NINTH COMMISSION MEETING
6 - 7 MARCH 2002
CONGRESS CENTRE
28 GREAT RUSSELL STREET
LONDON WC1B 3LS

MINUTES

Papers

AEBC 02/01 A draft report on the regulatory structure for animals and biotechnology

Present

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chair)
Ms Julie Hill (Deputy Chair)
Rev Professor Michael Banner (6 March only)
Ms Anna Bradley
Ms Helen Browning (6 March only)
Dr David Carmichael
Professor Philip Dale
Dr Ed Dart
Dr Matthew Freeman
Mr John Gilliland
Professor Robin Grove-White
Dr Rosie Hails
Ms Judith Hann
Ms Chi Chi Iweajunwa
Dr Derek Langslow
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Dr Sue Mayer
Ms Justine Thornton
Dr Roger Turner

Secretariat

Mr Richard Abel
Mrs Anne Packer
Ms Mileva Novkovic
Mr Chris Hepworth
Mr Andrea Bovolenta

Officials also present

Judy Britton, Office of Science and Technology
Derek Bearhop, Scottish Executive
Liz McCullough, Department of Environment, Northern Ireland
Graham Davis, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Penny Bramwell, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Glenda Townsend, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Huw Jones, Welsh Assembly Government

THE MEETING WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE

Apologies for Absence

1. Apologies had been received from Professor Ben Mepham for both 6 and 7 March, and from the Reverend Professor Michael Banner and Ms Helen Browning for 7 March.

Introductory matters

2. The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming members of the public who were present to observe the Commission’s proceedings.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

3. Members’ comments had already been incorporated into the unconfirmed minutes. These were now confirmed as a correct record and would be posted as such on the AEBC website.

Matters of Report

Government Response to ‘Crops on Trial’ Report

4. The Government had published a positive response to the AEBC report, ‘Crops on Trial’ and had sought further advice from the AEBC on a public debate about possible commercialisation of GM crops. The work of the public attitudes developmental group was on the agenda for discussion later in the meeting.

5. Stimulating a public debate had been one of the agenda items at a recent meeting that the Chair and Deputy Chair had had with Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Michael Meacher, Environment Minister. Malcolm Grant had also attended a meeting of the SCI(BIO) (Science and Biotechnology) Cabinet Committee.

Meeting with Lord Sainsbury

6. The Chair and Deputy Chair had had an introductory meeting with Lord Sainsbury, Science Minister at the DTI, about AEBC’s work programme. In accordance with Lord Sainsbury’s stated conflict of interest, the discussion did not touch upon GM in relation to food. A further meeting was hoped for in due course with Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to whom, in addition to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the AEBC jointly reported in the UK Government.

Meetings with Sir John Krebs

7. The Chair had had a further meeting with Sir John Krebs, Chair of the Food Standards Agency (FSA). This had been followed with a meeting between Robin Grove-White and Sir John and FSA officials about the AEBC's advice on a public debate on the possible commercialisation of GM crops. The FSA had given an account of the public engagement exercise they had undertaken in preparing their submission to the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. The FSA had also drawn the attention of the AEBC to the quantitative data they had collected on public attitudes to GM foods. Sir John and Professor Grant agreed that the FSA and AEBC would continue to liaise closely as the AEBC took forward its advice on a public debate.

Meeting with Professor Julia Goodfellow

8. The Chair's meeting with Professor Julia Goodfellow, incoming Chief Executive of the Biological and Biotechnological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), had been both useful and encouraging. The Chair had outlined the Commission's present work and had agreed with Professor Goodfellow to look out for areas where the AEBC and BBSRC might have common goals.

Meeting at Royal Society

9. The Chair had also attended the National Forum organised by the Royal Society to consider "Does the public trust scientists?" on 6 March.

Letter to Agricultural Biotechnology Council

10. Malcolm Grant had written to the chair of the newly formed industry body, abc (Agricultural Biotechnology Council), expressing concern at the choice of a name and acronym that resembled so closely that of the Commission. He had sought an assurance that the abc would seek to head off avoid confusion in the public mind about the identities of the respective bodies. Any response from the abc to this would be copied to Members.

Draft report on the regulatory framework for animals and biotechnology (AEBC/02/01)

11. Presenting the revised draft report, Anna Bradley highlighted the main changes to it made since the last Commission meeting. The report had been restructured and the section on the factors underlying decision-making had been completed.

12. Significant new material had arisen from the third public reference group workshop which sub-group representatives and the AEBC Chair had attended. The reference group had been in favour of a new regulatory, rather than advisory, strategic body. The reference group had wanted a body that was independent of Government, which they distrusted as a regulator in this area. The Commission noted that a regulatory body could not be completely independent of Government: decision-making bodies were accountable to Parliament through Ministers. But the reference group's view emphasised how important it was that Government paid attention to the advice of a new advisory body. The report noted that if Government did not do so, there could be pressure for strengthening regulation. The Commission noted the importance of distinguishing between taking account of public attitudes and the reference group's views and having those views determine the Commission's advice. Although the public attitudes and reference group work were vital pieces of evidence, they were not the only factors to be considered in drawing up recommendations.

