AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION  

NINETEENTH COMMISSION MEETING

      9-10 JULY 2003  

1 GREAT GEORGE STREET  
LONDON  SW1P 3AA  

MINUTES OF MEETING

Members

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chair)  
Ms Julie Hill (Deputy Chair; in the chair on 9 July)  
Ms Anna Bradley  
Ms Helen Browning  
Dr. David Buckeridge  
Dr. Dave Carmichael  
Professor Phil Dale  
Dr. Ed Dart  
Dr. Matthew Freeman  
Mr. John Gilliland (10 July only)  
Professor Robin Grove-White  
Dr. Derek Langslow  
Professor Jeff Maxwell  
Dr. Sue Mayer (9 July only)  
Dr. Paul Rylott  
Ms Justine Thornton
Dr. Rosie Hails

Secretariat

Mr. Richard Abel
Mr. Matthew Hughes  
Miss. Emma Knox  
Mrs. Laura McMahon  
Mr. Pat Wilson

      THE MEETING WAS CONDUCTED IN PUBLIC SESSION

      Apologies for Absence  

1.      Apologies had been received from Dr. Roger Turner and Ms Judith Hann.  

Introductory matters  

2.      Ms Julie Hill opened the meeting by welcoming members of the public who had come to observe the Commission’s proceedings. She explained that Professor Grant was unable to attend the meeting until in the following day and that she would be chairing the first day’s discussions. The Deputy Chair welcomed Dr. David Buckeridge to his first Commission meeting and thanked Dr. Turner is his absence for the hard work he had put into the Commission’s work since its inception.  

Minutes of the previous meeting 

3.      The Deputy Chair explained that the draft minutes of the meeting on the 7/8^th May had been circulated by the secretariat.  Members confirmed them as a correct record and agreed to their being posted on the AEBC website as such.      

Matters of Report 

4.      The DEFRA-funded study on baseline research on the environmental impacts of different agricultural systems, on which AEBC members had assisted, had been published on the DEFRA website. Dr Hails noted that the report by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (in collaboration with CEH Monkswood, the Centre for Rural Economic Research and the Cambridge and Northmoor Trust) had been relatively modest in scale and not quite as broad in its scope as had been envisaged originally.  It did however provide a useful starting point and opened the path for further research.  

5.      The Farm Animal Welfare Committee had reported to the secretariat that it planned to release its comments on the recommendations in the AEBC Animals and Biotechnology report as part of a report on animals and genetic technologies, due in autumn 2003. The comments will be agreed by the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) and the Animal Procedures Committee (APC).   

6.      The Deputy Chair outlined the recent changes following the UK Government Ministerial reshuffle and elections in the devolved territories and confirmed that Elliot Morley had taken over Michael Meacher’s responsibilities for GM issues in DEFRA under the Secretary of State.  The Welsh Assembly Government Minister was now Carwyn Jones and his counterpart in the Scottish Executive was now Allan Wilson.  

Discussion on the third draft on GM crops? Coexistence and Responsibility 

7.      Ms Hill began the main discussion by asking Members to comment initially on the draft summary of recommendations and conclusions of the report which were divided into five sections - the issues, coexistence measures, compensation, environmental impacts and the role of government. Further discussion could then follow around the more detailed points contained in the report.  

8.      These minutes record an outline only of the points discussed: the substance has been incorporated into the next iteration of the draft report.  

9.      It was generally felt that the present draft report was well written and had made significant advances. However, some members felt that the summary of recommendations and conclusions was not as explicit as in the main text, for example the link between compensation and a coexistence mechanism was much clearer in the main text. There was also concern that consumer interests’ were not particularly well reflected in the recommendations.  

10. Members commented that the contentious nature of the report had also not been fully brought out in the summary. The present draft could be seen to be “smoothing a path for the introduction of GM crops” and it should be made clear that the report was in no way prejudging this. Other members were concerned, on the contrary, that the substance of the draft recommendations and indeed the tone would be more likely to act as a barrier to market entry of GM crops.

11. Among the main points made by various Members in discussion was that there should be a greater description of what “a precautionary approach” referred to in the report actually implied technically and factually; and that there was insufficient emphasis on a regime that will accompany any audit process to achieve this. A fuller explanation was also needed to explain the relationships between farmers, a fund and the seed companies and how any policing of a scheme would work out.  

12. The report should reflect the symmetry between GM, non-GM and organic farmers in respect of economic loss. It could be possible that a GM farmer could experience a loss due to cross-pollination or contamination from a non-GM crop.  

13. The term “industry” needed to be clearly defined and several Members expressed concern that introducing a levy on GM seed sales or requiring industry to support a scheme financially would impose a very heavy financial burden on companies, reinforce the perception that GM crops were ‘different’ and would drive out any future development in biotechnology innovations within the UK. Others felt that if industry were to underwrite any economic loss through Adventitious Presence (AP) especially at the 0.9% threshold that this would lead to greater trust of the biotechnology industry as a whole. A compensation fund drawn from a small levy on all harvested crops would be less problematic for the biotechnology industry. Government seemed unlikely to fund compensation as this would go against the trend of phasing out compensation schemes for agriculture.  

