FIFTEENTH MEETING

WEDNESDAY 11 AND THURSDAY 12 DECEMBER 2002

EDEN PROJECT, ST AUSTELL, CORNWALL

MINUTES OF MEETING

You can view a selection of photos taken at this meeting by clicking here

Papers

AEBC 02/14 Annual report - link to final version(152Kb)
AEBC 02/15 Evidence taking session on consumer choice
AEBC 02/16 Consumer Choice and co-existence
AEBC 02/17 Liability for GMOs: Papers for discussion
AEBC 02/17 annex A: Summary of responses to the liability group's scenarios consultation
AEBC 02/17 annex B: Note of 15th Liability meeting
AEBC 02/17 annex C: Extract from note of AEBC Liability group meeting on 15 November 2002
AEBC 02/17 annex D: Genetic Modification - is it different?
AEBC 02/17 annex E: A comparison of GM and non-GM plant breeding methods

Present

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chair)
Ms Julie Hill (Deputy Chair)
Ms Helen Browning
Dr Dave Carmichael
Professor Phil Dale
Dr Ed Dart
Dr Matthew Freeman
Mr John Gilliland
Professor Robin Grove-White
Ms Judith Hann
Ms ChiChi Iweajunwa
Dr Derek Langslow
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

None

WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER


1. A schools’ workshop on the GM public debate was held from 12.30 to 3.00pm, in advance of Commission discussions. Notes of the plenary sessions and the teachers’ and AEBC members’ group are at Annexes A & B respectively.
   
   COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS FROM 3.30-5.30PM: THE MEETING WAS CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC SESSION
   
   Apologies for Absence
   
   
2. Apologies had been received from Revd Professor Michael Banner, Ms Anna Bradley, Dr Rosie Hails and Professor Ben Mepham for both days.
   
   
3. ChiChi Iweajunwa who had been unable to attend several meetings was welcomed.
   
   Introductory matters
   
   
4. The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming members of the public to observe the Commission’s proceedings. He expressed thanks to the Eden Project for their assistance in welcoming the AEBC to Cornwall and to Julie Hill, AEBC Deputy Chair, whose idea it had been to approach the Eden Project. The students’ workshop on the GM Public Debate had been both stimulating and informative. A range of points made in the plenary session would be passed on to the GM Public Debate Steering Board.
   
   Minutes of the Previous Meeting
   
   
5. The Chair said that the minutes of the September meeting, incorporating Members’ comments had been circulated with the meeting papers. The Commission confirmed the minutes as a correct record and agreed to their being posted on the AEBC website as such.
   
   Matters of Report
   
   
6. The AEBC was awaiting a response from Government to its advice on animals and biotechnology.
   
   GM Public Debate
   
   
7. Since the Commission’s last meeting, the GM Public Debate Steering Board had been formed, comprising six AEBC members and four others, with Malcolm Grant in the Chair. The Board had already met on 5 occasions, all in public.
   
   Letters to Margaret Beckett
   
   
8. Malcolm Grant had sent two letters to Margaret Beckett on 5 December. The first recommended some ways Government might commit itself to engaging with the outputs from the debate, such as publishing a written response to the report, using the outputs to inform policy, and in announcing future policy developments or decisions in relation to GM issues. He had also asked for Ministers to clarify the Government’s current policy position on GM issues, as an important context for the debate. The Steering Board had received representations from all constituencies with an interest in the debate expressing the importance of Government committing itself intellectually as well as in a listening capacity.
   
   
9. In his second letter, he had reported on progress to date and plans for the debate, and had requested that Ministers consider increasing the £250,000 budget for the debate, in the light of professional advice from COI communications. The Steering Board had worked with COI to clarify thinking around the objectives of the debate and map this against the budget. Although the managed part of the debate, including workshops to frame the issues, was in train, a second aspect, a broad provoked debate using stimulus material was necessary and this could not be achieved without an increase in the budget. It was noted that the estimated cost in AEBC’s original proposal had taken into account the essential elements of a broad public debate. The figure had been reduced using initial advice from COI to Government.
   
   Economics strand
   
   
10. The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit was taking forward work on the economics strand of the GM public dialogue. The Steering Board had commented extensively on a draft scoping paper presented to them in October. Their views had been taken into account in a significantly developed and revised methodology for this complex project. The Steering Board felt that the study was now properly scoped and the limitations were clear. The Steering Board was impressed with the way in which the Strategy Unit had consulted on and developed its methodology. The AEBC was represented by Roger Turner on one of the expert groups that were informing the study.
    
