AEBC recommendations following the GM policy statement:
Options for presentation to Government
Introduction
The Government statement of 9 March and the response to the GM dialogue, published
simultaneously, marked a watershed in UK policy on GM. However, the body of evidence that
informed the statement (principally the three strands of the GM dialogue, the Farm Scale
Evaluation (FSE) results and the AEBC’s Coexistence and Liability report) has raised
several very important issues that are either left unresolved by the statement or go much
wider than the narrow issue of GM. AEBC members have suggested that, in order to ensure
that these issues are not forgotten as a line is drawn under the GM statement, the
Commission draw Government’s attention to them specifically.
This paper discusses the specific issues identified by Commission Members, but its
primary purpose is to ask for Members’ agreement to a strategy for presentation of
these issues to Government.
Issues for the AEBC to raise
The wider implications of the FSEs
As agreed at the last Commission meeting (February 2004 [1] ), the secretariat, with
guidance from Rosie Hails and others, has drafted the response to the FSEs at Annex 1,
which identifies the need highlighted by the FSE results to develop a more comprehensive
and holistic approach to manage farmland, while maintaining biodiversity.
[N.B. Members’ comments on the text have been sought separately and the text will not be
discussed in depth at the Commission meeting].
Embedding the lessons learned from GM Nation?
The GM Nation? public debate was a unique and unprecedented exercise. The conduct of the
debate has been analysed by several organisations, including the debate Steering Board itself,
the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee and the Centre for Environmental Risk
at the University of East Anglia. However, there is a need for the lessons learned to be embedded
within Government, to be taken into account when dealing with similar issues in the future.
This could be a task for the Office of Science and Technology’s Science and Society
Directorate.
Pursuing research needs identified by the GM Science Review
The GM Science review identified areas where more scientific research is needed, including
allergenicity, soil ecology, farmland biodiversity and consequences of gene flow. However,
it is not clear how these "gaps" in research will be filled. There is a need for clarity
from Government about when and how the research needs identified will be pursued.
The impact on policy of the GM dialogue as a whole
The Commission could also call for further, independent analysis of the impact that the GM
dialogue - including the Costs and Benefits study as well as GM Nation and the Science Review -
actually had on the Government’s political decision on GM.
Unresolved issues on Coexistence and Liability
The Commission could also set out what points it feels are still left at issue on Coexistence
and Liability.
The work on the effect of global influences on GM foods/seeds in the UK
The Commission identified "global influences" as a potential workstream but may not be able to
pursue the work actively at the moment. If so, Members may wish to highlight the issues for the
attention of Government for others to pursue. This is dealt with in more detail in
paper AEBC04/07.
The overall theme of these recommendations is that the Government has invested in an
impressive body of work to inform its decision-making, but now it has "made its decision" it
should not abandon the important and wide-ranging loose ends.
Options for presentation to Government
Note that, in addition to the issues above, the Commission also needs to present its new
workplan to Government in the near future. Three options have been identified for presentation
to Government:
I. All the above issues covered together in ONE DOCUMENT
Present one document containing the AEBC reflections on the wider implications of the FSEs, along
with the additional points above.
This could be called something like "Unfinished Business: AEBC reflections after the
Government GM announcement".
II. FSE response published separately and other issues combined with new AEBC
workplan: TWO DOCUMENTS
Present the FSE response as a separate document, to be published as soon as possible. Combine
additional issues with the AEBC workplan.
The workplan could be set out as follows:
Description of AEBC work so far
AEBC reflections on situation post Government statement, and recommendation that outstanding work
is not abandoned (GM Nation?, GM Science review, summary of FSEs response)
AEBC work programme (research agendas and non-food agriculture)
Work AEBC has identified as important but does not have the resources to undertake itself
(global influences work)
III. FSE response, other issues and new workplan all published separately:
THREE DOCUMENTS
Present the FSEs response and the additional points as separate documents. Workplan submitted
separately.
