• the sub-group should develop its thinking on the issues and possible recommendations by sharing its emerging conclusions with key stakeholders. The sub-group would invite a small number of key stakeholders to a meeting on 9 November and hold bilaterals with others.

• the AEBC reference group being run by MORI would consider the sub-group's options for recommendations in parallel.

• the sub-group would ensure that its draft report included well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence to underpin its provisional recommendations. The draft report would present a number of options for recommendations which the Commission could consider. 

• the discussion by the Commission of the report at its next meeting in London would be open to the public. 

Action: Sub-group and Secretariat

Discussion of Horizon Scanning Report

18. The Commission then discussed the nature of the document that should be published as a result of the work of the horizon scanning sub-group (AEBC/01/18). Commission members were grateful to the Deputy Chair and members of the sub-group for their work on the report. It was agreed that the horizon scanning report should be published as a descriptive snapshot of present developments in biotechnology and an indication of the issues raised by the technology. It would not be an exhaustive account. Its purpose would be to help inform the Commission in deciding its work programme and to stimulate public debate on the issues raised by biotechnology for agriculture and the environment. Once published on the internet, the Commission would invite comments and contributions from the public and outside bodies which could be used to update the document in the future. It might also be possible to seek informed comment on the issues raised by the report from key stakeholders at the Commission's next meeting in London.

19. Robin Grove White agreed to provide some academic literature on social attitudes to biotechnology so that more could be made of this area in the document. Sue Mayer pointed out that the implications for the developing world also needed to be brought out in the report more than at present. She also asked the Secretariat to circulate the Pew report, which was a survey of developments in biotechnology. Jeff Maxwell supported the point about the developing world and also said that care should be taken to make clear in the report what was meant by the use of the terms 'sustainability' and 'efficiency'. 

Action: Secretariat

20. It was agreed that the next steps would be as follows:

• the horizon scanning draft report would be developed by the Secretariat in the light of the discussion. The Secretariat would liaise with Robin Grove White on his suggestion; 

• source material would be properly referenced before publication of the report.

• the Secretariat would circulate a revised draft in the light of the discussion and circulate it to Commission members for approval, subject to which the aim would be to publish the draft in mid-November. 

Action: Secretariat


Future Work Programme and Meetings

21. The Chair invited the Secretary to introduce his paper (AEBC/19/01). The Secretary said that the working assumption for the Commission might usefully be that there should be two major strands of work i.e. work leading to substantive reports with recommendations for Government, underway at any one time. The work on animals and biotechnology constituted one of these at present. Now that the report on the FSEs had been published, it would be possible to move from the developmental phase to a major strand of work in another area. The Commission confirmed that liability, which would encompass some aspects of the work on harm which had been undertaken to date, should become the second major workstream. 

22. Rosie Hails said that an examination of the interaction of present farming practices with the environment could be a useful area to investigate. Linda Smith noted that while ACRE assessed the impact of GM crops on human health and the environment, the Government would welcome advice on the impact of biotechnology on present farming practices and those practices' impact on the environment. Commission members noted that the Commission itself did not have the resources to undertake a large long-term research project nor was it the kind of activity which the Commission had been set up to undertake itself. But it could certainly be involved in commissioning and supervising such research. The proposal and DEFRA's interest in this area were subsequently discussed again on the afternoon of 14 September, and the result of that discussion is recorded in paragraphs 44 and 45 below.

23. It was agreed that the work on public attitudes and consumer choice, hitherto considered in the same developmental group, should be considered separately for now. Robin Grove White agreed to consider further how to take forward work on public consultation in the AEBC sub-group. He was also continuing to develop a network of social researchers (separate from the AEBC developmental group). Robin Grove White said that commissioning an overarching desk study on the present state of social research on public attitudes in this sphere would be a useful next step. The Commission's decisions on the way ahead would need to take account of any request from Government arising out of the 'Crops on Trial' report for the Commission to undertake further work on public attitudes to biotechnology. The Chair invited Robin Grove White to report again to the Commission at its next meeting on the developmental group's thinking on how the Commission might build up a variety of tools which it could use in public consultation.

Action: Robin Grove White

24. Consumer choice would remain the subject of further developmental work. Helen Browning agreed to revisit and have the Secretariat circulate a short paper she had prepared on this topic to stimulate thinking among Commission members. This area would not be a focus of major effort for now, however, given the heavy workload for Commission members in other areas. The Commission would consider further at its meeting in December how best to take matters forward. This area of work could develop in due course to undertake further work on geneflow and co-existence. The Government's response to the 'Crops on Trial' report would have a bearing on this. So would the advice on the techniques which it would be best to employ in determining public attitudes which would emerge from the developmental group on public attitudes.

