Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission: Twenty-Fith

AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION

TWENTY-FIFTH COMMISSION MEETING

22 – 23 SEPTEMBER 2004

UNIVERSITY OF YORK, HESLINGTON, YORK, YO10 5DD

CONFIRMED MINUTES

Members

Professor Malcolm Grant
Julie Hill
Anna Bradley
Helen Browning (Wednesday only)
Dr David Buckeridge
Dr David Carmichael
Professor Phil Dale
Dr Matthew Freeman
John Gilliland
Professor Robin Grove-White
Judith Hann
Dr Rosie Hails
Professor Keekok Lee
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Dr Sue Mayer

Secretariat

Dr Paul van Heyningen
Laura McMahon
Tonima Saha
Emma Knox

Introduction and Apologies

The Chair welcomed everyone to the Commission’s twenty-fifth meeting. He expressed the Commission’s pleasure at being in York and thanked Dianna Bowles and her colleagues at the University of York for their hospitality and assistance in arranging the Commission meeting.

Apologies had been received from Ed Dart, Derek Langslow, Paul Rylott and Justine Thornton.

The minutes of the last Commission meeting had been finalised with all comments incorporated into them. The Commission agreed they were an accurate record of proceedings.

Matters of Report

The AEBC’s open letter to Government and ACRE on the wider implications of the FSEs had been sent out. No responses had so far been received.

The Chair had written a letter to the Efra select committee pointing out the inaccuracies in their GM Planting Regime report. He had asked for the letter to be published alongside the Government response to the report.

The consultation period for the review of the AEBC ended on 27 August. It was understood that the review was likely to be finalised late October/early November. The Chair and Deputy Chair were meeting the reviewer Neil Williams the next week to discuss his emerging findings and were seeking a meeting with Elliot Morley soon after the review was published to discuss its recommendations.

The Government had announced its 10-year Science and Innovation framework on 12 July.

On 30 July, Defra had published the report of its Science Forward Look exercise, which aimed to anticipate the Department's future science needs over the next 10 years. The report was open for consultation until 22 October 2004 and would contribute to Defra's next science strategy which would be published in 2005. SEERAD had published its new draft research strategy for consultation on 22 July. The draft suggested interesting changes to the current system including an increased emphasis on policy relevance of research and reduced autonomy for the SEERAD-sponsored research institutes.

The final meeting of the Government Industry Forum for Non-Food Uses of Crops had taken place that week on 20 September. The purpose of the forum was to provide strategic advice to Government and industry on the development of non-food uses of crops. The work of the forum was to be transferred to the recently established National Non-Food Crops Centre, which was based in York. The Centre’s Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Maggie Smallwood, was present at the meeting and would be speaking to the Commission at dinner that evening.

Update from Defra and the Devolved Administrations – Paper AEBC 04/14

The Chair expressed the Commission’s gratitude for paper AEBC 04/14 which was a written update from Defra and the devolved administrations and commented that the Commission would like this regular communication to continue. The Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland officials had sent apologies for not being able to attend the meeting.

The Chair asked Members for any comments or questions on this paper and the following points were raised:

Renaud Wilson of Defra informed Commission Members that the Scottish workshops on coexistence would be taking place on 5 – 6 October and that attendance was by invitation only.

It was noted that there had been no new part B applications under Directive 2001/18 for GMO releases for purposes other than marketing. Commission Members were curious as to why this was and commented that the reasons behind this might be something the research agendas workstream could consider. It was mentioned that the European Commission (EC) had produced a report on the experience of Genetically Modified Organisms placed on the market under Directive 2001/18.

Action: Secretariat to circulate EC report.

Discussion with Defra on their coexistence workshops

The Chair introduced two representatives from Defra who were attending the meeting to update the Commission on the development of Defra’s coexistence regime. He welcomed Sharon Wort and Renaud Wilson of the GM Policy Unit.

Defra announced in March 2004 that the Government had concluded that there is no scientific case for a blanket ban on the cultivation of GM crops in the UK, but that proposed uses need to be assessed for safety on a case-by-case basis. The Government will continue to take a precautionary approach and only agree to the commercial release of a GM crop if the evidence shows that it does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment. The Government also recognised that rules are needed to ensure that GM and non-GM crops can co-exist.