Recommendation
Option II - publishing the FSE response separately and covering other issues as part
of the Commission’s new workplan - seems best, for the following reasons:
Covering all the issues in one document might seem contrived and could send out a confusing
message, but publishing more than two separate documents would be confusing and over-complicated.
Combining the FSE response with a number of other issues might reduce the impact of the
important points it raises, and might also delay its publication.
In public communication terms the FSE response can clearly stand on its own; while the impact of
the Commission’s draft workplan will be enhanced by combining it with recommendations to Government on
the other issues above.
Are Members content with this approach?
AEBC Secretariat
April 2004
The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission:
Response to ACRE’s advice on the Farm Scale Evaluations
The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) was established by the Government
in June 2000 following a review in 1999 by the Cabinet Office and the Office of Science and Technology
of the Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology. This review concluded that a broader
approach was needed for strategic issues. The AEBC forms part of coherent regulatory and advisory
framework set up following this review.
The AEBC’s remit is to provide independent strategic advice on developments in biotechnology and
their implications for agriculture and the environment, taking into account social and ethical
considerations as well as science.
Introduction and background
In 1999 the Government asked an independent group of researchers to investigate how growing of three
genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) varieties of crops (oil seed rape, fodder beet and maize)
might affect farmland biodiversity and abundance of farmland wildlife compared with growing conventional
varieties of the same crops. These were the Farm Scale Evaluations, (FSEs). The Government’s aim was to
use the results of the FSEs to help it decide whether to allow these GMHT crops to be cultivated
commercially in the UK.
The FSEs are the largest ever field trials of GM crops anywhere in the world. The results of the FSEs
were published on 16 October and are available on Defra’s website [2].
Following the publication of the results of the FSEs, Government’s statutory advisor on the release and
marketing of genetically modified organisms, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE),
submitted its advice on them on 13 January 2004 [3].
The Government made a policy statement on GM on 9 March 2004 [4], taking into account ACRE’s advice as
well as the three strands of the GM public dialogue and the AEBC’s report on Coexistence and Liability.
As well as setting out its policy framework for GM crops in general, Government also announced its decisions
on the three GMHT varieties of crops: to oppose the commercial cultivation of the tested GMHT varieties of
beet and oilseed rape, but to agree in principle the commercial cultivation of the tested variety of GMHT
Maize (Chardon LL developed by Bayer CropScience). This consent was subject to two conditions: first, that
the restrictions should be imposed on the existing EU marketing consent, which expires in October 2006, so
that this maize can only be grown and managed as in the trials, or under such conditions that will not result
in adverse effect on the environment; and second, in response to concerns which have been raised about the
phase-out of atrazine in the European Union, that the consent holders should be required to carry out further
scientific analysis to monitor changes in herbicide use on conventional maize and to submit new evidence if
they seek to renew the existing EU marketing consent when it expires in 2006.
Subsequently, at the end of March 2004, Bayer CropScience decided to discontinue further efforts to
commercialize Chardon LL in the UK [5]. Bayer noted that the Government had placed a number of constraints
on conditional approval of commercial cultivation of Chardon LL. Because the specific details of these
conditions were not available the uncertainties and undefined timescales made Chardon LL, now a five-year-old
variety, economically unviable.
The importance of the FSEs
ACRE’s advice
In its headline advice to Government ACRE said that the FSEs provided important and robust evidence
concerning the impact of the herbicide regimes associated with the three GMHT crops studied. On the specific
varieties studied they advised that, if GMHT beet and spring-sown oilseed rape were grown in a similar way
to the crops in the FSEs, then adverse environmental effects on biodiversity relative to growing conventonal
crops would result. In contrast, they advised that the results of the farm-scale evaluations of GMHT maize
did not demonstrate evidence of adverse biodiversity impacts providing the crops were grown in a similar way
to those tested. The Committee stressed that the impacts are due to the herbicide management regime, not the
genetic modification itself and that its analysis of environmental impacts were limited to those parameters
measured in the FSEs [6], and what can be directly inferred from them.