Action: Helen Browning

25. The Chair asked the Secretary to revise his paper in the light of the discussion for further consideration at the next meeting of the Commission. 

Action: Secretariat

26. The Chair asked Commission members to register their interest with the Secretary in serving on the reconfigured groups, which now stood as follows:

Main Sub-Groups

Animals and biotechnology (major workstream)
Liability (major workstream)
Horizon-Scanning (to be deactivated after publication of report, but to be invited to undertake periodic updating) 

Developmental Groups

Consumer Choice (and geneflow/co-existence) 
Public Attitudes

Ad hoc groups

Baseline research exercise (subject to confirmation from DEFRA)
AEBC contribution to the Policy Commission (short term exercise)

Action: Commission members


OPEN MEETING ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2001 FROM 7.00PM TO 9.00PM

The Future of Biotechnology in Northern Ireland

27. The Chair opened the meeting by outlining the background to the formation of the Commission, its recently published first report, and its present areas of work. He introduced the four speakers to the audience. They were:

• John Gilliland, a Commission member but speaking in his capacity that evening as Deputy President of the Ulster Farmer's Union and as an arable farmer.

• Brian Black, who was well known to many in the audience as a distinguished environmental journalist and programme-maker.

• Dr Jeremy Carmichael, the Director for the Centre for Innovation in Biotechnology, a partnership of the University of Ulster, Queen's University Belfast and Bioresearch Ireland.

• Dr Jim Ryan, Director of BioResearch Ireland.

28. John Gilliland in his presentation outlined the present parlous economic state of farming in Northern Ireland. Average incomes per farm had dropped by some 92% over the last four years. There were a number of reasons for this, including adverse currency movements, BSE, and Foot and Mouth Disease. Farmers faced increased globalisation, less economic support, and a further move towards environmental sustainability. Making farming economically viable was the background against which the attitude of farmers to biotechnology had to be understood. At present no GM crops were on trial or grown commercially in Northern Ireland and there was pressure not to use GM or GM-derived products to feed livestock. Farmers were generally open-minded about biotechnology, particularly GMOs. They could see potential commercial and agricultural advantages and disadvantages. There was concern about the potential impact on the environment; but a recognition that GM crops were being grown widely in other parts of the world and a fear that Northern Ireland could be left behind and made uncompetitive if GM technology was not permitted there. On the other hand, if consumers did not want to buy GM products then there would be no market for farmers' produce based on the technology, and farmers were concerned about being held liable for damage caused by proper use of GMOs. Northern Irish farmers were also very aware that they shared a land border with a country that could take a different decision about commercialisation of GM crops from that which would apply in Northern Ireland. Mr Gilliland concluded by setting out the Ulster Farmers Union's stated position on GM technologies, which welcomed the possible advantages GM crops could bring but recognised the need to reassure consumers about the safety and environmental impact of these crops before there could be any question of commercial cultivation, and a recognition of the importance of maintaining consumer choice. 

29. Brian Black said that he was speaking as a consumer and observer with an interest in the environment. He made a case for the island of Ireland to decide to be GM-free. Mr Black said that there was no conclusion, few facts and much confusion about the use of biotechnology in agriculture. Large corporations generally acted from self-interest rather than to bring benefit to the developing world. They had invested billions in research and would need to recoup their investment. The argument that GMOs were needed to feed the developing world was flawed, as UN population estimates indicated that the rate of growth in global population had peaked. No GMO had been around long enough for us to know for sure that it was safe. The Government record on BSE did not inspire confidence in its statements about GMOs. Neither did the statements of large corporations. There were too few facts. The impact of GMOs on the environment could not be adequately tested in the real world because there were too many variables. Moreover, genetic modification was not equivalent to natural selection because it crossed the species barrier. On the precautionary principle, therefore, it would be better not to cultivate GM crops. Unfortunately, GM was here to stay and consumer choice would inevitably be affected: already some 50% of soya, a staple food, grown in the world today was genetically modified. Farmers' incomes had dropped greatly and farming would undoubtedly undergo further rationalisation. Against that background, farmers in the island of Ireland should turn the issue of consumer choice into a competitive advantage by making their farms entirely GM-free. This would be a real selling point to consumers who did not want to eat GM products. And together with environmental campaign organisations, Irish farmers should lobby for more subsidies for environmentally friendly farm management rather than simply for increased production. Farmers in the island of Ireland should choose to be different by choosing to be GM-free.

