 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Reports |
 |
 |
|
|
PUBLIC ATTITUDES GROUP The Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR 26 April 2002 Dear Secretary of State A DEBATE ABOUT THE POSSIBLE COMMERCIALISATION OF GM CROPS I have pleasure in attaching advice to Government from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on the conduct of a public debate about the issue of possible commercialisation of GM crops in the United Kingdom. Government requested further advice from AEBC about a public debate as part of its response, sent under cover of your letter of 17 January, to our report Crops on Trial. The advice has been agreed by the whole Commission. I would like to commend the AEBC public attitudes working group whose members undertook much of the work. I would also like to thank everyone from outside the AEBC who took the time and trouble to assist us as we developed our advice. I am copying this letter and our advice to the other Ministers to whom we report: Patricia Hewitt, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Ross Finnie (Scottish Executive); Carwyn Jones (Welsh Assembly Government) and Dermot Nesbitt (Northern Ireland Department of the Environment). Yours faithfully, MALCOLM GRANT AEBC Chair A DEBATE ABOUT THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE COMMERCIALISATION OF GM CROPS IN THE UK 1. We continue to believe that it is vital that there is a broader public debate about the issues around the question of the possible commercialisation of GM crops in the United Kingdom, consistent with the analysis in our report Crops on Trial.[1] Government will want to pay careful attention in decision-making to intelligent information about public views. We have sought to design a process to elicit this information and to give a wide range of people, in addition to stakeholders, an opportunity to engage with the issues. The process would include the results of the Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSEs) of GM crops and other information to complement the FSEs. 2. We have set out here the essential features of a debate. We have sought to design a programme of events that is imaginative but also practicable and that offers value for money. The advice distinguishes between a core programme whose constituent parts we think are indispensable, and additional elements which could maximise its effectiveness but which would inevitably make the programme more expensive. We have also set out options about how the information gained from the debate might be used. Background 3. In its response to Crops on Trial,[2] Government asked the AEBC to provide advice, by the end of April 2002, on how and when to promote an effective public debate on the possible commercial growing of the FSE crops,[3] who should be involved, and how to make the best use of the results of such a debate. Government said that the advice should also cover how to determine the public acceptability of GM crops, in particular cross-pollination thresholds and GM presence in organic crops. Government [4] said that the public debate on the possible commercial growing of GM crops will cover the FSE results and the wider review of the other information gathered to complement the FSEs. Objective of stimulating a debate 4. Government has stated that Ministers will have to decide, within the framework of European legislation, whether the crops grown in the FSEs should be commercialised; and that Government is committed to taking public opinion into account as far as possible through an open decision-making process. We have drafted our advice in the light of this unambiguous statement from Government about its intention to take public attitudes into account. 5. We believe that an effective public debate can help clarify and advance public views in the light of relevant developments in the United Kingdom and internationally (for example, the development of new crop varieties and increasing production of GM crops elsewhere in the world) over the past two years or so, when the subject of GM crops featured so strongly in newspaper headlines in the United Kingdom. 6. The principal objective of stimulating a public debate, therefore, is to assess the nature and spectrum of the public's views on the possible commercialisation of GM crops in the United Kingdom and any conditions under which commercialisation might or might not acceptably proceed so that the public's views can inform decision-making. 7. An inevitable outcome of the debate will be a better-informed public because that is what happens in good debates. The relatively small proportion of people whom we would envisage taking part in regional events or in focus groups as part of the programme of debate will gain quite a lot of knowledge. Our aspiration is that in addition, many people not participating in these events would also become more aware of the science and the wider issues around GM crops, gaining access to the information they want and need to debate the issues. 8. The purpose of the debate will not to be to act as a quasi-referendum. Nor is the purpose to ask people at community events or in focus groups to act as proxies for Ministers. It is Ministers who will make the decisions, in the context of European law, international developments and in the light of other factors. We note that within the present legal framework there is sufficient latitude for Government to take account of public attitudes, along with other factors, in determining a management regime for GM crop cultivation, were commercialisation to go ahead. 9. Our aim is to promote a debate that would be an important example of public participation in discussion of scientific issues. The programme we are recommending draws on some of the techniques for public engagement set out in the recent report from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology,[5] and in the twenty-first report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.[6] It has also benefited from the growing understanding of the experience of other countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands in developing processes for stimulating constructive public discussion of the social and ethical implications of new developments in science and technology.