ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH
22-26 GEORGE STREET
EDINBURGH EH2 2PQ
MINUTES OF MEETING
Click here for the transcript of the evidence giving session
Papers
AEBC 02/12 Legal liability for GMOs
AEBC 02/13 Future meetings
Present
Professor
Malcolm Grant (Chair)
Ms
Julie Hill (Deputy Chair)
Revd
Professor Michael Banner
Ms
Anna Bradley
Ms
Helen Browning
Dr
Dave Carmichael
Professor
Phil Dale
Dr
Matthew Freeman
Mr
John Gilliland
Professor
Robin Grove-White
Dr
Rosie Hails
Ms
Judith Hann
Derek
Langslow CBE
Professor
Jeff Maxwell
Dr
Sue Mayer
Ms
Justine Thornton
Dr
Roger Turner
Secretariat
Mr
Richard Abel
Mrs
Anne Packer
Mr
Pat Wilson
Ms
Mileva Novkovic
Mr
Chris Hepworth
Mr
Andrea Bovolenta
Officials
also present
Judy
Britton, Office of Science and Technology
Graham
Davis, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Derek
Bearhop, Scottish Executive
Liz
McCullough, Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland
Jane
Cockram, Food Standards Agency
WEDNESDAY
17 JULY
Apologies
for Absence
1.
Apologies had been received from Dr Ed Dart, Professor Ben Mepham
and ChiChi Iweajunwa for both days.
2.
A number of Commission Members had visited the Roslin Institute
earlier in the morning to learn about the work carried out there and to
discuss matters of common interest. Ross
Finnie, the Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development, had
met Members informally over lunch before the meeting.
3.
The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming members of the public to
observe the Commission’s proceedings.
The main objective of the afternoon meeting was to take stock of
developments on the GM public debate and to discuss the work to date on
legal liability for GMOs.
Minutes
of the Previous Meeting
4.
The minutes of the thirteenth and fourteenth meetings had been
circulated in draft, and Members’ comments had been incorporated.
The Commission confirmed those minutes as correct records and
agreed to their being posted on the AEBC website as such.
Matters
of Report
5.
The AEBC report, Animals and Biotechnology, having been
agreed by the whole Commission, was launched at a well-attended press
conference on 3 September. The AEBC Chair and sub-group convenor gave
interviews to a considerable range of journalists and the report received
wide media coverage. The
Chair paid tribute to the work of Anna Bradley and the sub-group for their
innovative ways of working.
6.
The Chair told Members that the first meeting of the GM public
debate steering board would be the following day, Friday 13 September.
He emphasised that the board would be steering rather than
conducting the debate. It
would be the public face of the debate.
In addition to members drawn from the AEBC, the board also had
external membership. This
included Stephen Smith, (Chair of the agricultural biotechnology
council,) Clare Devereux, (Director of the Five Year Freeze campaign,)
Gary Kass, (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology,) and Lucian
Hudson (Director of Communications at DEFRA).
The steering board would meet in public and openness and
transparency rules in line with the AEBC’s would apply.
The steering board would report on progress to each main meeting of
the Commission and to Ministers.
Discussion
of taking work forward on the
GM public debate and future Commission meetings (AEBC/02/13)
7.
The Chair reported that an additional Commission meeting had been
arranged at short notice and held on 7 August to review the Government
response sent by Margaret Beckett on 26 July to AEBC’s advice on a
public debate. This meeting
had not been held in public. A supplementary response for the devolved administrations,
under cover of a letter from Ross Finnie of 19 August gave a further
response, including clarification of the scope and terms of references.
8.
The AEBC had agreed on 7 August that it was minded to take forward
involvement in the public debate subject to further clarification.
The Chair had been asked by Members to take forward discussions
with Government and COI Communications on the AEBC’s behalf
before reverting to the Commission. He was accompanied by Robin Grove-White and Roger Turner at a
series of meetings to clarify the issues.
On 23 August, the Chair wrote to Commission Members with
information on progress since the 7 August meeting.
On the basis of progress made, the AEBC agreed to be involved in
the debate but to proceed with careful deliberation.
9.