30. Dr Jeremy Carmichael outlined the background to the establishment of the Centre for Innovation in Biotechnology of which he was Director. He explained the range of activities in which the Centre was involved, catalysing the development of biotechnology infrastructure in Northern Ireland, principally by assisting academic institutions in identifying opportunities to work with industry and to commercialise research findings. Dr Carmichael outlined the wide range of biotechnology applications in many different sectors in use or being researched around the world. The amount spent on biotechnology research in Northern Ireland was relatively small, some £50m per annum, but there were particular fields of research in which Northern Ireland was strong and on which it was hoped to build. Dr Carmichael gave a range of examples of biotechnology research where applications had resulted in benefit to society, and where research was expected to yield further benefits, including disease resistance in plants, edible human and veterinary vaccines against disease, and the use of plants as bioreactors to produce pharmaceuticals. Biotechnology had already brought enormous benefits to society globally and had the potential to continue to do so. A balanced assessment of the technology and risks associated with it should continue to inform the debate. 

31. Dr Jim Ryan said that the approach to biotechnology in the Republic of Ireland was very different from that in the UK, which was not surprising given their very different economies. The Irish Government had recently set up a €711m fund for basic research and development into biotechnology and information and communication technology. The object was to build on Ireland's already strong healthcare and agricultural sectors, developing further the country's 'biological economy'. Dr Ryan noted that the agri-food industry had to address current market trends. There was a strong link in the minds of consumers between health and food and a corresponding strong demand for safe, low-additive food products. The Irish Government had formed its strategy on GMOs following a process of public consultation which had culminated in a two-day public 'debate' in 1999 with an independent chairing panel which had afterwards produced a report for the Minister for Environment and Local Government. The panel had concluded that GM technologies would be unlikely to conflict with the ethics of the vast majority of the population. National policy on the deliberate release of GMOs should be positive but should also reflect a fundamental commitment to safety and environmental sustainability based on scientific risk assessment and management. The panel had further concluded that far greater efforts should be made to inform the public about developments in biotechnology and the rights of consumers must be respected by, for example, adequate labelling of GM products and the adequate provision of information to the public. An inter-departmental official group had subsequently produced a report setting out a strategy for biotechnology. The report could be read at www.entemp.ie/biotec.pdf. Among the group's recommendations was the establishment of an ethics committee to monitor developments. Dr Ryan said that the fact that very large corporations controlled much GM technology was a function of the huge costs involved in commercialising GM products. The size of the companies was not a sufficient reason for rejecting the technology. Pharmaceutical companies were also mostly large, but that was not a reason to reject the medicines they produced. Dr Ryan concluded by saying that the present investment in biotechnology research was a major part of the Irish Government's industrial development policy but the Government was strongly committed to biosafety, providing information to the public and to ethical debate about the issues the technology raised. 

Copies of the powerpoint presentations of those speakers who gave one are attached to these minutes.

32. The Chair then opened the session to questions and comment from the audience. The following points were made:

• The objective of agriculture should be to provide healthy food and for that reason the island of Ireland should become GM-free and produce organic foods only, said one audience member.

• Another member of the audience raised the issue of the safety of GMOs and in particular the case of a particular soil bacterium which he said had been genetically engineered in Germany to produce ethanol from waste products, approved by the regulatory authorities and introduced for use but which had in subsequent studies by a US university been shown to be unsafe to plant life. Panel members were not in a position to comment on the particular case in detail, but Dr Carmichael emphasised the importance of safety to scientists working in the field and the rigorous nature of the regulatory process. 

• A member of the audience said that once GM crops were introduced into the environment the effects would be irreversible: they would be stronger than similar plants and so on evolutionary principles, non-GM crops would be pushed out. Moreover, plant diseases which GM crops were intended to resist would evolve to become stronger, causing even greater damage to non-GM plant life.

• One audience member expressed doubt that experiments involving cultivation of GM crops in the environment could be properly controlled. These were not the same as experiments conducted in laboratories.

• There were clear indications in Scotland that the Farm-Scale Evaluations were flawed and that the protocols for their operation were being breached, said an audience member. GM technology only benefited large corporations and detracted from biodiversity. Northern Ireland would do well to reject GM technology.

•  A member of the audience expressed disappointment that there had been no representative of consumers on the panel and that there was only limited time for the audience to participate in the debate. 