    ACTION: Secretariat to circulate latest version of methodology
    
    Science strand
    
    
11. The Science Review had been launched by the Chief Scientific Adviser ten days ago. This strand faced the difficult issue that the review was due to end before the results of the FSEs were known.
    
    
12. Phil Dale and Julie Hill were members of the Science Review Panel which had met for the first time the day before. They reported that the work to be done was substantial, and that questions about how the general public would input to the debate had been noted by the Panel.
    
    
13. Julie Hill reported on what ‘public shaping’ of the review might mean in practice. Was it primarily to answer the scientific concerns of the public or an exercise by scientists for scientists, with public acceptability? AEBC believed that the existing openness policy based primarily on a website was insufficient and would appear superficial to members of the public.
    
    
14. The AEBC had concerns about the capacity of the Science Review secretariat to support what looked like a resource-intensive programme of work. In addition, the Panel would not meet again until February. The secretariat was asked to raise these concerns with the appropriate officials.
    
    ACTION: secretariat
    
    
15. A number of members felt there was a case for extending the timescale for the science review so that the findings from the Farm Scale Evaluations were included. A possible way forward might be to extend the review but produce an interim report in June.
    
    
16. Phil Dale and Julie Hill would take Members’ comments to the Science Panel.
    
    GM Public Debate Foundation Discussion Workshops
    
    
17. AEBC had always been clear that issues for the GM public debate would be framed by the public. To this end, Corr Willbourn Research & Development had been contracted to run nine Foundation Discussion Workshops. They had been arranged as facilitated but not steered discussions of views, questions and issues in relation to the potential commercialisation of crops and more widely. Steering Board members had attended workshops as observers. All workshops had now taken place. The first report back would take place on 17 December. The results of the work would be used to help the other two strands frame their questions.
    
    
18. Steering Board members reported that Corr Willbourn’s methodology was skilful and imaginative, using inventive ways of harnessing non-verbal and latent feelings. A lot would depend on how significance was interpreted for the steering board’s explicit purpose.
    
    Evaluation by Leverhulme team
    
    
19. A parallel and separate process of evaluation led by Tom Horlick-Jones was also underway. He had approached the Steering Board with a proposal to evaluate the debate process as part of the wider Leverhulme Understanding Risk Study and a statement of operation had been agreed. Whilst content with the work that the evaluators were doing, some AEBC members remained concerned this is not the process originally envisaged in AEBC’s advice to Government.
    
    Relationship between strands
    
    
20. Following a joint away-day session, a statement of the relationship between the three strands and their objectives had been developed. This was an iterative process and the statement would continue to evolve. The need for co-ordination between the three strands on a number of matters had been recognised. Representatives of the three strands would meet on 17 December for further discussions, including questions of and mechanisms for co-ordination.
    
    Possible film
    
    
21. Roger Graef, an independent film maker, had offered to produce a video to be used as stimulus material for the debate and a documentary on the process of the debate. Mr Graef had made the ‘Fly on the Wall’ documentaries on Thames Valley Police’s handling of rape cases which eventually influenced police practice. He had a robust reputation for independence and the steering board was pleased to have the opportunity to work with him.
    
    FSA
    
    
22. Questions were raised about links with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on the debate and what plans they had in train. The Chair had raised this with Sir John Krebs, Chair of the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The FSA did not want a central part in the GM public debate because it was independent of Government. The Steering Board felt some unease about possible public confusion arising from this.
    
    ACTION: secretariat to circulate FSA’s plan of work to members
    
    
23. The AEBC remained concerned about the resources for the debate and awaited news of responses to the Chair’s letters to Margaret Beckett. Malcolm Grant would keep Members informed of developments on the public debate.
    
    ACTION: Chair
    
    Follow up to the afternoon’s student workshop
    
    
24. Members agreed that the student workshop had been an insightful process, producing a range of learning points for the GM Public Debate Steering Board (see Annexes A & B). It had highlighted the importance of TV documentaries, rather than newspapers, being perceived as a source of balanced information. A surprising amount of the discussion had been about polls and voting, unlike the focus of the GM public debate. Debates leading to polls such as in the recent TV series ‘Great Britons’ were seen as an interesting vehicle for providing information to people who would use it to make up their own minds. Teachers thought that students should have more scientific information, to bring them up to speed, but wanted this to be unbiased. There was a disjunction between unbiased information and the comments in plenary discussion that interesting and contrasting views caught peoples’ attention best. Students saw a need for access to more unbiased information e.g. through a well designed website. They were keen to see GM issues incorporated in some way into the schools curriculum. Possibilities might be through science studies or citizenship lessons. The Commission would note this as an issue and possibly consider it with the Royal Society in relation to their programmes for promoting science education. AEBC noted that students’ understanding of conventional agriculture was also sketchy. Members agreed that there was a need to carry forward the ideas from the afternoon discussions, and to engage young people in the GM public debate.
    
