TWELFTH COMMISSION MEETING
17 - 18 JULY 2002
CONGRESS CENTRE, 28 GREAT RUSSELL STREET
LONDON WC1B 3LS

MINUTES

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

Papers

AEBC 02/09 Animals and Biotechnology Draft Report 9 July 2002
AEBC 02/10 Responses to consultation on draft revised Work Plan
AEBC 02/11 Liability for GMOs: Draft Scenarios

Present

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chair)
Ms Julie Hill (Deputy Chair)
Revd Professor Michael Banner (Wednesday only)
Ms Anna Bradley
Ms Helen Browning (Wednesday only)
Dr Dave Carmichael
Professor Phil Dale
Dr Ed Dart
Dr Matthew Freeman
Mr John Gilliland
Professor Robin Grove-White
Dr Rosie Hails
Ms Judith Hann
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Dr Sue Mayer
Professor Ben Mepham
Ms Justine Thornton

Secretariat

Mrs Anne Packer
Mr Pat Wilson
Ms Mileva Novkovic
Mr Chris Hepworth
Mr Andrea Bovolenta

Officials also present

Jo Durning, Office of Science and Technology (Wednesday only)
Judy Britton, Office of Science and Technology
Graham Davis, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Wednesday only)
Derek Bearhop, Scottish Executive
Huw Jones, Welsh Assembly Government (Wednesday only)
Liz McCullough, Department of the Environment Northern Ireland

WEDNESDAY 17 JULY

THE MEETING WAS CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC SESSION

Apologies for Absence

1. Apologies had been received from ChiChi Iweajunwa and Derek Langslow for both days. Roger Turner had sent apologies for the first day and hoped to be present for the second day.

Introductory matters

2. 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 finalise the draft report on the regulatory framework for animals and biotechnology. Afterwards Commission Members would be attending an informal drinks party at the invitation of Mrs Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They would then have an informal dinner with an after-dinner seminar led by the science author, Colin Tudge. The Chair wished to discuss a personal matter with Commission Members after the close of the observed session that day.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

3. The Chair said that the minutes had been circulated in draft, and that Members’ comments had now been incorporated. The Commission confirmed the amended minutes as a correct record and agreed to their being posted on the AEBC website as such.

Matters of Report

4. The AEBC was awaiting a response from Government to its advice on a public debate on the possible commercialisation of GM crops. It was unclear when the response would issue. The Chair expressed profound concern at reports in the Daily Telegraph and Financial Times about the Government’s alleged position, i.e. that it had already made up its mind, which, if true, would be unacceptable to the AEBC. The Chair had attended two recent meetings with officials and had represented firmly the Commission’s view that independence - the principle of being at arm’s length from Government - would be fundamental to the integrity and credibility of the public debate. In addition, it was not yet clear how the two recently announced associated activities, the science review and the economics study, would be integrated with the public debate. Given the ongoing uncertainty, the Commission would need to deliberate on any response, probably at its September meeting, but would most likely need to make a public statement before then. He asked whether Members agreed his approach and its continuation.

5. Commission Members shared the Chair’s concerns. They were satisfied with his representation of their views and wished for better on-going communication from Government. The Chair added that he had responded in similar terms to letters from NGOs expressing concerns at the press reports mentioned above. He would continue to keep the Commission informed of his interactions with Government Ministers and officials.

ACTION: Chair

6. Ross Finnie, the Scottish Minister for Environment and Rural Development, had accepted the Chair’s invitation to join Commission Members for dinner at its next meeting in September. He would give a pre-dinner address.

Discussion of final draft report on the regulatory framework for animals & biotechnology (AEBC/02/09)

7. The Commission’s objective was to agree how the draft report should be finalised. E-mailed comments had been received in advance from Derek Langslow, who was unable to attend the meeting, and Ben Mepham, who was present.