• Another audience member said that a large proportion of the money spent on research was for commercial purposes but not much money was spent on research into product safety and organic production. The audience member said that his own market research indicated that 80% of the population in England would not eat GM foods, so Northern Ireland farmers would be well-advised not to cultivate GM crops. In response to the point about research, Dr Carmichael said that the research budget on biotechnology in Northern Ireland was carefully targeted. Unlike some audience members he was not convinced that GM was qualitatively different from other manipulations of organisms such as conventional breeding and marker-assisted breeding. There were certainly important issues of public acceptability to be addressed but if Northern Ireland rejected the technology it could miss out on an important opportunity. Brian Black, on the other hand, said that given our ignorance about the potential long-term effects of the technology, a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis suggested that commercial development of GM products should not proceed.

• A member of the audience said that Northern Ireland must remain GM-free, and agriculture should be about culture, not exploitation but had been about the latter, which was the principal reason why farmers' incomes had diminished. John Gilliland said that the farming industry would respond quickly to consumer demand. There was, however, no evidence that sufficient consumers wished to purchase organic food to make it economically viable for every farmer to move to organic production.

• A member of the audience asked the following two questions. Did any GM crops produced lower yields than their conventional equivalents? And how much money was spent on research into conventional farming compared with research into GM agricultural technology? On the latter point, Dr Ryan said that a great deal of money had been and continued to be spent on research into conventional farming. Indeed virtually all agricultural research prior to the Irish Government's recent initiative had been related to conventional cultivation.

• There were prior questions which should be addressed, said a member of the audience. What do people want from agriculture? Should we seek local or global production? Is GM technology really an economic opportunity? Dr Carmichael said that in thinking about these questions and others raised earlier we should bear in mind that the use of pesticides and herbicides in conventional agriculture had an environmental impact which potentially could be lessened by the cultivation of GM crops. Also, GM technology could have real benefits for the developing world, for example the ability to grow crops in saline soils.
  

33. The Chair closed the meeting by warmly thanking the panel members and the audience for their contributions to the debate.


OPEN MEETING ON 14 SEPTEMBER 2001 FROM 9.30AM TO 12.30PM

34. The Commission held an open meeting during this period with local school students, which is recorded separately.

DELIBERATIVE (CLOSED) MEETING ON 14 SEPTEMBER 2001 FROM 1.15PM TO 4.15PM

Animals and biotechnology: workshop with researchers on results from focus groups on public attitudes and sensibilities towards animals 

35. Matthew Freeman introduced Dr Phil Macnaghten from the Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy at Lancaster University who had been contracted to undertake a research study for the AEBC on 'Contemporary UK public attitudes and sensibilities towards animals'. The study was commissioned after the sub-group had established through a literature review that existing research could not provide sufficient data about attitudes in UK society to inform the AEBC report. The study was to be qualitative, capturing the range of public attitudes and teasing out their subtleties. It involved six discussion groups (animals as 'intensive' farm animals, animals as 'non-intensive' farm animals, animals as pets, animals as game and sporting partners, animals as wild creatures and a group composed of people who did not have pets or any special affinity with animals). 

36. Dr Macnaghten and Dr Majid Yar reported back on the initial findings from the discussion groups. A full interpretation of the results would be undertaken later. They explained their underlying assumptions and methodology to the Commission and sought guidance on which areas could most valuably be covered in their final report.

37. The key research questions were: 

• How are the public in the UK likely to respond to increased use of animals in biotechnological experimentation?

• How do people relate to animals encountered in different aspects of their lives e.g. as pets, as meat, as working animals?

• How do groups differ in their relationships to animals e.g. pet owners, farmers, etc.?
  

38. Initial findings appeared to show that the likelihood of increased animal testing as a result of developments in biotechnology was intensifying existing concerns about such testing; that GM animals were perceived as 'unnatural'; and the process to produce them was seen as tampering with nature with potentially unforeseen consequences. The researchers' preliminary view was that the following were emerging as key themes:

• people were caught between instrumental and moral viewpoints (i.e. using animals as means to satisfy human ends, and treating animals as ends in themselves) and people acknowledged that their attitudes to animals were often inconsistent.

• a general, although often reluctant, acceptance of animal research for human betterment.

• low trust in the motives and self-regulation of scientists and companies. There was a strong perceived role for Government to regulate on behalf of the public.
  