    ACTION: Secretariat
    
    ACRE work
    
    
25. The Chair reported that following the incident in the summer when Aventis - now Bayer - had released additional GM material at FSE sites, ACRE was setting up a working group to review the GM inspection and enforcement regime. Professor Alan Gray, Chair of ACRE, had written to invite an AEBC member to join the group. He had nominated Rosie Hails, with her expertise in ecology, and membership of the AEBC consumer choice sub-group. Members endorsed this.
    
    Secretariat
    
    
26. The Chair reported that the secretariat was acquiring an additional team member. Matthew Hughes, currently working at DEFRA in Lord Whitty’s office, would join in January 2002. Members were pleased to learn of this bolstering of resource.
    
    COMMISSION DISCUSSIONS ON THURSDAY 12 DECEMBER 2002 10.00am-12.30pm. THE MEETING WAS CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC SESSION
    
    
27. The Chair welcomed members of the public to the morning’s AEBC meeting, and presented further apologies for absence from John Gilliland.
    
    Discussion of liability issues: Paper AEBC/02/17
    
    
28. Introducing paper AEBC/02/17 on liability issues, Justine Thornton described the progress on a range of aspects since the previous Commission meeting.
    
    
29. As a result of discussions in Edinburgh, the group had reviewed its remit, and Commission Members agreed that the new remit should be: “To explore issues of liability relating to agriculture and the environment. To consider whether it needs revision, and to consider whether there are other better ways of addressing potential issues raised.”
    
    Consultation paper
    
    
30. The group had issued its consultation paper, using hypothetical scenarios to test the robustness of the current laws if GM crops were grown commercially. The consultation period had now closed and there had been a substantial response. The secretariat note summarising responses was with the meeting papers (Annex A), and liability group members had copies of all responses. The most consistent theme was that the scenarios described were not unique to GM crops – they could equally apply to conventional breeding and other non-GM biotechnologies. Responses had differed substantially, however, in assessment of what this would mean for liability and other provisions, and for possible commercialisation of GM crops.
    
    Evidence taking
    
    
31. The group had taken evidence in public from lawyers, on public participation and from farming perspectives. The secretariat note of that meeting forms part of the meeting papers (Annex B); the transcript is on the AEBC website.
    
    Brainstorming discussion
    
    
32. Matthew Freeman gave feedback from the group’s brainstorming discussion on 15 November. (The output is at Annex C of AEBC/02/17.) It was clear that a liability regime would have fairly limited impact, and that an EU liability regime would only give limited coverage. There was a general feeling that the regulatory system had an important function in reducing the need to invoke liability provisions. The main discussion headlines included the need to treat environmental liability and economic loss separately. For economic liability, it was essential to have co-existence, to negotiate thresholds and to use them to define damage, and to allow discussions at local farm level about field use. There was a clear message that co-existence was imperative, thresholds had to be negotiated, and had to be practicable, recognising that the level set would affect implementation costs. There had been a constructive view that there might be realistic scope for co-existence, crop by crop. For economic loss, there was a political reality that GM and non-GM crops would need separate provisions (at least for a transitional stage). The group had agreed there was little basis for treating environmental impacts of GM and non-GM crops separately, though they had not arrived at specific recommendations on environmental liability and redress. The group had concluded that agricultural zoning was impracticable and undesirable. The theme of the report would be the need to promote and not to undermine co-existence in the countryside.
    
    
33. Describing scenarios responses and the evidence-taking meeting, Justine Thornton said that many issues in the scenarios would be covered in the regulatory process, in risk assessment. The lawyers had drawn parallels with the nuclear industry, where inspection and monitoring seemed effective levers for improving standards than liability. She reported on three specific aspects. (1) The lawyers who had given evidence agreed that current liability laws would be inadequate to provide a robust regime. There would be considerable uncertainties, too much would be left to courts, and costs would tend to lie with farmers. (2) If current provisions were inadequate, there was a question of what provisions were needed. Scenario respondents did not give a clear answer to this, but rules laid down in advance might reduce need for litigation and there might be analogies with eg oil pollution compensation. (3) If a separate regime were needed, there was the issue of what form it would take, and how liability would be apportioned. Some respondents suggested liability should lie with the company, patent holder, or consent holder. In evidence, one of the lawyers said that if there were harm, it would have one of three origins: the regulator making a wrong risk assessment; conditions being breached; or something unforeseeable occurring. Claire Marris had suggested that unforeseeable outcomes were likely with a new technology. A prior question for any liability regime was what was wanted. Was it money for recompense, punishment to wrongdoers, or clean up?
    