Members then discussed further the issues where particular care was
needed.
COI
Communications
10.
The Chair explained that it was envisaged that COI might be hired
as prime contractor because it had the capacity to provide a conduit to
sub-contractors through its rosters of contractors selected as a result of
a full competition in accordance with EC procurement procedures.
These rosters obviated the need to go out to tender in EU journals
and would help the debate get off the ground quickly given the tight
deadline for completion. Members
wanted information on how the COI contracting process worked and the
spectrum and spread of contractors on COI’s list of contractors.
Members thought that the Steering Board should ensure that
competence to run deliberative public engagement exercises was
particularly important and if this was not a feature of the contractors on
the rosters, then a way would need to be found to find suitable
candidates.
11.
Members had been concerned that COI lacked experience in
qualitative social research. The
Chair, Robin Grove-White and Roger Turner had explored this with the COI
team, which was of high calibre, and now felt confident about COI’s
grasp of the special nature and demands of the this work, and that they
could get up to speed quickly.
12.
One of the main concerns about COI’s involvement was the
perception that the independence of the debate would be compromised by
their involvement since COI was in effect an arm of Government.
There was a big burden of proof on COI which they were capable of
addressing. The negative
publicity about the debate during the summer was viewed as a warning shot;
the challenge would be to avoid a repetition.
Scope
and timing of the debate
13.
The public debate would be about GM issues, focussing on the
possible commercial growing of GM crops in the UK.
This did not preclude the public raising other issues about genetic
modification but meant that the debate would be focussed on the area where
Ministers would have to make decisions soon.
14.
Some members viewed the deadline of June 2003 for reporting back to
Government as an unhelpful constraint on the debate.
In particular, they felt that to end the debate before publication
of the first set of results from the Farm-Scale Evaluations would
perpetuate problems of public mistrust.
Others saw value in a debate about more generic issues around
possible GM crop commercialisation in advance of the FSE results, which
the AEBC had always made clear were not the final bit of the
decision-making jigsaw. The
Commission noted that in Ross Finnie’s letter of 19 August to Malcolm
Grant Government reiterated its commitment to a separate public discussion
of the FSE results. On this
basis the AEBC would proceed with the debate as one part of a wider
picture and not the whole answer to issues facing Government. Overall the AEBC was content to proceed within the parameters
set by Government.
Relationship
between the three strands
15.
The inter-relationship between the three strands was of utmost
importance. Work was needed
at various levels to ensure the weave was sufficiently tight.
This would include liaison at secretariat and steering board level
on progress and making available the results of initial framing of issues
by the public to the economic and science strands.
Members thought steering panels for all three strands were
required. They also wished to
be assured of the intellectual rigour of each strand.
Scoping notes for the science review and economics strand would
be circulated once available to Members.
ACTION:
secretariat
16.
The economics strand was being taken forward by the Prime
Minister’s Strategy Unit.
Members were satisfied with the way in which this study was
developing and with its resourcing. However,
there was concern about the independence of the exercise and in that
connection some Members thought that it would be helpful if the final
report was published before being submitted to No. 10.
17.
The science strand was being taken forward by the Chief Scientific
Adviser and DEFRA’s Chief Scientist, with independent advice from the
Chair of the Food Standards Agency. The
scoping note now on the AEBC and DEFRA websites was relatively
underdeveloped. The AEBC
Chair had met Professors King, Dalton and Krebs to discuss the review. A
process was underway of inviting scientists and others to serve on a
review panel. AEBC Members
were concerned that the resourcing of work on the science strand was
insufficient, particularly compared to the economic strand.
Members were told that the staffing structure would be developed as
the officials assessed the work in more detail.
18.
Some Members were keen to see an extended form of peer review of
the material produced in the science review, involving social scientists
and others not in the immediate scientific field.
Non-scientific representation on the science panel was also thought
important.
Future
AEBC Meetings
19.
The Commission considered paper (AEBC/02/13) on future meetings and
membership of working groups. The animals and biotechnology group had now completed its
work and stood down. This,
and the new work on the public debate, provided an opportunity for Members
to review their membership of working groups.