8. Introducing the draft report, Anna Bradley said that a series of incremental adjustments in thinking had been made since the last Commission meeting and that these had resulted in some major shifts:

• the first major shift was in response to concern about the extent of the sub-group’s remit and how that should be handled in relation to the report. The sub-group had made an ‘in principle’ decision to focus the report’s recommendations on agriculture and the environment and to cover in the body of the report the issues that went beyond agriculture and the environment. This new primary focus was consistent with the attention currently being given to policy on farming in the wake of the Foot and Mouth outbreak, such as the Curry Report, the European Union proposals for Common Agricultural Policy reform and work on Farm Assurance schemes. The focus of the proposed strategic advisory body would now be on biotechnology issues in the context of agriculture (biotechnology issues arising beyond that primary focus could be considered in so far as they had a bearing on the primary focus). There was no longer a basis for having as a primary recommendation the upgrading of FAWC to become a statutory body;
  
  
• the second major shift was in response to the recognition that although the sub-group had considered whether the current regulatory and advisory structure would be adequate for the future, it had not examined how current bodies interpreted the structure and used their powers. Therefore a new recommendation that the interpretation and enforcement of farm animal regulations should be independently scrutinised had been introduced;
  
  
• Third, new recommendations had been introduced, on consumer choice and on the commercialisation of GM fish. The justification for both was drawn from existing discussion in the body of the report. A potential gap in the legislation formed the basis for a further new recommendation. This was about ability to deal with issues of the intrinsic nature of animals, where there were no animal welfare, animal health, human health or environmental concerns;
  
  
• The report now reflected the differences in society, and within the Commission itself, in fundamental attitudes to the new technology, and attempted to tease out matters of principle and the common ground.

9. The Chair expressed the Commission’s gratitude to Anna Bradley for convening the sub-group’s work. The group had consciously worked openly and transparently using innovative methods which were commended to others. It had engaged stakeholders in the development of its work, demonstrating sensitivity to their views. The Commission was encouraged that some prospective recommendations were already being actively taken forward by Government in anticipation of the final report.

10. The Commission then discussed the shifts and changes described in the bullet points above.

More clearly focussed on biotechnology and animals in agriculture and the environment

11. Members were content with the shift in focus for the recommendations and the new strategic body. They felt the remit of the proposed strategic body needed to describe more accurately why and the extent to which, in focusing on farm animals, the body would want to look at other animals. A bullet point would be added to the remit set out at paragraph 147. A Member suggested that the distinction between advisory and enforcement functions for the new body should be clarified.

ACTION: Michael Banner and secretariat

Explicit acknowledgement that interpretation and enforcement of regulations had not been assessed by the sub-group, and a recommendation that the enforcement of farm animal regulations should be independently scrutinised

12. Members were content, but felt that the some drafting changes were needed.

ACTION: secretariat

New recommendations about commercialisation and GM fish

13. Members were content.

The differences in society and on the Commission about the extent to which the use of the technology on animals raised matters of principle that are more extensively acknowledged and discussed

14. One of the AEBC’s roles was to set out for Government the wider social context into which GM animals would arrive. The draft needed to incorporate this, drawing more fully in the public attitudes research commissioned by the AEBC. A new part 1.6 would be drafted to encapsulate this. This would bring the Animals report into line with Crops on Trial which had set out for Government the special circumstances surrounding GM issues of which it needed to be aware.

15. The term ‘public attitudes’ in paragraph 37 would be elaborated. The tone of the last sentence of that paragraph would be amended. The representation in paragraph 47 of the public attitudes research findings would be amended to reflect more closely the summary of the research findings set out on page 72.

ACTION: Robin Grove-White, who would provide some text overnight for consideration, and secretariat

16. The Commission then considered the report chapter by chapter. Detailed changes would be taken into account in the next draft. The main points agreed for incorporation included the following.

17. There was a concern that the report did not set down fairly the downsides to GM and cloning, though the AEBC’s purpose was to consider whether the regulatory structure was adequate and not to discuss the rights or wrongs of GM or cloning. Members agreed to add text capturing the problems associated with GM and cloning techniques used on animals. This would be incorporated near the beginning of section 1.3.

ACTION: Sue Mayer would provide some text overnight for consideration

THURSDAY 18 JULY 2002

18. The Chair presented further apologies for absence from Michael Banner, Helen Browning and Roger Turner.

Continued discussion of final draft report on the regulatory framework for animals & biotechnology (AEBC/02/09)

19. The Commission continued its ‘chapter by chapter’ consideration of the draft report.

20. Members agreed that the section on applications of GM and cloning to animals needed to cover GM vaccines.

ACTION: Matthew Freeman and Ed Dart to provide text

21. Paragraph 72 which dealt with the speed and nature of change made possible by genetic modification was discussed again. It was agreed that text would be added to expand on the existing text.

ACTION: Matthew Freeman to provide

22. There was discussion about why a new body was being recommended and why the AEBC could not fulfil the functions of the proposed strategic body. The AEBC didn’t have the right kind of expertise to take on this new role and was not a standing body. It had been working on developing a philosophical regulatory framework over the next period in the knowledge that it would not be a standing body.