    Members’ discussions
    
    
34. In discussion, Members considered that it was crucial to find terms for co-existence. The liability group did not plan to recommend specific threshold figures - it was outside their area of expertise, though the consumer choice study might pursue this. The liability group might describe guiding principles: factors influencing levels to be set and the consequences of setting them at different levels. There must be a structure to set appropriate thresholds. Some members felt the introduction of GM crops would impact severely on non-GM crops whilst other members commented that certified seed crops offered a template for co-existence. Commission recommendations on co-existence would need to take into account a wide range of different issues. .
    
    
35. Liability needed to be seen as part of a wider package of provisions. There were no precedents in other industries for placing strict liability on companies, which seemed draconian. If the person liable did not have funds to pay, more than one person might have contributed to causing damage, and the chain of liability had to be looked at. In the oil industry, despite a comprehensive framework of provisions, these did not seem to work well in practice. There might be interesting analogies in the pharmaceuticals sphere. Regulation could provide an attractive route, and there were parallels with other, regulated, industries such as water and silage effluent. Regulation and liability performed different functions, with distinct roles. The recommendations should take account of the wider context than crops alone – including fish and insects. Any environmental problem that had cumulative, long term and diffuse effects was difficult to deal with adequately. The UK treated the state as the custodian of the un-owned environment.
    
    
36. Members noted that a capped liability regime had been described as a positive benefit to the nuclear industry, so that industry knew where it stood and insurance could develop. For this, however, the state would have to underwrite the remaining liability explicitly.
    
    
37. There was discussion as to the starkness or otherwise of the choice for GMO liability. The lawyers had said the regime was inadequate, though this was for agriculture widely, and not just for GMOs.
    
    
38. Narrow risk assessments did not cover longer-term broad outcomes. Labelling could be part of a safety driver - and provided an option not to participate. Liability and responsibility had to be laid out clearly, particularly because society didn’t see advantages except to companies and farmers, and was not keen on taking on the risks in the way they might otherwise do. The possibility of a fourth, ‘social need’, hurdle was discussed, including the level at which it would have to be set to be neither a rubber stamp nor unscalable. Debates on benefits tended to founder in discussion of benefit - to whom and for what - and technology assessment seemed to have foundered eg in the USA and Germany. Debates on benefits were as difficult to agree as those on risks, but this did not mean that they should not be addressed. Demand for products through market forces was sometimes taken as a proxy for need, but the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit work might be useful in this area.
    
    Is genetic modification different?
    
    
39. Sue Mayer introduced her paper (AEBC/02/17 Annex D) on whether genetic modification is different. The extent to which GM technology has been encouraged set the broader context – the institutions involved, and how the technology was seen in society more broadly. The paper outlined some intrinsic differences she saw between GM and other technology, such as being irreversible, with a fundamental change to biological systems. She also emphasised how GM was treated differently in intellectual property law and the consequences of this together with the role of GM in driving the consolidation of the seed industry. She said that the scientific and industrial communities also emphasised the transformative nature of the technology. She recognised that there were other perspectives.
    
    
40. In discussion, aspects such as irreversibility, pervasiveness, self-replication, and potential scale were described as making GM different from other technologies, and raising sharply novel questions for society.
    
    
41. Phil Dale introduced his note, prepared from a science perspective (AEBC/02/17 Annex E). He said techniques in agriculture came and went over time, and GM looked likely to settle into being one ‘tool’ among a range in the toolbox. He said breeding methods all produced unique products and all methods had distinctive differences. He said it was possible to do many risky things through conventional breeding, and there was not a reason to describe GM as innately more unpredictable or undesirable. He said the merit of inserting a transgene was that it was greatly analysed, in a way that was not possible with conventional breeding.
    
    
42. Members agreed that the issue of difference was a central one, which had been relevant both to Crops on Trial and to Animals and Biotechnology. It might not be feasible or necessary for the liability group to resolve issues or difference, but it would be useful to have a further debate and to see if the Commission could reach a shared understanding at a future meeting. Jeff Maxwell suggested approaching the subject from an alternative perspective: how people approach a transforming technology. He would develop this and circulate a note to Commission Members via the secretariat. The subject would be put on the AEBC February or May agenda.
    