[7] We would hope that lessons could be learned from implementation of the programme we are recommending that would be of wider applicability to other areas of science-based policy-making. Information about public views 10. The information about public views to emerge from the programme of debate we are proposing will be qualitative rather than quantitative. It seems very likely to encompass a range of views, not a simple 'yes' or 'no' to commercialisation of GM crops. 11. How should the information from the debate be used? We believe that it should be independently and professionally synthesised to incorporate the most informed academic understanding of the possible significance and meanings of the views that emerge. 12. There seem to us to be three main options for using the synthesised information. First, the synthesised information is simply reported to Government to be taken into account in decision-making. Second, an attempt is made to draw together the various views expressed in the debate into agreed courses of action, by organising one or more national consensus conferences. Third, that Government seeks advice on possible ways forward in the light of the report of the information gained from the debate. We would be willing to play our part if Government decided on the third option. 13. Government should signal clearly at the start of the process what it wants to get out of it. We believe that the process should be conducted at arm's length from Government (see paragraph 44 below for our reasons). But it will only be a credible exercise if the Government makes a public commitment to the value of fostering a broader debate. Government should clearly and straightforwardly set out the legal, European and international context in which it will make decisions about GM crops and in which it will take account of public views in making those decisions. This will help make clear to people what use will be made of their contributions to the debate. It would also be worth in this regard the UK Government and the devolved administrations restating their respective policies on GM crops, so that participants in the debate understand the starting points and so that variations in policy within the United Kingdom are clear.[8] Core programme to promote a public debate 14. We want to involve as many people as practicable, from a wide range of backgrounds, in ways that capture their attention. We want especially to draw people at grass roots level into the debate. The debate should also seek to gain a deep understanding of the variety and subtlety of public views about the issues around the possible commercialisation of GM crops. 15. We accordingly are recommending a core programme containing two principal activities. First, grass roots debates in local community and ad hoc groups, stimulated by a specially made film and other material. The aim would be to reach lots of people. The local debates would be linked to regional and national [9] events involving representatives from local groups. The information about public views flowing out of these local, regional and national events would be synthesised on a regional and national basis and at UK level, as elements of a coordinated whole. Second, focus groups, to give depth to the analysis and to act as a 'control' to test the information coming out of the more diffuse local debates. 16. We have also set out a number of additional elements which could be included depending variously on what Government wants to get out of the programme; the extent to which various elements are replicated in each part of the UK; and the resources available. Framing the issues 17. Government has indicated the general area for debate: the possible commercialisation of GM crops in the UK. The specific issues the subject of commercialisation gives rise to should be framed by the public itself. We believe that a practicable way of doing this would be to recruit groups of citizens - including adults and school students - to participate in discussion workshops to frame the issues around the commercialisation of GM crops which need to be debated. 18. The recruitment of the workshop members should be undertaken professionally by a respected independent organisation. The citizens selected should have no vested interest in the outcome and not be conventional stakeholders. The process should give some confidence that Government or particular stakeholders are not dictating the issues for debate. One of the benefits of having citizens frame the issues is that they will do so in terms which are likely to be widely recognised by other members of the public. 19. The idea would be for the people at the discussion workshops to start with a blank sheet of paper. They would initially set out the issues they believe are relevant. The independent facilitators would as each workshop proceeded make sure that the workshop members had access to sufficient information to allow them to refine, prioritise and expand their initial list of issues. The workshops could be run over more than one day so that the workshop members could determine what further information they needed, having reflected on the material they had received thus far. 20. We believe that there should be a discussion workshop separately in each of Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland to frame the issues in each country, to mirror devolved arrangements. We would also suggest that there should be more than one workshop in England, given the population size and different regional emphases in relation to agriculture. Sampling three regions in England, probably in the west, north and midlands, would seem about the right number. Replicating the programme of debate in, say, all the nine areas in England covered by the Government Offices for the Regions would risk making the programme of events unwieldy and would be very expensive. 21. Running discussion workshops (and subsequently focus groups and regional events) in six places, although more expensive, would give an opportunity to explore and take account of different national and regional contexts, and to identify any differences from the outset in the issues raised in each area. Similar considerations apply to the balance of people from rural and urban backgrounds. 