It has concluded that farmers growing GM crops should apply measures to ensure that unwanted GM presence in non-GM crops is within the 0.9% threshold adopted by the European Union.

Defra had undertaken to consult stakeholders on this and the following related issues:

whether a GM threshold below 0.9% might apply for organic production
options for a mechanism to compensate non-GM farmers if they suffer financially because a GM presence in their crop exceeds the statutory threshold, and
guidance for farmers interested in establishing voluntary GM-free zones

The consultation was being carried out in two phases, the first (which is near completion) being a series of workshops to discuss particular aspects of the overall issue and the second a consultation paper for comment by all stakeholders. The paper will set out the relevant background and options for consideration, taking account of the workshop discussions in the first phase.

The presentation from Renaud Wilson was an update on the outcomes so far of the stakeholder workshops. The series of workshops were intended to be informal discussions in which information and ideas were freely exchanged, and where the focus was on technical or practical issues. To encourage this the meetings were relatively small and attendance limited to those people who have some knowledge or experience of the particular issue being considered, and thus were best placed to contribute to the development of the proposals and options for consideration.
A detailed account of the presentation can be found in Annex A of the minutes however during the discussion between Renaud and the Commission Members the following points were noted:

Defra thought that it was unlikely that any GM crop would be introduced into the UK before 2008 and that the Managed Introductory Period would commence once the first crop had been planted and was likely to have a duration of two or three years, however this would be influenced by the amount of GM cropping that occurred during that time. Members were concerned that there needed to be a clear idea of what would be assessed and monitored during the introductory period and how these would be measured in order that the coexistence regime would be robust and that any information learned from this time would be used effectively to improve the overall management of coexistence. It was stressed by some Members that the AEBC had recommended that the managed introductory phase should be used to gather further information as to whether a lower threshold below 0.9% could be achievable and this should not be overlooked as a priority. Some Members also expressed concern over a public register being held on GM planting which could make GM growers vulnerable to vandalism.

It was noted that there was insufficient evidence on the use of measures such as barrier rows and field margins in reducing adventitious presence in a non GM crop and that further investigation was needed to inform the decision making on a regime focused on separation distances. Furthermore, the presence of such measures could be beneficial to the environment in creating habitats for wildlife and rare species and this should also be assessed during the Managed Introductory Period.

The Commission felt that although it should be possible to minimise volunteers and bolters in some crops, it was not easy to achieve in Oilseed rape and there needed to be greater emphasis on effective farm management practice in order to minimise the risk of cross pollination. There should also be consultation with machinery manufacturers and contractors as John Deere were currently working on an “easy clean” combine harvester which would help minimise the risk of seed being transferred from farm to farm or between fields on the same farm. It was also felt that Defra should not ignore problems that could occur within a farm that was planting both GM and non GM crops and should not just be concentrating on measures between farms.

Renaud Wilson confirmed that in the coexistence regime, farmers would be bound by the code of practice which would include notifying their neighbour of their plans and that who was classified as a neighbour would be defined by separation distance

It was noted that applying a correction factor on separation distances to cover a vast array of possible scenarios would be difficult and Members would like to find out more from the workshop that covered this aspect of the proposed regime.

Members sought clarification on levels of adventitious presence in seeds and the position of the Government on the thresholds that would be set. It was generally felt that although there had been no definitive answer given on this yet, as the issue had been discussed at length within the European Commission, the UK Government should be much further forward in offering guidance on this. Defra responded that although informal proposals have been tabled, there was no plan for further consultation on this until the EU Commission came forward with their proposal. Government Ministers would then consider the seeds thresholds in light of the EU guidelines. Some Members confirmed that industry was already working to a level of 0.1% but that they were frustrated at the lack of progression on a decision as they needed to factor in a margin of error and without the confirmed threshold levels this was very difficult.