    
43. The Commission endorsed the ongoing work of the liability sub-group, and would consider a draft report at the February meeting.
    
    ACTION: Jeff Maxwell and secretariat
    
    Report on emerging issues from the consumer choice group: Paper AEBC/02/16
    
    
44. Roger Turner reported that the consumer choice group was focussing on three particular areas:
    • thresholds – predicated on allowing consumers to choose between GM and non-GM produce;
    • crop life cycles – to show where pressure points would be – itself centring around three main issues: geneflow, volunteers and seed spillage;
    • potential for co-existence in UK farming, and how this would occur.
    
    
45. The group has focussed on crops rather than food, to avoid overlap with responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency.
    
    
46. Subjects discussed by Members included the de facto zero threshold for GMOs with Part B consent for field trials and not Part C consent. Similarly, there would be no tolerance of anything coming into Europe and not approved for growing in Europe. Part of a risk assessment process for therapeutic products would be to consider concerns over release of trace amounts, and in certain cases the plants might need to be grown only in enclosed conditions. Members agreed there could usefully be a national/international database for plants grown, particularly on a substantial scale.
    
    
47. There was discussion of sampling methods and the ability of analytical procedures to replicate results consistently. Current technology was generally seen as unreliable to detect low levels of adventitious material reliably. Discussions at the Central Science Laboratory in York had pointed up the need to know first what was being looked for in any analysis, the need to have protocols and the need to apply them in a standardised way. Sampling methods were important, and limits of detectability in ideal conditions were around 0.1%.
    
    
48. The consumer choice report would probably be completed after the liability report, which the Commission would aim to sign off in May. The choice between a short, framework consumer choice report and one which aimed to resolve detailed issues had yet to be made.
    
    
49. Enforcement was very important. The group would want to debate the possibility of having confidence in having a reliable system, alongside practical aspects such as narrow time windows for planting crops. Any co-existence regime would have to capture public trust that difficulties could be overcome. What would be seen as significant was offering a way forward that engaged with long term public concerns.
    
    
50. Members agreed that the consumer choice study was moving in appropriate directions. They agreed to send the secretariat a note of any further points which they wanted taken on board at this stage.
    
    ACTION: Members
    
    Any Other Business
    
    
51. There was none.
    
    Close of meeting and thanks
    
    
52. The next AEBC meeting would be in London in February. It would start in the evening of 26 February with dinner for Commission members, at which Onora O’Neill would speak. The 27 February meeting would be at the Royal Horticultural Halls Conference Centre, for a full day (9.30am-4.30pm), and would, as usual, be open to the public to observe. The meeting on 7-8 May would be for two full days, in Northern England.
    
    
53. The Chair thanked Members for their contributions, and thanked observers for attending. He gave particular warm thanks to Dr Jo Readman and her colleagues in the Eden Project, for providing facilities, for collaboration on the local schools workshop, and for very constructive help throughout the Commission meeting planning stages as well as throughout the meeting itself.
    
    
54. Dr Readman thanked the Commission for coming to the Eden project as a meeting venue. One of the project’s themes was a positive future: our many voices and the many ways of working for a sustainable future. The Eden Project planned to start addressing some issues around genetic modification, and underlying social, ethical and environmental issues. They did not have a particular point to make but wished to reflect the various points of view on this subject. They would welcome an ongoing relationship with the AEBC. They held debates throughout the year and in future would like to hold a public debate at Eden on GM issues.
    
    AEBC secretariat
    December 2002

Annex A

Note of main points arising in the Students’ Workshop , Eden, 11 December 2002


1. Julie Hill, AEBC Deputy Chair, welcomed students, teachers and the Bishop of Truro, the Rt Revd Bill Ind, to the Students’ Workshop organised by the AEBC to help generate fresh ideas about how the planned GM public debate might best work. She said that the plenary discussions were being filmed and that participating schools and colleges would be sent a copy of the video.
   
   
2. The Bishop said that the Eden Project represented the enormous positive potential for the future, and peoples’ close links to the world of plants. There were major issues over the use and future of plants, with both potential benefits and potential problems. He had had the privilege of opening the Project two years ago, and he invited the participating students to be challenging in their discussions, and to give the AEBC some good Cornish sense.
   
   
3. A teachers’ workshop was held at the same time as the students’ group discussions, and a note of the main points arising is attached at Annex B.
   