22. At the end of this initial stage, the issues for debate would have been framed in the discussion workshops. Grass roots discussions: making a film 23. Having framed the issues, the next stage would be to stimulate debate about them as widely as possible. The main vehicle for this would be a broadcast quality film. The film would be punctuated by questions arising from the issues for discussion which the initial citizen groups had selected as most important. It would probably draw on the discussions in the workshops and on information selected by the citizens in the workshops. There should be only a single film, or the cost of the exercise would become too great, but it should take account of the several national and regional workshops. 24. The aim would be to make a film that was thought provoking, informative, but not judgemental. The reason for using a film is that it is a familiar, accessible and potentially attractive medium. A film inevitably would have limitations of length and depth, and for some of the activities outlined below it would not be the sole input, but potentially it would be a good starting-point. 25. The film would need to contain sufficient information about GM crops here and abroad and the background to the issues around commercialisation to facilitate informed debate. It would need to be around 30 to 40 minutes in length. The way in which the material was put together in the film should be under the editorial control of the filmmaker because if not, the best independent filmmakers would not be interested in being involved. 26. The film would need to give a balanced presentation, and so the basic parameters for the production would need to be set carefully at the outset. The AEBC members of the independent steering board for the debate (see paragraph 45 below) should be responsible for liaison with the filmmaker on editorial questions. The steering board should also be involved in selecting the filmmaker. Grass roots discussions: using the film 27. The film would be sent to local community groups. It would be distributed in video format, perhaps with supporting literature. The intention would be to stimulate grass roots discussion of the issues at a very local level at meetings of community councils, Women's Institutes, Townswomen's Guilds, Mothers Unions, parish councils, farmers' groups, church groups, ad hoc community groups, schools, university societies, museums, science cafés, science and other festivals, etc. Pro-formas would be included with the videos so that local groups could send written feedback by post or e-mail (see paragraph 32 below) on the issues raised in the film. The responses received would be synthesised as part of the information coming out of the debate. 28. The written feedback from local events would not give an account of people's attitudes to the same depth as a professionally moderated event like a focus group. Debate of this sort is one mark of a healthy civic culture, and valuable in its own right. But to enrich the information arising from the local debates, in addition to written feedback, representatives from some or all of the local discussions could be invited to regional or national events to discuss the issues further. Evaluators at each of these regional or national events would synthesise and report on the overall findings. 29. Events of this sort would give local groups a further stake in the process of public engagement. Properly promoted, they could engender interest in the subject of GM crops in the various regions and countries in which they were held beyond the participants in the events. We would recommend that such events are also included as part of the core programme. Focus group discussions 30. The film would also be used, along with supporting material as required, as a prompt for focus group discussions. These 'controlled' exercises would be conducted professionally and act as crucial comparators for the views emerging from the various local, regional and national events. Each focus group could be convened a number of times, perhaps over a period before and after publication of the FSE results. This would allow evaluation of the extent to which people’s views developed in the course of their discussions, as they learned and thought more about the issues, and as more information, such as the initial results from the FSEs, became available. The focus groups would add an element of depth, throwing light on the question of whether the grass roots debates had been 'captured' by special interests, as some fear might happen. 31. Ideally, there should be several focus groups in each nation or region to act as controls for each region or national process. The regional and devolved analyses of the focus group discussions would also be analysed collectively. This would allow a much fuller benchmarking of the outcomes from the grass roots debates and add considerably to the richness of information about public views and the comparative analysis of methodologies. But if resources do not permit focus groups in each area, then running a total of three or four focus groups sampling the UK would be adequate for the purposes of the core programme. Publicity 32. The film and the programme and purpose of the debate would need to be adequately promoted. A variety of approaches should be used. Among these, innovative use of the internet should be included, with a website for the programme of debate on which people can get information about events, post general comments and give feedback on the film. Possible additions to the core programme 33. The above programme of activities represents, we believe, a credible programme of debate. A number of additional elements would be possible. Consensus conferences 34. As noted earlier, in addition to the focus groups, one or more consensus conferences - panels of sixteen or so citizens recruited to discuss the issues in depth - could be convened. These could be held either in each of the regions or devolved countries, or a single, UK-wide conference could be arranged. The objective for the participants would be to explore the extent of people's agreements about courses of action in the light of the issues raised in the wider debate and by themselves, and to arrive at recommendations.