Members questioned whether the regime and any legislation that may be needed would be ready in time for the first planting of any GM crops. Renaud Wilson responded by announcing that Defra were working to a timescale of 2008 for the first commercial crop being planted and that any coexistence regime would have statutory backing under Directive 2001/18 but any model of redress for liability would require primary legislation in the UK. Concern was expressed by Members as to whether this could be achieved in the timeframe.

It was suggested that in the consultation paper that Defra planned to publish, there could be a review of the initiatives that other EU Member States were taking to address this problem.

The Chair thanked Renaud Wilson for his presentation and for his responses to Members’ questions and asked that the Commission be kept informed of progress on the remaining workshops and the consultation paper.

Research Agendas – Papers AEBC 04/15A and 04/15B

Matthew Freeman explained that the focus of the discussion would be on the information gathering strand of the workstream. The ‘long’ paper (AEBC 04/15/B) contained detailed background information on research agendas which would be finalised and then published as a useful source of information. The ‘short’ paper (AEBC 04/15/A) aimed to be more than just a summary of the long information paper, and some initial observations and analysis had been made. This would be used as a basis for the consultation exercises in this workstream. It was noted that some of the information gathering – for example EU-funded research - had yet to be completed.

Matthew then briefly outlined progress in other strands of the workstream:

Opinion Leader Research had been appointed to run a consultation exercise with the public and ‘hard to reach’ stakeholder groups. This would consist of public discussion groups around Bristol, Cardiff and Perth; and stakeholder discussion groups in the Nottinghamshire area with scientists, land managers and agricultural advisory staff. There would be an update on progress from Opinion Leader Research at the Commission meeting in December. A ‘conventional’ paper-based consultation with a wider range of stakeholders would also be conducted.

Case studies would be used to highlight the effect of the various drivers on the research that was carried out. The two case studies proposed were on plant breeding and soil science.

The aim was to bring together the work from the information gathering, the two consultation exercises and the case studies to produce final conclusions and recommendations in Spring 2005. In line with the Commission’s more ‘modular’ form of working, papers would be published as they were produced, in addition to the final overall publication. The group were working to a tight timetable and immediate plans were to send the papers to contributors for comments and to start the paper-based consultation process. Papers would also be refereed by experts.

In discussion the following points were raised:

Changes in high-level drivers in agricultural policy were slow to feed down into the research that was conducted. Practitioners needed information on how to change their activities in line with new policies (for example on how to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture). It was largely the role of the public sector to provide this research.

The information collected so far suggested that the documented withdrawal of the public sector research from near-market research had resulted in market failure in this area.

A deeper analysis of exactly where and how biotechnology was being used by different funders would be useful. However, it was likely to be difficult to get to this information.

It was felt that the paper needed to include some background information on why the Commission was undertaking this project on research agendas. Through the course of the Commission’s work, Members had noted a number of concerns, (for example around the lack of public consultation, too much industry influence on science, not enough basic science etc) and these would help to explain the circumstances behind the project. It would be especially important to contextualise the work when the paper was used in the wider consultation exercise.

It was agreed that this background would be provided in the paper, and it would seek to explain that these issues were ‘preconceptions’ the Commission had come across and the project would seek to address whether these concerns held true. The introduction would also include an explanation of the overall project and how the various strands of the workstream would fit together.

It was felt that there needed to be more information on the private sector. Although detail of research in this sector was likely to be difficult to access, it would be useful to have a brief overview of the main drivers in this area and the effect of the private sector on public sector research. It was felt that the case studies would help to address this issue, and also identify gaps in research.

It was agreed that the papers would be published as Commission documents, with a low-key launch. The long information paper was a useful resource and would be published on the website in the first instance, and perhaps printed in hard copy at the end of the project once the information was as up to date as possible. The short paper would be amended as per the discussion and then used for the consultation process and published in hard copy once finalised.

Action: Research Agendas core group and secretariat.

Non-Food Agriculture: Part 1

The Chair welcomed Terry Robins, an independent packaging consultant and former head of packaging at Sainsbury’s.