   
4. Participating students had considered three themes in advance of the workshop, in their schools and colleges, and had visited the Eden project in the morning before the workshop. The three questions were:
   
   
   • What expectations do you have about the future of agriculture in the UK?
     
     
   • How do you believe biotechnology, including genetic modification, might impact on the future of agriculture?
     
     
   • If you were in the position of having to organise a public debate on these issues, how would you go about it? And what should come out of it?
   
   
5. Having considered these issues, the following points were made by student rapporteurs for the six groups in the plenary session.
   
   Comments on sources of information about GM
   
   
   • There was a lack of public information. What information was available was generally biased.
     
     
   • More information was needed about the potential benefits of GM and the pros and cons of developments e.g. GM vaccines. Consideration should also be given to the ‘unknown unknowns’.
     
     
   • Higher levels of awareness of the science behind GM and basic information would be desirable.
     
     
   • An important step towards public acceptability of GM would be access to substantiated advice on the issues.
   
   The main talking points about the future of agriculture and the possible role of biotechnology
   
   
   • Health and nutrition – there seemed to be potential benefits, some of which might prove to be acceptable to the public, but how would lines in the sand be drawn? There were concerns about tampering with the food chain
     
     
   • Consumer issues – local/organic/price were seen as important factors in purchasing decisions.
     
     
   • Productivity – increased crop yield, but would it be sustainable?
     
     
   • Efficiency improvements and opportunities for alternative crops (e.g. non-food crops). Non-food crops needed to address future fuel needs but would they take the focus off hydro-electricity and wind farms which were better prospects for renewable energy?
     
     
   • Long term effects on the environment, e.g. superweeds.
     
     
   • Concerns about overall control of GM. There were suspicions that it rested with companies and worries that Government was pushing it through, especially since public opinion had not been considered initially.
   
   
6. The best means of stimulating wider public debate
   
   
   • Unbiased information was needed in order for people to form their own opinions. Getting information into the right places and not relying on people to make an effort to find out was important e.g. using billboards. For those who wished to make an effort, a good website and leaflets could be effective. TV documentaries such as ‘Great Britons’ were seen as a successful vehicle for debate. It would be essential to use known personalities who attracted the viewing public in order to interest people in GM issues.
     
     
   • When involving young people, it would be helpful to ensure that their views were listened to. They should have the opportunity to continue their involvement beyond the formal programme of debate.
     
     
   • Media dominated ways of publicising GM issues e.g. tabloid press were best avoided.
     
     
   • GM issues should be incorporated in the schools curriculum to become a formal part of education.
     
     
   • The debate should take on a high political profile to ensure success.
   
   
7. Further points were raised in discussion after the group presentations and included: :
   
   
   • How much control did AEBC have over exploitation of GM?
     
     
   • Was GM necessary for Europe where there was already a glut of food?
     
     
   • GM in itself was neither good nor bad, but that the fundamental issues (trust of scientists and Government, empowerment, sanctity of life) had been lost from the existing debate.

Annex B

Note of discussion in teachers’ and AEBC members’ group, 11 December, Eden 2002


1. Some main points discussed were:
   
   
   • Time was the most important resource/skill needed for a debate.
     
     
   • A basic level of knowledge and understanding of genetic modification was important for well-informed discussions.
     
     
   • There was little awareness of GM issues, and - more surprisingly - also of wider agricultural systems, even in rural areas.
     
     
   • There were potential areas in the school curriculum where issues like biotechnology and genetic modification of crops might be discussed. These were science – where food chains and food webs formed a part of the National Curriculum and GCSE curriculum – or citizenship. Teachers said that material should be set in the wider context of agriculture, food sources, and strategies for the future of agriculture and the countryside.
     
     
   • Unbiased resources were hard to find. (Some examples that schools had found useful included a Leeds University video and Food Standards Agency material.) Resources needed to be attention-catching and to evoke reactions. Activities, games and interactive resources took material beyond being an ordinary lesson.
     
     
   • A set of high quality, focussed, resources would be useful, but would have to be easy to find and to use. (There was virtually no time for work outside the curriculum.)
     
     
   • Children influenced their parents as well as vice versa.
     
     
   • Many young people were very perceptive, quick to spot bias, capable of sophisticated discussions, and disliked any sense of feeling patronised. Some would inevitably be less interested than others, and it would be quite challenging to engage them in debate, other than on things with a direct impact on their lives.
     
     
   • One potential way of reaching a wide audience was through soap operas.