Sue Mayer
Executive Director and Board Member of GeneWatch UK

Dr 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

Annex 3

Organisations and individuals who sent written comments and/or attended the
public meeting on the proposed work plan

Action Against Allergy
Additives Survivors' Network (UK)
Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
Amalgamated Engineering & Electrical Union
Antoniou, Janey
Antoniou, Michael
Arkleton Trust
Association of Medical Research Charities
Aventis CropScience
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
Beringer, John E
Brander, Mrs Judy, Beckenham
British Association for Psychopharmacology
British Crop Protection Council
British Society of Soil Science
British Soil Society
British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection
Brown, Lydia
The Burnhams Group
CABI Bioscience UK Centre
Castle Blytham PC, GM Working Group
Christian Ecology Link
Citigate Westminster
Central Office of Information
Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Natural Environment Research Council
Church of England, Board for Social Responsibility
Church of Scotland
Compassion in World Farming
Concerned Residents of Wivenhoe
Consumers Association
Countryside Agency, Farming and Forestry Branch
Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland
Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Department of Trade & Industry
Department of Trade & Industry - Office of Science & Technology
Dorset Agenda 21
Easton College
Econexus
English Nature
The Environment Council
European Federation Biotech Task Group
Farm Animal Welfare Council
The Farm and Food Society
Farming & Livestock Concern UK
Five Year Freeze Campaign
Food & Drink Federation
Food Standards Agency
Friends of the Earth
Friends of the Earth (Devizes and Marlborough)
Friends of the Earth (Leicester)
Fry, Mrs Elizabeth
Gaia Foundation
GeneWatch
GMO Campaign
Godfrey, Janet
Greenpeace UK
Guldberg, Helene
Hemel Hempstead GM Action Group
Herbert-Step, Joanna
Highland Council
Highlands & Islands GM Concern
Holden, Colin
Horticulture Research International
Human Genetics Commission
Imperial College, London
Institute of Arable Crops Research
Institute of Science in Society
Livestock & Meat Science Commission
Meat and Livestock Commission
Medical Research Council
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Monsanto UK Ltd
Mukerji, Mrs R
National Assembly for Wales
National Consumer Council
National Council of Women Great Britain
National Council of Women, Science & Technology
National Farmers Union
National Institute of Applied Biotechnology
Nestle UK Ltd
Novartis UK Ltd
Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Open University
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
Patttisson, Mrs E
Pattison, Mr P.H
Research Defence Society
Project Co-ordinator for The Research Consortium Conducting the Farm Scale Evaluations GM Crops
Roslin Institute
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
The Royal Society
Royal Society of Edinburgh
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Sanderson, John
Science Museum
Scottish Beekeepers Association
Scottish Consumer Council
Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department
Scottish Genetix action
SmithKline Beecham
Society for General Microbiology
South Elmham Hall Farm
Spiked
Syngenta
TJB Publications (Agrow)
UK Life Sciences Committee (Animal Science Group)
University of Edinburgh, Institute of Ecology & Resource Management, Dr Richard Ennos
University of Edinburgh, Institute of Cell, Animal & Population Biology, Professor W. G Hill
University of Lancaster, Dawn Oliver
University of Lancaster, Professor Brian Wynne
University of Paisley, Biological Studies, Dr Richard Thaker
University of Pennsylvania
University of Surrey, School of Biological Sciences, Prof. Jim Lynch
University of York
Wallace, Elizabeth
Woolven, John
World Association of Beet and Cane Growers

Annex 4

Sub-group membership

1. Decision-making: Farm Scale Evaluations/ Gene Flow
Dave Carmichael
Phil Dale
Robin Grove-White
Rosie Hails
Jeff Maxwell
Sue Mayer
Justine Thornton (Convenor)

2. Animals and Biotechnology
Michael Bannner
Anna Bradley (Convenor)
Helen Browning
Matthew Freeman
Judith Hann
Jeff Maxwell
Ben Mepham

3. Horizon Scanning
Ed Dart
John Gilliland
Julie Hill (Convenor)
ChiChi Iweajunwa
Derek Langslow CBE
Roger Turner

Developmental Group Membership

1. Public Attitudes/Consumer Choice

Anna Bradley
Helen Browning
Dave Carmichael
Ed Dart
Robin Grove-White (Convenor)
Sue Mayer
Ben Mepham

2. Bioremediation

Phil Dale
Rosie Hails (Convenor)
Judith Hann

3. Liability

Matthew Freeman
John Gilliland
Derek Langslow CBE
Justine Thornton (Convenor)