David Buckeridge, Champion of the Non-Food Agriculture workstream, reminded the Commission that in Aberdeen they had taken evidence from a variety of experts in order to select a case study in the biofuels area and had chosen to focus on short rotation willow and poplar. He informed the Commission that since the last full Commission meeting the core group had gone through a similar process for the biopharmaceuticals area and that he would update the Commission on this more fully the next day. In this session the Commission would be going through the same process for selecting a case study in the biomaterials/bioplastics area.

Terry Robins made the following points in his presentation on biopackaging:

There were many retailers that would like to use biopackaging, for example one DIY company was looking at producing a starch-based bubble wrap. Since plastics made from starch tended to biodegrade this could produce a good quality product which would be compostable.

The main issues around producing biopackaging were cost, as it tended to be expensive to produce; and the lack of a process to ensure the packaging could biodegrade, sinceif it ended up in a landfill it defeated the object of producing biodegradable packaging.

Polylactic acid (PLA), such as that used by Cargill Dow, was produced from genetically modified (GM) crops in the USA. This had created a standoff position since UK retailers did not want to associate themselves with anything that was GM so they were uninterested in developing plastic packaging produced from crops. However PLA did not have to be produced from GM crops, it could be produced in a crop in Europe without using GM technology.

The Republic of Ireland (ROI) had introduced a “plastic bag tax” in an attempt to reduce waste., However, other issues such as the energy used in manufacturing needed to be considered when implementing such measures. For example, if retailers were to convert to using paper carrier bags instead of plastic ones it would take twice as much energy to produce them, four to five times more water and they would take up five times more space in transit.

Consumers in ROI had not switched to paper bags but to heavy-duty re-usable plastic bags. This was an example of a tax changing consumers’ behaviour. Some Members questioned whether it needed to be something as onerous as a tax was needed in order for consumer behaviour to be changed.

The average retailer had 20,000 stock-keeping units (SKUs) with up to seven items of packaging per product so there was clearly scope for the amount of packaging being produced to be reduced; this should be the UK’s first priority.

The EU packaging directive was quite successful at capturing materials such as paper; however it was less so for plastics.

Biodegradable plastics could present a problem for the recycling of hydrocarbon-based plastics if they were to be put accidentally into the recycling process for these as they could contaminate the process.

Bioplastic was a term being used to describe both plastics that were biodegradable and plastics that were derived from crops, but it did not necessarily mean both of these things. It was important that the Commission clarified what it meant by bioplastics when conducting this case study.

The primary issue that was a barrier to the uptake of bioplastics was cost. It was suggested that if all companies adopted the use of bioplastics (e.g. for their plastic carrier bags) then this issue would be eradicated.

It would not be possible for all plastics to be made from biomass and it was not clear how much of the UK’s plastic requirements could be produced from biomass.

The meeting closed at 5.40pm.

Thursday 23 September

Non-Food Agriculture: Part 2 – Paper AEBC 04/14

David Buckeridge explained that he would give an update on where the Core Group had got to with the various components of this workstream and that this session was to get the Commission’s input on these.

Background paper – a first draft of this had been produced for the meeting although the exact purpose of it and the format it should take was still to be decided.

Regulatory/Policy Analysis – this would be based on the three case studies. Short rotation coppice willow and poplar was selected at the Commission’s last meeting in Aberdeen for the biofuels area and at a recent core group meeting the production of an HIV microbicide in maize was selected for the biopharma area through a similar process. At this meeting the Commission would be deciding upon the case study for the biomaterials/bioplastics area.

David Buckeridge explained that this had initially been planned as a desk exercise for a lawyer who would explore each regulation appropriate to the specific case studies. The core group had since decided that this would be more interesting if they explored the policy drivers too.

Commission Members agreed that both the regulatory and policy analysis should be done and that analysing these together would produce the most valuable output since it would explore the interaction between regulations and policies and identify any possible conflicts.

.It was agreed that it was important for the Commission to maintain its focus on biotechnology.