39. Commission members asked about the methodology used for the study and, in particular, the composition of the discussion groups. The extent to which variations of age, gender, region, etc influenced the variability of the responses received was discussed. The sub-group's proposal to extend the study to undertake two further discussion groups (of pet owners and non-pet owners) in a different region from the North West, was agreed by the Commission. This would provide additional material to draw on and could indicate whether there was significant regional bias in the responses received hitherto. 

40. Members also made the point that the interpretation of the study findings should be as objective as possible. There was some discussion around the use of graphs which showed the groups' attitudes on conceptual axes. While not ruling out the use of illustrative devices of this sort, on the whole Members thought that it would be more important to ensure that the subtle variations in opinion were captured in the body of the researchers' report.

41. Drs Macnaghten and Yar were asked to explore and highlight the following areas which Commission members felt would be particularly useful in informing further work on the Commission report:

• the point beyond which the public felt biotechnological manipulation of animals should not go.

• any sense of where people made trade-offs in assessing the risks and benefits of the technology.

• the concept of the intrinsic nature of animals and the extent to which this led people to conclude that special arrangements should apply to GM technology.

• whether it was the techniques of genetic modification or the outcomes to which people react negatively, and whether people perceived GM as different from other biotechnologies in relation to animals. Was the issue about animal welfare rather than the technology?

• reflections on the consequences of not employing genetic modification.

• different attitudes to the instrumental use of animals. 

42. The Secretariat would pass any further suggestions from Commission members to the researchers.

Action: Secretariat 

43. Dr Macnaghten and Dr Yar would delay finalising the interpretation of their study until completion of the two further discussion groups, and would now report to the sub-group by 31 October. The Secretariat would arrange for the contract to be extended to cover this work. 

Action: Secretariat 

Review of Public Meetings and Further Discussion of Plans for Future Work and Meetings

44. Rosie Hails said that she had discussed further her proposal the previous day for a baseline research study with officials, and in particular how it might be linked to research which DEFRA were considering commissioning to gather baseline data on biodiversity to examine the impact of present farming methods on the environment, and possibly also their socio-economic impact. DEFRA's aim would be to complete the research by September 2002. It would feed into the debate around commercialisation at the end of the Farm Scale Evaluations. DEFRA would be interested in involving the AEBC in overseeing this work and being involved in the tendering process which DEFRA would run.

45. It was agreed that this was an interesting proposal. The next step would be for the Secretariat to clarify with Linda Smith the work which DEFRA was willing to fund. An ad hoc group of Commission Members could then be formed to work with DEFRA on this project. Rosie Hails, Derek Langslow, John Gilliland and Dave Carmichael all expressed interest in being on such a group. 

Action: Secretariat

46. Members commented that they had been greatly impressed with the mature thinking and quality of the presentations of the school students who had spent the morning with the Commission exploring biotechnology issues. The students had been drawn from a number of local schools and had commented that they themselves had found it valuable to be obliged to listen to the views of students from other schools and backgrounds. The Commission had found the session refreshing and valuable. Members had noted the realistic analysis students had given about the use of the internet in public consultation. The students' presentations had provided a considerable amount of material which would inform the Commission's future deliberations. 

47. The Commission thought that it could be useful to have targeted public meetings in future with particular groups and to add this instrument to the Commission's toolbox of methods of consulting the public. It would be worth meeting other school students, perhaps a slightly younger group than sixth formers, at a future meeting. It might also be possible to facilitate the engagement of school students with scientists and other key players in the biotechnology field. The Commission might well find valuable similar meetings with scientists, or schoolteachers, or another group in society. The Commission would give further thought to this.

48. The Commission was pleased that so many people had made the effort to attend the public meeting the evening before. This had been the latest in a series of public evening meetings which had largely followed the same format. It was agreed that it was time to change the way in which public engagement of this sort was organised and to explore other options for gathering public views and fostering debate. Citigate would explore options for the London meeting. There was no requirement as such to follow the same format. The requirement on the Commission was to seek to involve and consult stakeholders and the wider public. There were a variety of potential ways to do this. Holding the discussion of the draft report on animals and biotechnology in public would be an innovative step in this regard, and there could be other options. 

49. It was agreed that the Commission, whether or not there was an evening public meeting on 5 December, would discuss priorities for future work and the Commission's working practices in private over dinner. 


Any Other Business

50. The Secretary updated members on the draft annual report. A final draft, revised in the light of publication of the 'Crops on Trial' report, would be circulated shortly for comment by members. Once cleared in correspondence, the report would be sent to the Ministers to whom the AEBC reported and published on the internet.

51. The Chairman closed the meeting thanking the members for their attendance and for their contributions.