ACRE’s advice also expressed the view that the FSEs have significant additional implications for
agriculture in general, and could feed into a wider discussion concerning environmental impacts of
agricultural practices.
The AEBC notes that the FSEs were an important part of the Government’s decision making process relating
to the three tested varieties of GMHT crops, indeed this was what the FSEs were primarily designed to do.
We also note that in advising Government ACRE focused its considerations of the FSE on how they could best
inform Government decisions on whether to allow the commercial cultivation on these three varieties. In
constituting its advice on the FSEs, ACRE work was limited by is narrow is terms of reference [7]. We commend
the quality of the analysis and advice to Government in this context. However, ACRE’s recommendation about
the environmental impact of the various crops is based on a judgement against a very narrow control, which
we feel represents an arbitrary simplification. Because of this ACRE was constrained to limit its advice to
focus on the imminent decisions on commercialization of the three GMHT varieties tested. While this was
exactly what the FSEs were intended to inform, we do not feel that these are the only implications of the
results, nor the most important.
SOME MEMBERS HAVE ARGUED THAT ACRE COULD HAVE INTERPRETED THEIR REMIT MORE BROADLY IN FORMULATING THEIR ADVICE.
PARAGRAPH 11 COULD BE REDRAFTED AS FOLLOWS TO REFLECT THIS:
We also note that in advising Government ACRE focused its considerations of the FSE on how they could best
inform Government decisions on whether to allow the commercial cultivation on these three varieties. ACRE’s
terms of reference [8] can be interpreted in a number of ways. In constituting its advice on the FSEs, ACRE
worked within a narrow interpretation of its terms of reference, and in that context properly followed it statutory
role. We commend the quality of the analysis and advice to Government in this context.
However, ACRE’s recommendation about the environmental impact of the various crops is based on a judgement
against a very narrow control, which we feel represents an arbitrary simplification. By being limited by its
remit (to an extent by choice) we feel that ACRE was constrained to advise primarily on the imminent decisions on
commercialization of the three GMHT varieties tested. While this was what the FSEs were intended to inform, we do
not feel that these are the only implications of the results, nor the most important.
It’s how you control weeds that make the difference
In general, if a farmer reduces the extent of weed control in crops, a wider range and a larger number of weeds
will grow and more wildlife will be supported. This is true irrespective of the means of weed control. The FSE
results clearly demonstrated that for the three crops studied it is not the GM technology per se, but the weed
management system associated with it that determines the impact on biodiversity. Clearly weed management strategies
are directly associated with the traits exhibited by the crop in question but traits can be developed in crops by a
variety of techniques, ranging from conventional breeding through to genetic modification.
The FSEs hence throw open questions of exploring different weed management systems, in particular involving the
timing of herbicide application, to combine crop production with the management of biodiversity.
The FSEs also illustrate that different crops support different levels of biodiversity, and the differences
between crops (around seven-fold between oilseed rape and maize) were much greater than the differences between
varieties/management regimes (around two-fold). This raises the possibility of promoting certain crops for
biodiversity. These issues are explored further below (in paragraphs 23-27).
We believe that the importance of the FSEs was not simply to inform the decision whether to give consent to
the commercial cultivation of the three studied GMHT crops. While this was useful, it is highly specific to the
studied varieties of GMHT crops. More importantly the FSEs highlighted differential impacts on biodiversity of
different crops and weed management systems. Given the commitment by Government to reverse declines in biodiversity,
all management options should be explored to achieve this end.
The political decision making process
The FSEs also suggest that GM crop-herbicide combinations give considerable flexibility, which in the future
could be explored to refine weed control strategies that favour wildlife without sacrificing yield. There is
comparatively little flexibility within conventional crop-herbicide combinations to vary and evolve weed-control
strategies. The Broom’s Barn Experiments illustrate that new GM crop-herbicide regimes can be usefully
explored [9]. This specific issue was also addressed by the recent House of Commons Environmental Audit committee
report [10].