There was a discussion whether the case studies should be carried out from first principles or from experience. Some Members argued that the conclusions that could be drawn from an output that was based on interviewing individuals about their experiences would be limited and that the outcome would be only a descriptive view of the potential conflicts and constraints in this area. However, other Members felt that the experiential approach would provide information that was useful for government and stakeholders because it would identify the real problems that were preventing people in the UK from taking advantage of the various opportunities offered by the application of biotechnology to non-food uses of crops.

Public engagement – the core group were planning to use a professional research organisation to explore public perceptions of applications of biotechnology to various non-food crops. The core group felt that it would be useful to use a wide range of examples to get a more comprehensive understanding of what the public saw as the potential benefits of these products and how they felt about the various trade-off issues associated with them.

It was suggested that the Commission could limit the examples used in the public engagement work to just the three case studies as this would help with the time constraints surrounding the project whilst still illustrating the dilemmas and reactions to the products. However, the majority of Members felt that a wider range of examples should be used in order to produce a piece of research which explored the full range of public acceptability of these products and to gain an understanding of what the dilemmas are for people and how the trade-off issues work for them.

Public awareness – after visiting the Eden project the core group had concluded that for the public engagement work the Commission was proposing the sample reachable through the Eden project was too self-selective. However, they were particularly impressed by the Eden Project’s ability to disseminate information to the public and therefore thought there was potential to carry out follow-up work with the Eden as a way of bringing the trade-off issues around these products to the public’s attention.

TV programme – there had been no progression on this following the update at the last Commission meeting. The pitch for the programme was still with the production company, TV6, who were putting it to specific broadcasters. If an interactive programme were to be produced there would be the same issue of this being a self-selected audience as with the Eden project although again it could provide an interesting follow-up to the Commission’s public engagement work.

Action: NFA Core Group and secretariat

The Chair welcomed Professor James Clark, from the Chemistry Department of the University of York, Professor Neil Bruce from the Centre for Novel Agricultural Products (CNAP) at the University of York and Toby Matthews from Potatopak Ltd, who had agreed to give the Commission a presentation on biomaterials to help Members choose a case study on this aspect of Non Food Agriculture.

Presentation by Professor James Clark (Green Chemistry Group, University of York)

James Clark introduced himself as a chemist with a particular interest in “green chemistry”.He gave a presentation on the broader perspectives of biomaterials,which included the following points:

Green Chemistry was concerned with looking at ways of trying to reduce the environmental impact of chemical products and processes and his group was trying to look at ways of introducing green chemistry into chemical manufacturing.

Plastics represent a particular problem when it comes to the environment and the public are becoming increasingly aware of issues surrounding waste disposal and renewable resources. In the context of green chemistry, ways were being sought to reduce environmental impact and make the whole process of manufacturing plastics more environmentally compatible.

There is an assumption that certain products such asplastic bags are “bad” but the issues are more complicated and the whole lifecycle of the product should be looked at to ensure that simple substitution, for example by paper bags, does not produce more problems and environmental impacts.

Replacing petrochemicals with bio-based products and moving towards the introduction of bio-refineries is possible but the concept is likely to be introduced slowly over decades and although it may eventually substitute a significant amount of the petrochemical based products there should not be a total reliance on this.

Improvements are being made in the context of existing based plastics – products are becoming thinner, stronger and more durable and by making better use of resources through improvements to catalytic processes, fewer materials are being consumed in the manufacture of the products. Improvements are also being sought to address environmental compatibility by modifying the existing petrochemical based materials as well as producing new biomaterials.

Hidden complications arise in defining a product as biodegradable. A product may become biodegradable only under certain conditions and these may not be met when disposing of the product in e.g. landfill. There is therefore a clear distinction between biodegradable and compostable.

One of the most recognised biomaterials derived from biomass feedstock is polylactic acid (PLA) which has been a great commercial success in the US. However, there are issues surrounding the use of GM feedstocks to produce PLA and problems have arisen therefore in the use of the material from the US in the EU.

PLA also has many hazardous additives incorporated into its production process and how to address the problems of disposal still remains a stumbling block.

A life cycle analysis of PLA production shows the importance factors such as transportation costs and some of the advantages or disadvantages between renewable and non-renewable energy sources can change dramatically when looking at the whole life cycle of the product.