23. The additional text requested at the previous day’s meeting and provided overnight was discussed. The new text related to the additional bullet point about the proposed strategic body’s remit, the social context and definition of ‘attitudes’, and the problems associated with creating GM animals. Subject to the shortening and style changes to the third of these, the Commission agreed that they should be incorporated into the revised draft. Members were also invited to alert the secretariat to any inconsistencies in the text that were remnants from the drafting of earlier versions of the report.

Action: secretariat, Sue Mayer, Members

Next steps

24. The draft report (including glossary) would be revised in light of the discussion over the two days and of comments received from others. Judith Hann would produce an experimental short stand-alone executive summary for consideration. The revised report would be circulated again to Members within a fortnight, with a short turn round time for comments, before being finalised. It would be published early in September. Members would be given good time to consider the press release in draft.

ACTION: Judith Hann and secretariat

Discussion of liability issues arising from draft liability scenarios paper (AEBC/02/11)

25. Introducing paper AEBC/02/11, Justine Thornton said the liability sub-group had been developing scenarios to look at potential liability issues associated with the commercial growing of GM crops. The purpose of the scenarios was to explore the boundaries of legal liability and to be a basis for consultation. They would also form a chapter of the liability report. The sub-group wanted the views of the full Commission on how realistic the ten scenarios were, whether they usefully brought out the issues, whether they were comprehensive, and whether Members were content for the scenarios to go out to consultation to stakeholders and the wider public. Justine Thornton further invited views on who should be consulted. Malcolm Grant would be drafting an explanatory note on legal principles, to accompany the scenarios. This would include the limits to a legal liability regime, definition of damage, and the role of insurance. Members suggested that this could usefully be circulated round sub-group members before it was issued, in order to put the scenarios in context.

26. Justine Thornton further invited views on whether it would be useful for the Commission to take evidence on liability issues at the AEBC meeting in September in Edinburgh. If so, the group were considering inviting a lawyer, an NGO representative and an agricultural economist, to supplement evidence already taken during sub-group meetings. She invited comments on the draft contents page of the report, and said discussion of a draft outline report would be on the AEBC September meeting agenda.

27. Members made a number of comments on the scenarios, and agreed to send any further comments to the secretariat during the following few days. These would be incorporated into the consultation paper. The scenarios aimed to explore ‘worst case’ events. The group was not endorsing a view that GM crops are inherently more dangerous than other forms of agriculture; rather the aim was to test whether current regimes were generally adequate, and to highlight whether there are gaps. If there were aspects that legal liability could not cover, this would need to be flagged up. There might be a role for Government as guarantor of the last resort. Some of the considerations with GM crops would apply equally to conventional crops and it might be useful for the report to set out where there were parallels with conventional agriculture.

28. Members agreed on the importance of ensuring that the liability work should come across as more than an interesting legal discussion and should make it clear why wider groups of people were concerned about liability issues. The report would be produced in such a way that was accessible to non-legal audiences e.g. a glossary would be provided to help understand the legal foundations.

29. The New Zealand Law Commission had that week published a report on liability for loss resulting from the development, supply and use of genetically modified organisms, which made several references to the AEBC’s work. Anne Packer would e-mail the reference to Members.

30. In conclusion, the AEBC was content for consultation to proceed during the summer, and endorsed the ongoing work of the liability sub-group.

ACTION: Members and secretariat

Discussion of revision of draft Work Plan in the light of responses to consultation (AEBC/02/10)

31. The Deputy Chair introduced paper AEBC/02/10 and reported that the AEBC had received 22 detailed and helpful responses to the consultation proposals in the draft revised Work Plan. Members were grateful to respondents and to the secretariat for the summary and analysis of responses. The views of respondents emphasised the importance of a study of environmental footprints, and of trans-boundary regulation, with a study of research agendas being given on balance slightly lower priority.

32. Members considered the revised priority order for studies set out in paper AEBC/02/10 appropriate for the time-being (i.e. top priorities for future AEBC work would be an environmental footprints study, a study of trans-boundary regulation, and then a study of publicly and privately funded research). Issues raised in the public debate could influence future priorities and so a flexible approach in determining Work Plan priorities was desirable. Moreover, since the Work Plan consultation had been launched, the Government had announced a study of the economics of GMs, to be undertaken by the Strategy Unit. This would seem to cover among other things issues of competitiveness of the agricultural biotechnology industry and of farming in the UK. In light of this, it was agreed that the AEBC would not launch a separate study of competitiveness at this stage. Subject to the issues emerging in the public debate, impact of UK decisions abroad was a lower priority than other studies.