In citing the difference in impact between the GM and non-GM crops in the FSEs as the factor on which to make
judgements whether or not to commercialise crops the Government has implicitly set a relative standard of
impact on wildlife biodiversity and abundance. This standard is being applied to some varieties of crops
(i.e. GM varieties) and not others (i.e. non-GM varieties).
For example, we currently have a situation where the continuous cultivation of winter wheat (which is a major
contributor to reduction in wildlife and has other negative environmental impacts, such as causing soil erosion) is
considered to be acceptable for the environment, but to include a GM rapeseed break crop in that winter wheat
cropping is considered to be unacceptable for the environment. This is regulatory nonsense.
Government’s response to the FSEs was a political judgment, not a scientific one.
The FSEs looked at a small number of measurable proxies for biodiversity to allow a quantitative and statistically
rigorous result to be obtained. Government then implicitly treated this data as rigorous scientific assessment of
the relative effect on biodiversity, and indeed the environmental impact, of the crops. The scientific approach
would have been to evaluate the magnitude of the biological impact of the GM crops against the other variables in
agriculture. A comprehensive, holistic assessment would inevitably be qualitative due to its complexity, and
hence would not be statistically rigorous, but it would be scientifically rigorous.
Government’s approach and presentation of the decisions also implies that in the future, FSE-type evaluations
will need to be made of any new (GM) variety. This is unfeasible. The proper response must be to take the data from
the FSEs to construct models that we can use to predict confidently the impacts of different management regimes
associated with new crop varieties.
Furthermore, the logical scientific response to a decision against commercialization of GM beet and oilseed rape
would be to question all practices (conventional, organic and novel) in agriculture that have a similar or greater
impact on wildlife compared with the GM beet or oilseed rape. This would apply to all herbicide and pesticide
registrations, certain set-aside practices, excessive cultivation and so on.
The FSEs looked at a small number of measurable proxies for biodiversity, thereby allowing for a statistically
rigorous methodology. However this narrow approach did not assess biodiversity comprehensively, and was certainly not
a full assessment of environmental impact. It is therefore misleading for Government to imply that the FSEs provide a
black and white answer about the potential environmental harm of GM crops.
Issues raised on biodiversity
The FSEs also raise other fundamental questions. Given that trade offs between crop yields and biodiversity are
inevitable, how much of the UK’s resources for plant growth do we wish to devote to supporting crops and, how much
to supporting wildlife? And, how do we wish to distribute the two?
These questions of standards and land use have to be set against the long-term historical context of a British
landscape. The intensification of agriculture has led to a general decline in biodiversity, particularly over the last
few decades. In this context of rapidly changing biodiversity any baseline of biodiversity and abundance of wildlife
we choose to set is going to be arbitrary. However it seems to us that it would be sensible at least to attempt to
reverse the status quo, and to do this by ensuring that any new farming practice is better in biodiversity terms than
those currently used.
Given the above, Government needs to be clear about what it is aiming for with respect to agriculture and
wildlife management (including biodiversity). Even following the principles of sustainable development, judging
what our aim should be is neither obvious, nor easy given that any baseline will be arbitrary. ACRE has done relevant
work defining criteria on gauging harm. On the narrower issue of releases of genetically modified organisms into the
environment [11], we commend this to government as a good template for more comprehensive work on regulating farming
practices generally.
As we alluded to above in paragraph 13, the answer to stabilizing and increasing biodiversity is not as simple
as just reserving some land for wildlife. Intensively farmed land is generally close to a monoculture, and is a
very different habitat to extensively (i.e. un-intensively) farmed land or to un-farmed/set-aside land. A
"base-line" biodiversity and abundance based on, say 1940 levels of wildlife, would not be supported by a simple mix
of intensively farmed and un-farmed area of land. Similarly extensively farming a given area may not necessary
support the highest value of biodiversity. In fact, intensively farming some areas of land and actively managing
others areas for wildlife (perhaps with a range of distinct habitats) is in most cases likely to be better in terms
of maximising biodiversity than simply farming less intensively. What is needed is some coherent and rational
framework in which these kind of assessments about the level of biodiversity that should be supported, and how best
to do so, can be made.
