State of play of project on ‘Global influences on the UK GM agenda’
1) The story so far
a) Original scope of AEBC project [1]
This project was intended to look at how global decisions on the growth of GM crops and
coexistence arrangements will impact on UK food supply chains. The aim was to raise
general awareness on these issues and test public opinions.
The first stage was to carry out case studies on soya and seeds, considering the
likelihood of being unable to source non-GM varieties in the near future, and any actions
being taking to deal with the situation.
A report would then be produced bringing together the key themes from the case studies.
The findings would be used to inform government and the public and test their opinions on
the issues raised.
In the discussions at our February meeting, stakeholders felt that these were important
issues and there was some work to be done to bring them into the public focus and investigate
consumer reactions to the choice implications that would result.[2]
The AEBC became aware that several other organisations have carried out similar studies and
decided to only keep a ‘watching brief’ on this workstream while pursuing other priorities.
b) Defra Research
The most relevant piece of research in this area is a Defra commissioned study [3](in association
with their consultation [4] on the new EU traceability and labelling regulations on GM food and feed)
which covers many of the issues the AEBC had planned to investigate.
This study looks at the supply chain impact of the regulations for soyabeans, maize, rapeseed and
sugar beet. It covered issues such as:
Analysis of the supply chain
Uses of the commodities and possible substitutes
Areas of GM cultivation
Scope for sourcing non-GM alternatives, and associated costs
Costs of implementing IP systems and examples of premia that are currently paid for non-GM
crops
Response of the supermarkets and caterers to new regulations
Consumer willingness to pay for non-GM products (Defra has also commissioned another study
specifically on this topic, yet to be published)
Estimates of total cost of non-GM IP systems for UK soyabean products, costs to farmers, retailers
and consumers.
2) Areas of possible work remaining
a) Soya case study
The work carried out by Defra (and others) seems to cover the issues originally proposed in the AEBC
scoping document[1].
b) Seeds case study
There is potentially still work to be done in this area, along the lines proposed in the scoping
document. The original scope was to consider the future security of non-GM seed supply chains to the
UK. Much of the seed grown in the UK is produced abroad and GM adoption strategies and coexistence
arrangements in other countries are likely to mean it is difficult to source seeds that can be
guaranteed GM-free. (More information is in the scoping paper - see footnote [1]).
The EU is still in discussion on the thresholds of adventitious presence to be permitted in seeds
and there may be more strategic issues to consider around this decision. English Nature for example,
have raised concerns over the agri-environmental implications, the setting of generic levels for
adventitious presence (rather than considerations on a case by case basis), and the possibility of
multiple transformations in seed batches leading to gene stacking.
c) Testing public attitudes on GM
A number of pieces of research [5] have already been carried out using the ‘willingness to pay’
methodology. However, there are limitations with this approach and it would be beneficial to conduct
further research, perhaps using different means, to determine the reliability of the results from
these studies.
d) Comment on issues of interest from existing research
The Defra research [3] throws up some interesting issues the commission may wish to deliberate and
bring to the attention of Government and the public.
For example: What are the implications of the suggested costs of sourcing non-GM products?
(and do these costs seem accurate?) What does the reliance on Brazil mean practically for the UK in
terms of sourcing non-GM soya in the future? What can we learn from other countries and their approach
to paying premia for non-GM soya? What does the supermarket response mean for the public/consumer?
(e.g. could/should they do more?) What could/should the UK Government do to tackle these.
3) Suggested next steps
Option a) Pursue work in earnest on global influences
This could include for example: a case study around seed sourcing arrangements; further work on
consumer attitudes to GM and raising public awareness; some follow up to the Defra research paper
(e.g. holding discussion workshops with stakeholders on the issues raised from the study); a formal
response to the Defra consultation (deadline for the consultation is 25th June) etc.
It is suggested that the soya case study is not pursued by the AEBC given that others have carried
out work in this area.
Although there are interesting areas of work remaining, it is unlikely the AEBC will have the
time or resources, (in terms of Members’ time, secretariat staffing, funding etc), to commit to
pursuing these in earnest. ‘Option a’ therefore seems unfeasible.
Therefore there are 2 remaining options:
b) b) Drop this workstream in favour of pursuing other AEBC priorities
The limited resources available might best be directed entirely to the two priority workstreams on
research agendas and non-food agriculture. The global implications project is in the planning stages,
meaning that little time would be lost if the project was dropped.
c) c) Flag the issues for attention of Government for others to pursue
This would essentially be a compromise of options ‘a’ and ‘b’. The AEBC could suggest that their
initial scoping had highlighted some interesting issues, specifically around sourcing non-GM seeds,
raising public awareness of security of non-GM food supply and further work around testing attitudes
and opinions to GM food. The Commission would recommend that further work should be carried out in
these areas, although there was not capacity for the commission to do this themselves.
It is proposed that these issues could be combined with the submission on the AEBC workplan as
suggested in Paper AEBC 04/08
Recommendation: Option C. This would ensure that the AEBC and Government did not lose
sight of some important issues, whilst recognising that resource constraints mean it would be
unfeasible for the Commission to undertake the work themselves. Do members agree with this
approach?