Presentation by Professor Neil Bruce (CNAP)

Professor Bruce holds the Chair of Biotechnology at CNAP. His presentation provided an overview of biorefineries including two examples of biomaterials that might be considered by the Commssion for a case study.

His presentation made the following points:

The only true sustainable source of hydrocarbon in the biosphere is biomass. The types of feedstocks for biomass use could be waste materials, agricultural residues, wood pulp or agricultural crops specifically grown for fuels and chemicals which would then require the use of a bio refinery to produce a final product. The processes within the chain could be a mixture of both biochemical and thermochemical processes to help break down the starting material to make it accessible to enzymes and micro organisms that can in turn generate the final product.

Biological processes occur at moderate pH and at room temperature so heat energy does not have to be added and although you may have to make a few chemical additions, instead of using a organic solvent (as used in the petrochemical industry), water is used as the main solvent.

Lignin and Cellulose are by far the most abundant source of carbon in the biosphere. They are not easy to break down, but there are micro organisms that can breakdown these polymers, albeit very slowly. Fungi have enzymes that can break these large molecules down into smaller soluble components which can in turn be broken down further into simple sugars.

In a bio refinery, simple sugars can be easily fermented to produce ethanol and it is also possible to produce other high value products such as antibiotics, vitamins or amino acids by manipulating micro organisms. This sounds very positive but there are significant problems in terms of the enzymes that are used in the processes and the speed of the reaction to break down the initial polymers and also in reducing inhibition of the products on the substrate. All this means that the processes are expensive.

Ways that have developed to overcome these problems include engineering the micro organisms that degrade the biomass to allow specific enzymes to be developed that interact more effectively with the substrate. This in turn has led to a “minimal gene” approach which allows for the removal of all but the essential genes for growth within the micro organism and modifying it genetically to encode for enzymes that would enable other products to be produced. This then results in the most productive organism in terms of the process desired. At present there is a major project involving this concept in Japan which has attracted a large amount of investment from its Government.

The first example for a possible case study was a compound made by DuPont called sorona®. This polymer can be used to produce a variety of products such as fibres, resins and other materials which can be used in clothing, upholstery and carpets for example. The compound is derived from 1,3 propanediol terephthalate which can be derived from corn . DuPont have taken the genes from a pathway in yeast and inserted them into E.coli to allow the compounds broken down from the corn biomass to be converted to glycerol which in turn can be converted into 1,3 propanediol. This pathway allows the micro organism to use the minimum amount of substrate for growth and channel more energy into producing the final product. There is a huge amount of investment in this project and DuPont have also looked at genes that encode for proteins that interfere with this pathway and have altered them so that they can approach the most efficient use of glucose theoretically possible.

This example shows that a non specialist chemical that is produced on a large scale and is produced very cheaply at present through the petrochemical industry can, through genetic engineering also be produced at lower cost and on a large scale with fewer waste products and greater efficiency. However, while produced from renewable feedstocks, sorona® was not a biodegrable product.

The second example that could be of interest to the Commission was the production of Polylactic acid (PLA) which had been introduced by James Clark. PLA production can involve genetically modified biomass although this is not necessary and it can also involve genetically modified organisms in a closed environment although again this is not always necessary.

Presentation by Toby Matthews from Potatopak Ltd

Toby introduced himself as the founder and chairman of Potatopak Ltd and explained that he would be speaking briefly about their products, background and the issues and challenges of manufacturing potato based packaging.

Toby made the following points:

Potatopak products are manufactured on their own bespoke compression moulding machines with the main ingredient being potato starch (a renewable resource). The trays are 100% biodegradable and compostable and are a major benefit in light of the increasing pressures on landfill and landfill tax.

The products pose no risk to human, animal or marine life if accidentally consumed.

The company have production facilities in the UK and in New Zealand and supply event caterers and supermarkets.

It takes eight tonnes of potatoes to produce one tonne of starch which can make 43,500 trays. In the UK, 6 million tonnes of potatoes are grown each year and there is typically 1.2 million tonnes of wastage (equivalent to about 6.5 billion trays). One major supermarket in the UK has over 200 lines using 2.5 million tonnes and to replace all the conventional packaging with starch based packaging, would require 1.5 to 2 million tonnes of potatoes.