A possible approach might be to define a target level of biodiversity and abundance and then to develop patterns
of farming (and limited areas of habitat management) including a mix of farming practices and crops that most
efficiently supports that biodiversity. This is not an argument to farm less intensively across the board. As
argued above managing land to include a mix of crops and differing levels of intensity alongside small areas of
managed habitat may support a given level of biodiversity at a lower cost with while yielding higher-value
agricultural (and other) outputs than the current norm.
Conclusions
The FSEs were pioneering experiments in developing methodologies and interpreting data. As well as informing
decisions on the commercial growth of the tested varieties of GMHT crops, they expose the fact that different
ways of growing the same crops (conventional or GM) can have significantly variable environmental impacts.
The implications of the investigations over the last four years stretch far beyond GMHT crops to arable
agriculture in general, where the same herbicide is used widely for stubble cleaning operations. The FSEs
represented a significant opportunity to establish herbicide management regimes for both GMHT and conventional
crops that would benefit both the farmer and the environment alike.
Government’s decisions on the commercialization of GM crops, based on the FSEs and the other inputs to the
debate, involved a combination of political as well as scientific decisions. Following the decisions on
commercialization, Bayer has now decided not to develop commercially Chardon LL, and as a result, the decisions
have little practical consequence in the short term. It is important that we now use the time this has afforded
us to develop a considered strategy to combine agriculture and wildlife conservation, using all tools at our
disposal.
The FSEs have shown that the impacts of farming systems on biodiversity are far more significant than one
particular crop or treatment within in it. Meeting our aspirations for biodiversity and more generally
sustainable farming will require significant changes in farming practice. This is only achievable by a combination
of economic incentives and regulation. Current regulations and incentives are neither designed for this purpose
nor are they fit for it. Designing and implementing reform is thus a challenge for Government at European,
National and Regional levels.
Annex A: ACRE'S Terms of Reference [12]
ACRE is a statutory advisory committee appointed under section 124 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990
(the EPA) to provide advice to government regarding the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms.
The Committee works within the legislative framework set out by Part VI of the EPA and the GMO Deliberate Release
Regulations 2002 which together implement Directive 2001/18/EC.
The Committee's terms of reference are as follows:
To advise the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Scottish Ministers and the
Assembly Secretaries on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales (hereafter collectively know as
'the Ministers') and other bodies as appropriate on the exercise of powers under Part VI of the Environmental
Protection Act 1990.
To advise the Ministers and other bodies as appropriate on releases into the environment of Great Britain
of animals and plants covered by sections 14 and 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
To advise the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) on releases of genetically modified
organisms into the Northern Ireland environment for the purposes of The Genetically Modified Organisms
(Deliberate Release) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1994.
To provide to the Ministers on request scientific advice on GMOs, including advice to the Health and
Safety Commission and Executive in respect of the human health aspects of releases to the environment.
To advise the Ministers and other bodies as appropriate on research needs.
In practise this means that ACRE's remit, as set out by the legislation, is to provide advice on:
whether consents to release or market GMOs should be issued and any conditions which should be attached
to consents
the limitations and conditions of consents issued to release or market GMOs, this covers post-release
monitoring and provision to make amendments to consents
fees and charges relating to the cost of issuing consents and in respect of maintaining inspection and
enforcement regimes
the making of regulations under Part VI of the EPA 1990 and the deliberate release directive
In addition ACRE also provide advice on:
the evaluation of new GM research findings
any science-based GM matter
research needs in the area of risk assessment of GMOs
releases into the environment of non-indigenous animals and plants