Anyone wanting to change should contact the secretariat.
Format
of meetings
20.
The recent format of Commission meetings had served the AEBC well
but it should be kept under review for the needs of the AEBC’s
forthcoming work programme. The
Commission agreed to try a new format for some meetings in 2003, involving
an evening meal, an overnight stay and a full day’s meeting on the
following day. Further
comments about format could be made to the secretariat.
AEBC
Meeting at Eden Project in December
21.
The Eden Project meeting might provide a good opportunity to
conduct a larger public event of a novel kind involving sections of the
public the AEBC had not yet engaged with. High profile speakers on environmental issues would be sought.
There was scope to link this event with the work of the consumer
choice working group. There
was also scope for the event to contribute to the public debate work. An
outline agenda would be developed and possible speakers contacted.
Action:
Secretariat
Draft
Annual Report (AEBC/02/14)
22.
Members discussed the draft Annual Report (AEBC/02/14).
On the whole, members were content with the report.
The introduction and summary of work achieved should be separated.
In particular, the report should not imply (in paragraph 7) that
the discussion going on outside the Commission was all polarised.
It should reflect that the job of the Commission was to assist the
process of constructive public debate in areas where there was a great
deal of public concern, also respecting the spectrum of views and
interests. The secretariat
was asked to ensure that the report reflected the intense discussion that
had taken place surrounding the GM public debate.
Action:
Secretariat
23.
Members were asked to take special care to ensure that declarations
of interest included anything that was, or might be perceived as, relevant
to the work of the Commission, and to let the secretariat know of changes
needed.
Action:
all Members
Discussion
of issues arising on liability (AEBC/02/12)
24.
The originally planned evidence taking session with lawyers had not
proved feasible and would be held at a later stage.
Justine Thornton, convenor of the liability working group,
introduced the paper AEBC/02/12 outlining the evidence the group had
gathered to date, from a wide variety of people, and describing the
direction the work was taking. She
invited input from Members, which would help the group take forward its
work.
25.
The New Zealand Law Commission was the only group besides the AEBC
to have focussed on this area. The additional paper tabled for the meeting contained a list
of the Law Commission’s recommendations.
It had identified but not explored three main areas where policy
decisions were needed, which the AEBC could usefully take forward.
These were:
·
the extent to which GMOs were different from other human activities
or technologies either from a scientific or ethical perspective;
·
the extent to which those involved in genetic modification should
be held directly accountable for anything that goes wrong; and,
·
the Government’s role as guarantor of any damage caused by the GM
industry if the liability regime including any changes to the regime would
not be able to deal with damage which for example took a long time to
become apparent or was irreversible.
26.
There was some debate as to whether focusing on whether or not
GMOs were ‘different’ was the right approach.
The group’s scenarios work had demonstrated that very few
scenarios could be accommodated within the existing liability regime,
regardless of whether the crops were GM or conventional.
Some took the view that if the current liability regime was not
capable of handling new issues the subject of whether GMOs were different
would need to be visited. Others
pointed out that innovation necessarily brought with it uncertainty and
that singling out one technology and attaching liability to it was
illogical.
27.
Members considered the scope of the liability study.
Arguments were put forward for taking a broader scope than simply
legal liability for GMOs including the fact that the current regime could
offer little redress and that non-legal solutions with a public attitudes
perspective would need to be found and the need to avoid the danger of
focussing narrowly on GMs to the exclusion of comparable non-GM
developments in agriculture and the environment which could give rise to
liability issues. It was
agreed that the case for having a broad scope could be made. The important point would be to produce advice to Government
that offered possible solutions. In
taking its study forward the liability group would need to consider the
relationship between liability and regulatory structure and the point at
which private rules become unworkable and need political reinforcement.
28.
Robin Grove-White agreed to consider what, in his opinion, might be
missing from the current scenarios consultation document.
ACTION:
Robin Grove-White
·
considering possible solutions extending beyond legal liability,
which would widen the group’s remit, towards potential means of redress
for damage that might be caused by GMOs. (The reason for concerns over
redress was past experience, unrelated to GM, where events had proved to
be irredeemable.) However there was a need to keep the work of the sub-group
manageable;
·
a starting point could be: ‘Is the liability regime adequate?’