14. There was considerable uncertainty around whether coexistence protocols would work, but from the evidence examined it seemed likely that achieving a threshold of 0.9% AP was probably practicable for the crops being initially proposed. Thus it would be unlikely that there would be many cases where the breach of this threshold that was deemed to have occurred.  Members agreed that GM crops should be introduced with crop management protocols rather than laissez faire in the interests of promoting coexistence.  

15. A threshold of 0.1% would probably be much more difficult to guarantee in all cases and a different approach may be needed for this. Some Members felt that asking the agricultural biotechnology industry to support financial compensation at this level would be quite unacceptable as this was a self-imposed threshold adhered to by the organic sector and some food retailers. 0.9%, itself a challenging threshold, had been set as the statutory limit for a reason: it was deliverable.  

16. It was felt that the introduction of GM commercial cropping if it went ahead would be relatively gradual and this would enable closer monitoring of any protocols and unforeseen problems that might occur. Members could see merit in taking advantage of a “managed introduction” regime to last for several years during an initial phase, where monitoring and auditing to determine whether and how coexistence could be successfully delivered. There could be advantages in protocols not being decided solely by industry but by an independent body that could monitor and review the whole process. The scheme would allow further data to be gathered and protocols to be changed if necessary. Each crop would have to have its own protocol and regime to ensure effective coexistence.  

17. Seed production would need to be closely monitored, especially for the organic sector. It may be necessary to have a small area of voluntary zoning to produce organic seed for organic crop growers in order to seek to keep below the overall threshold of 0.1%. The area of land to produce enough seed for this sector would be very small. There is at present no seed production in the UK for maize, practically none for beet and the amount of seed needed for the organic market could be produced from one very small crop. 

18. The managed introduction would also allow consumers to see how coexistence measures might work and help them make a more informed choice. There would also be an opportunity for the environmental impacts to be further assessed and if there were any compensation claims relating to environmental damage these were likely to be very few thus allowing this part of the process to develop and be tested. It would be helpful to obtain feedback on these proposals from the agricultural biotechnology industry.    

19. On environmental liability, there were differences of view around the merits of setting up an environmental remediation fund and how it should be used. Members agreed that tracking environmental damage via a strict cause and effect method would prove impossible in many cases. Remediation for environmental harm from GMOs could be dealt with under the existing Environmental Protection Act 1990 (section VI) but it was agreed that this should be amended to make it unnecessary to prove a criminal act has occurred. Some members stressed that GM crops should not be singled out; other crops and other agricultural practices equally had environmental effects: this had to be the context for recommendations in this area. Members could see merit in developing the system of remediation that was appropriate for wider agricultural impacts and not only GM crops, although there were differences of view about what would be appropriate.  

20. If damage to the environment – from GM crops or other crops - had occurred then an independent regulator could be a solution to overseeing a scheme to decide on any penalty or level of clean up that may be required and to assess the most appropriate way of achieving this. Damage directly attributable to one or more parties would be relatively straightforward to assess but unattributable harm that could be from several causes or a combination of factors, and where there were no parties who could realistically be found liable would be more difficult. In such cases the regulator could have the powers to effect the most appropriate action for example, remediation may not always be financial and a change in policy or farming practice could be the solution. Some Members made clear that some geneflow to wild relatives may not always result in environmental harm and cause and effect would have to be carefully thought through. Although the report was specific to GM crops, reference should be made to all forms of agriculture and the potential for environmental damage to occur – it should perhaps widen the scope of the environmental to include horticulture which was a rapidly expanding industry with potential to have impacts on the environment.           

21. It was noted that there was potential for contradictions to arise in the report since it would recommend a system of close monitoring in order to identify “harm” and possible removal of a consent for a GMO but later to make the point that environmental damage may be impossible to trace to a single cause and could be the result of several factors either cumulatively or on their own. This would have to be carefully addressed in the next draft.

22.Members agreed that it should be recommended that the introduction of GM crops, should be accompanied by a stewardship package that ensured the environmental benefits were harnessed from the technology.  It was suggested that in order to enable this to occur, damage to trials work designed for this very purpose (e.g. that at Brooms Barn), should be condemned.

23.The Chair summarised the meeting and felt that the Commission had made significant progress in its recommendations and conclusions for the report and thanked Members for their significant input in enabling the report to move forward. There remained significant issues to resolve, particularly around the 0.1% threshold; compensation for economic loss from adventitious presence at 0.1%; how and by whom protocols should be set; and the possible role of an independent regulatory agency to deal with remediation of the environmental impacts of GM and possibly other crops. A further draft would be circulated to Members for comment as soon as possible.  

Action: secretariat 

      Any Other Business  

24. It was agreed that the Meeting in September would now be held in London and not Northern Ireland. There would be a whole day’s session on Thursday 25^th September with dinner for Members only on the evening of Wednesday 24^th. Further details would follow as soon as arrangements had been made.  

Action: secretariat.  

The meeting closed at 1415 on 10 July.  

AEBC secretariat

July 2003