There may be opportunities in the future to grow high yield potatoes on set aside land for non food use in the UK but all the starch that has been used by the company to date had either been imported or recovered from potato waste processing of chips and crisps.

Recovered starch (waste starch that has been reprocessed) has a much better life cycle assessment profile than imported starch. A study completed through the sustainable technology initiative led by the British Potato Council, showed that recovered starch had 30% less environmental impact over the whole lifecycle than industrial starch. This was because most of the environmental impact from growing potatoes is allocated to the food product and not by the non food product. The life cycle stages showed about half the impact coming from the starch processing and the trade manufacture and the rest of the impacts are from distribution and a very poor end of life disposal with about 90% land filling and some incineration.

The biggest challenge the company face is funding. Initially the trays will cost more but consumers appear to not want to suffer the increased costs of goods. There needs to be a good regulatory framework and better consumer education. With increased pressure on local authorities on waste disposal, more could be done to increase composting of waste from starch based packaging as it has a rapid breakdown and can be disposed of in the consumer’s garden or on special sites. However, significant investment and the right incentives brought about by legislation would be necessary to ensure profitability and sustained production.

Discussion following the Non Food Agriculture Presentations

David Buckeridge outlined three or four possibilities for the case study on bio materials. He reiterated that it was important that the example chosen should centre on something where biotechnology either has or could have a real role in the process in producing a product. All the examples suggested had been fascinating in their own right, but could perhaps represent different perspectives when undergoing a regulatory and policy analysis and it would therefore be necessary to be very clear about what the Commission were setting out to achieve in order that they did not step outside their remit or focus on too narrow an area of biotechnology (e.g. GM only).

Members felt that opening up the remit for the three case studies beyond that of GM was essential and when looking at the workstream as a whole it may be useful to focus one case study (biofuels) on biotechnology not involving GM at all, one case study that definitely would involve the use of genetic manipulation (bio pharmaceuticals) and perhaps one that could use both routes i.e. make use of biotechnology with or without GM.

Bio degradability was an issue that would probably resonate more with the public than the use of fossil fuels and perhaps the ideal example for biomaterials should involve a GM angle and biodegradability for the end product.

The Potato packaging example would therefore fulfil the biodegradability criterion and it was possible to incorporate the GM component by looking at the work being done to improve yields and disease control, however this was felt to be too artificial and the difficulties that are being encountered at present are more economic than policy or regulatory based.

The sorona® example was not able to fulfil the criterion of being biodegradable and was therefore rejected.

PLA however did fulfil many of the objectives that were being sought in case study. It was a bio Material that had a wide range of uses and could be produced from most forms of starch. Therefore although at present it has been produced using maize, it would be possible to use starch produced from wheat which can be easily produced in the UK. The example would also allow the GM angle to be discussed as this could be brought in at the biomass stage (i.e. uncontained use) and/or in the processing stage in the fermentation (contained use) or as previously mentioned it need not make use of GM technology at all. The product can be processed in many different ways to make it either biodegradable, compostable or long lasting. This example therefore gives a complex system that can undergo the regulatory and policy analysis at various levels and which could also be taken to the public to see what their views are at the various stages.

The Commission felt that PLA offered the greatest potential as an example of a bio material for the regulatory analysis work, but recognised that it did not readily fulfil the experiential method that had been adopted for the other two case studies, although this was felt to be not too significant in light of the wider options it presented.

A discussion followed as to whether the workstream should be re-ordered to allow a more comprehensive look at current policy and regulations in light of public attitudes. It was generally felt that the public engagement strand should be carried out before completion of the regulatory/policy analysis case study work in order that this work could be informed by public attitudes towards biotechnology which should provide a much more useful report from which to make recommendations. It was agreed that the non-food agriculture workstream would focus on the public engagement strand before embarking on the specific case-studies.

Action: Non-food agriculture core group and secretariat to scope public engagement work.

The meeting closed at 12.20pm.