33. A question was raised about the AEBC’s capacity to undertake an environmental footprints study, given its slender resources. It was also suggested that non-food crops should be included in the environmental footprints work. A number of points were raised in discussion which would be taken into account when the Work Plan was finalised.

34. Given the extent of existing work, new studies would not start until 2003. At that stage the Commission should have completed some of its existing work and would have a clearer idea of how much input was required into public debate work. Further work on framing studies and their terms of reference would be needed, and subjects might be tackled in sequence or in parallel with one another.

35. Discussing the balance of public and privately funded research, Members noted that the AEBC was continually coming across areas where they needed further information. It would be useful for research to be an ongoing theme within the Commission’s work. Members agreed that the AEBC could make a useful contribution by suggesting possible research areas. The balance of public and privately funded research issues could be approached initially through a mapping exercise undertaken by the secretariat. This could look at how agendas were developing, problems and constraints, aims and objectives and research philosophies. Over the coming four or five months the secretariat would work on a paper describing what is in place, including funding sources. There might be a one-off workshop with Research Councils. New forms of interdisciplinary work, such as that being taken forward by Swedish Research Councils, seemed attractive as a model for collaboration between funding bodies.

36. The Deputy Chair would reflect on the discussion and on additional topics for the Work Plan suggested by respondents to the consultation. The Work Plan would be amended in the light of responses to consultation and of discussion, circulated to Members, and sent to Ministers. It would explain that the Commission’s priorities and timing for studies might need to be revised in the light of work on the public debate.

ACTION: Deputy Chair to consider; secretariat to update Work Plan for circulation

Oral report on emerging issues from consumer choice group

37. Jeff Maxwell reported that the group was approaching consumer choice work from two angles: what consumers want now and may want in the future; and how this could be delivered in practical terms by producers. As part of its deliberations, the group would need to think through the implications of various thresholds for the presence of GM in non-GM foods but there would be little point in rehearsing various threshold scenarios if Europe eventually decided for example on 0.5%. In these circumstances AEBC would still be able to add value by considering implementation issues.

38. The group had started its evidence-gathering. It had recently taken evidence from DEFRA and received a report from the Food Standards Agency. The group would be taking evidence at the next Commission meeting on 11/12 September. It was organising a technical workshop on 19 September to explore the technical limits of detectability and traceability of GM and non-GM material in relation to the movement of bulk commodity crops in relation to limiting the mixing of other GM and non-GM material in the agricultural supply chain; and the different mechanisms that could be used to limit geneflow and mixing of GM and non-GM material on the farm. The workshop would also include an industry perspective on the practical and commercial realities of sourcing non-GM material. Jeff Maxwell had compiled a first draft list of topics on which the group needed more information for other members of the sub-group to consider.

39. The group would be in a better position to start drafting a report after evidence-taking and the workshop. It would also become clear at that stage how the group should test out its developing thinking with the general public and what sort of further public attitudes work may be required. The group needed an open-ended work plan at present, but hoped to submit an initial draft report to the Commission meeting in December.

Oral report on progress with DEFRA baseline research project

40. Rosie Hails reported on a review group meeting in June for the DEFRA baseline study, which had recently started. Four particular points to emerge were: the need to give considerable weight to cross discipline synthesis; the need to give a historical description of agricultural practice; the need to be explicit about the criteria used to include or exclude particular studies; and the need to make available the database of information gained. There would be a second review group meeting in October, and a third meeting at the end of the project, in December. Members asked Rosie Hails to explore having social science peer review, formally or informally, as part of the review process. She would do this at interim stage in October.

ACTION: Rosie Hails

Any Other Business

41. Mileva Novkovic was preparing a descriptive paper comparing and contrasting how strategic issues relating to agricultural and environmental biotechnology are addressed in other countries, particularly with reference with bodies similar to the AEBC. Information was coming in and the secretariat would prepare a paper for the AEBC’s next meeting in September.

ACTION: secretariat: Mileva Novkovic

42. Pat Wilson would prepare a discussion paper on the Commission’s communications strategy for the next meeting.

ACTION: secretariat - Pat Wilson

Close of meeting

43. The Chair thanked Members for their contributions and thanked observers for attending.

44. The next AEBC meeting was planned for 11-12 September in Edinburgh, then at the Eden Project, Cornwall on 11-12 December. 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
July 2002