13. Commission members agreed that the quality of the draft and its argumentation were much improved. The Commission noted that the sub-group had consciously adopted open working methods, which were proving beneficial to the work on the report.

14. It was noted that some industry stakeholders had expressed the view that the sub-group was in danger of exceeding its remit. The Commission believed that the sub-group had been justified in starting its study with a broad overview of society's various relationships with animals in order to understand the factors affecting this complex area. The Commission expected the recommendations in the final report to be clearly focused and within the AEBC's remit.

15. In discussion, Members identified the following main areas in the draft report which would require further work: 16. The sub-group agreed to: 17. The Commission agreed in principle the specific recommendations in the report subject to the points made above and some other clarifications and changes of emphasis. The executive summary would be expanded to give a fuller account of the content of the report so that it could stand alone as a proper summary. The recommendations would be set out in order of importance rather than the order in which they appeared in the main body of the report. The proposal for the new strategic body would become the first recommendation in the summary. Detailed drafting comments made during the discussion would be incorporated by the secretariat in the next draft. Members were invited to send any additional detailed comments to the secretariat.

18. The following next steps were agreed: Action: Secretariat/Animals and biotechnology sub-group

Advice to government on a public debate about the question of commercialisation of GM crops (AEBC/02/02)

19. The Chair set out the background to this item. In its report 'Crops on Trial', the AEBC had recommended to Government that there should be a wider public debate to consider what role GM crops might have in UK agriculture in the future. Government had accepted this recommendation and in its response to 'Crops on Trial' had 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 Evaluation (FSE) crops, 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 had 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.

20. Introducing paper AEBC/02/02, Robin Grove-White reported that the public attitudes working group had met several times since the previous AEBC meeting and had also held a lively and very useful discussion workshop with people involved in science and society issues. A number of points had emerged from the workshop. It would be vital that the process for stimulating and making use of the results of a debate had integrity. The objectives of fostering a debate must be clear. Any debate would not be the only show in town: the mass media, Parliament and interest groups would also be active, but a deliberately stimulated, balanced debate had the potential to be an innovative and useful exercise, the results of which Ministers could take into account in decision-making. It would be best to rely on a variety of methods to stimulate debate.

21. The AEBC paper set out a possible programme of events. One aim of the process would be to achieve breadth of coverage, beyond conventional stakeholder groups. The programme should be designed to avoid as far as possible hijack by narrow interests. The programme could begin with one or more groups of lay people, who had no vested interest in the outcome and who were not conventional stakeholders, being asked to frame the issues for debate around the question of the commercialisation of GM crops in the UK, using elements of the consensus conference format, facilitated independently and professionally. This could help give confidence that the issues for debate were not being artificially constrained.

22. A film could then be made about the issues identified at this initial stage, perhaps incorporating some of the discussion among the lay people which had led to that selection of topics, with other supporting material, which would be distributed widely to community and traditional stakeholders to stimulate debate. Evaluation of responses to the film, along with the output from other, more geographically specific deliberative events, could be evaluated and drawn together professionally and a report made to Government. A number of deliberative events would help give depth to the understanding of public attitudes. It might also be possible to interest a national broadcaster in producing an interactive television debate about the issues. The paper suggested starting this programme of events in the second half of 2002, and outlined how the process might be managed.

23. The following were the main points raised in the discussion among Members: 24. Members invited the working group to take forward preparation of draft advice to Government in the light of the points made, to be discussed at the special meeting of the Commission on 18 April.
Action: Secretariat/Public attitudes developmental group

Draft study on horizon scanning (AEBC/02/03) and draft revised work plan (AEBC/02/04)

25. Julie Hill introduced the revised horizon scanning study and draft Work Plan. The study now covered a wider range of biotechnological applications and took account of the comments made at the last AEBC meeting with regard to the analysis, scenarios, and key issues for the Commission. Several additional stakeholders had been consulted informally and their views had contributed to the further development of the study. The study had been used by the sub-group to underpin the draft Work Plan.

Work Plan

26. Given the extent of the current AEBC work programme, Members thought that future workstreams could not begin until 2003. Prioritisation of future areas of work was important, and the Commission would identify two main priority areas for future work.

27. Members decided that work on privately and publicly funded research should be the top priority for future work. The second priority should be two topics which would be combined into one: work on the comparative environmental impact or ‘environmental footprint’ of different agricultural regimes (which had links with baseline research by DEFRA), and a study on visions for the future of biotechnology in farming.

28. The point was made in discussion that competitiveness should not be sidelined as an area for future work. It was noted that it had synergies with the consumer choice issues such as co-existence and gene-flow and Members decided that a study of competitiveness should await the completion of the consumer choice study.