Were there harms which GM might cause, for which the present
liability regime was not adequate? What
would be the circumstances in which harms could arise?
·
whether public concerns were distinctive to GM, and the possible
relevance of sociological, political science issues around risk studies eg
work by Beck;
·
DEFRA’s specific request for advice from AEBC on economic
liability;
·
the relationship between politics and law, which had points of
intersection. For example
could a condition on a (Part C) consent potentially affect liability?
·
there were philosophical questions.
To whom are costs, responsibilities, duties and freedoms allocated?
Who has dominance? These involve a priori decisions;
·
a three stage process could be useful: first testing the current
position, then considering what harm or damage there might be, and then
– as in New Zealand – distinguishing where problems might be, how they
might be dealt with, and what could or could not be dealt with at all.
30.
Justine Thornton thanked AEBC Members for their contributions.
Working group members had found the discussion helpful,
particularly in view of the liability group meeting to be held the
following day.
Points
made by observers
31.
The Chair then invited observers to comment on the discussions that
had taken place during the afternoon.
A number of suggestions were made.
They included:
·
the importance of conducting all three strands of the public debate
in the same levels of openness and transparency;
·
lay people were more concerned about the cumulative effect of
incremental changes in GM rather than individual cases of change; and
·
the most effective way of engaging urban areas in the forthcoming
public debate would be to focus the debate on GM foods rather than crops.
32.
Commission members discussed with observers how to engage people
who were not immediately affected by GM.
Observers were invited to feed their thoughts in to the Commission
which was aiming for a creative exercise.
33.
Chairman thanked observers for attending the meeting and for their
helpful contributions. An
informal reception for people attending the meeting was held after the
meeting.
THURSDAY
12 SEPTEMBER 2002
34.
The Chair welcomed members and observers to the resumed Commission
meeting.
Consumer
choice. Evidence taking from
Professor Joe Perry, Institute of Arable Crop Research and Dr Mike
Wilkinson, Reading University.
35.
The Chair welcomed Professor Perry and Dr Wilkinson to the meeting,
to give evidence about issues being considered by the AEBC consumer choice
group. There is a full record
of their presentations and of the discussion which followed on the AEBC
website.
36.
Professor Perry said that if separation distances were increased
then there may be limited space to grow both organic and GM herbicide
tolerant crops simultaneously and that this might conflict with the
Government’s stated policy of co-existence.
He also said that a decline in cross-pollination at relatively
short range may not
apply at greater distances
and a small amount of long-distance pollination mediated by unusual
weather events or insects. In
these circumstances, separation distances of the order of kilometres might
be required to force thresholds to very low levels.
He pointed out that an increase in purity by whatever factor
increased the costs of testing by about the same factor.
37.
Dr Wilkinson explained the purpose and context of his work.
He was involved in looking at how geneflows could be studied for
unwanted ecological change in the natural environment.
He did not consider contamination from one field to the next to be
a big environmental issue but he did see it as an agricultural and
political one. He believed it would be important to obtain an estimate of
long range geneflow in order to enable a more accurate overall estimate of
the number of hybrids. He saw
farm practice and seed contamination as far more important issues than
field to field contamination.
38.
The Chair thanked Professor Perry and Dr Wilkinson for the clarity
of their presentations and for assisting the Commission with its
understanding of the issues and their complexity.
Any
Other Business
39.
The Royal Society had invited the AEBC to participate in a
programme of events in 2003 to mark double helix 50th
anniversary celebrations. The
Chair had replied provisionally on behalf of the Commission, expressing
interest, and would confirm that with the Royal Society.
40.
The AEBC’s Communications Strategy would be discussed at the next
main meeting of the Commission.
Close
of meeting
41.
The Chair thanked Members for their contributions and observers for
attending.
42.
The next AEBC meeting would be on 11-12 December at the Eden
Project, Cornwall. Dates of
2003 meetings were: 26-27 February in London, 7-8 May, 9-10 July, 24-25
September and 10-11 December.
AEBC
Secretariat
September 2002