29. It was agreed that the draft Work Plan should spell out more clearly the important tensions around research that needed to be picked up by that workstream. The secretariat would expand the draft, drawing on material in the draft report on animals and biotechnology and in the horizon scanning study.

30. Members were generally content with the draft horizon scanning study. They agreed that ‘objectives’, one of the headings in the Annex A table of biotechnological applications, should be changed to ‘aims’, as this was more neutral. They agreed that the study was ready for issue, subject to final detailed work by the sub-group and secretariat on references. Members agreed that this sub-group would then stand down for the time being.

Next steps

31. Members agreed that the draft Work Plan would be revised on the lines discussed, then re-circulated and finalised by early April. The Work Plan consultation would be published soon after Easter together with the underpinning horizon scanning study. The consultation period would be 12 weeks and the comments received would be discussed at the July AEBC meeting.
Action: Secretariat

Update on DEFRA Research

32. Rosie Hails gave an update on progress with research commissioned by DEFRA on impacts of crop and livestock production systems. AEBC had contributed to the development of the research proposal. The closing date for research tenders had been 22 February, and DEFRA had had a good response. Two AEBC members would be on research project review group, one of whom would be Rosie Hails. Members commented favourably on the quality of the final research proposals.

Update on Work of Liability sub-group (AEBC/02/05)

33. Justine Thornton said that the sub-group had received internal briefings and interviewed experts and stakeholders including the insurance industry and DEFRA, and had had discussions in Brussels with industry, European Commission and NGO representatives about the draft European Directive on environmental liability. The group would be taking more evidence over coming months. The structure of a draft report had been developed. The group’s overall aim was not to produce a legalistic document but rather to develop a document which took account of the wider issues. The report would describe the options on liability and would spell out their implications.

34. Justine Thornton outlined some of the issues the group had started tackling. The group had already discussed in general terms various options such as the setting up of a compensation fund but had yet to debate and agree upon the principles underpinning any future liability regime such as: whether GM organisms are different from other environmentally damaging activities and in what ways and circumstances; what the issues from any GM crop commercialisation were, relevant to any liability regime; whether current liability provisions were adequate; and options for different liability regimes and associated insurance schemes.

35. The group would bring a paper with initial emerging views to the AEBC meeting in May 2002 for discussion. The sub-group invited guidance from Members on whether the group was taking the right approach in terms of its work programme, preliminary briefings and discussions. Members' views were also sought on the principle of whether liability rules for GM crops were necessary. Members noted that this was not the same question as whether GM crops should be regulated separately from other activities with the potential to have an impact on the environment. Members were not yet in a position to give considered responses to questions of principle and requested a note from the sub-group setting out the issues raised in Justine Thornton's introductory comments to this meeting, so that members new to the area could start developing their own thinking in advance of discussion at the next AEBC meeting.
Action: Secretariat/Liability sub-group

36. It was noted that the recently published proposed European Directive on environmental damage did not cover economic loss or diffuse pollution but left this for consideration at Member State level. Some Members thought that unless a highly precautionary approach was taken towards the commercialisation of GM, any future GM liability regime would need to satisfactorily address possible unforeseen events or ‘unknown unknowns’.

37. Summing up, the Chair said that Members welcomed the progress made by the group and was content for it to develop its outline report structure into a draft for discussion at the next AEBC meeting.
Action: Secretariat/Liability sub-group

Consumer choice developmental group

38. Roger Turner reported on the first meeting of the Consumer Choice developmental group. The group had decided to address the question:
‘How important to people is the diversity of agricultural production systems in the UK and their co-existence with GM technology? How would co-existence be practicable?’
In considering these questions the group would take into account: 39. The sub-group saw merit in the approach used by the animals and biotechnology sub-group in setting up a reference group. They were also considering commissioning an initial literature review of relevant research. A technical workshop on detectability of GM material in non-GM produce would also be held.

40. The group had only got as far as deciding on an outline work programme but was clear that it wished to approach its task from two ends: by looking at what consumers wanted and separately identifying what could be practicably offered. It was also conscious of the work of the Food Standards Agency in this area and would aim to keep in close touch with the FSA. The group would also consider non-food crops. Links with the AEBC’s public attitudes work were also envisaged.

41. The group had considered setting a deadline of December 2002 for its draft report but were concerned that this might be over-ambitious given existing commitments. They would report on progress at future Commission meetings.

Any Other Business

42. It appeared that some stakeholders who might be interested in attending AEBC meetings were unable to receive electronic copies of information about the meetings and continued to rely on hard copies. The secretariat had been expanding electronic databases to reach a wider audience but it would look again at how best to ensure that hard copy invitations were distributed as widely as required.
Action: Secretariat

End of meeting

43. The Chairman closed the meeting, thanking AEBC members for their contributions and observers for attending.

AEBC Secretariat
March 2002