[10] They would start with the issues defined by the initial citizen groups, draw on the various contributions made in the public debate, and seek the information they required through cross-examination of witnesses and through further information. Given that consensus conferences are designed to arrive at an agreed course of action it would be important that Government gave a commitment to take their conclusions seriously in the decision-making process, while recognising that it is for Ministers to make decisions. 35. The outcomes of the consensus conferences would be published. The consensus conferences would add a further valuable element to the debate. They also unlike focus groups have a public dimension (public audiences and the media are usually invited to the later sessions) which could stimulate wider public discussion.[11] In addition, like the focus groups, they would provide a means of benchmarking the local, regional and national debate and so add to the richness of the analysis of public views and the comparison of public engagement techniques employed in the debate. Analysing contributions from stakeholder organisations 36. It would also be possible to compare and contrast the views of campaigning and other stakeholder bodies (non-governmental organisations, interest groups, professional farming organisations, industry, etc) on the issues raised in the public debate. The main aim of the programme of debate would be to reach people who have not expressed a view. The views of stakeholder organisations are well known to Government. But clearly these organisations will express views about the issues in the course of the debate. One option would be for them to be specifically invited to respond to the film and for their views to be compared and contrasted with the responses from the local discussions, national and regional events, and the focus groups. This would be a useful opportunity to assess the extent to which those organisations are in step with how people at large are thinking about the issues. A UK-wide event for local representatives 37. A further option as part of the programme would be to arrange a UK-wide event bringing together the local group representatives involved in the different regional and national elements of the programme. This would draw the various threads together, compare and contrast regional and national responses and publicise the whole programme of debate. This would be valuable but not essential. Interactive television debate 38. It may be that a national broadcaster would be interested in working with the organisers of the debate in producing an interactive television debate. There is certainly interest among broadcasters in engaging with people in novel ways on political topics. If a national broadcaster chose to get involved, they would of course have editorial control over broadcast material. But it may be that they would be interested in drawing on the work that would have been undertaken in the initial discussion workshops, in producing the film, and in the regional and national events. The broadcaster of course would fund production of any television programme. An interactive television debate would have the potential to bring the issues for debate before a large number of people. Support for local initiatives 39. There might be merit in providing modest material or financial assistance to local community or ad hoc groups so they could pursue their own ideas for local events and debates about the issues raised in the course of the debate.[12] This would provide a further 'bottom-up' element to the debate in addition to the initial citizen groups for framing the issues. Support could be offered during the programme of debate or after the programme is over. Government could explore this possibility, perhaps as part of a programme of fostering local debate on contentious public policy issues. Engagement with other parties 40. The programme of debate we are recommending, if implemented, will not be the only show in town. The mass media will continue to write and broadcast on GM crop issues. The Westminster and devolved Parliaments and Assemblies will be examining and debating the issues. We would hope that the information synthesised and published from the debate would be of value to elected representatives and others in their discussion and deliberations. 41. Non-governmental environmental and industry organisations will be seeking to play a role too. It would be naïve to assume that 'command and control' over the national debate will be vested in any deliberately engineered programme of debate. There will inevitably be interactions between whatever programme of debate is launched and other events outside that programme. But given the all too familiar scope for public discussion to become polarised along familiar lines, we would seek in the core programme of events to avoid polarisation as far as possible and to get to the heart of the issues. 42. Indeed, we would hope that the national and regional media might be interested in reporting on the programme of debate. It would be worth trying to engage national and regional journalists where possible, including by inviting them to different events. Other techniques could also be explored. For example, production of a radio tape incorporating an audio version of some of the content of the film, perhaps combined with an interview from the chair of the debate steering board, could be sent to regional radio stations for broadcast use. Timing 43. A number of factors bear on the timing of a programme of debate. Government has said that the debate should cover the FSE results and the wider review of other information gathered to complement the FSEs as outlined under the AEBC’s recommendation in Crops on Trial. A programme of debate that did not encompass the FSE results and other relevant information could look as if it had been designed to end somewhat prematurely. Starting the debate before the first results from the FSEs are published will help put the results in context. Equally, the debate should not just be about the FSEs but cover possible future developments, including the wide range of GM crops currently being assessed in the EU regulatory process and the potential impact of GM crops already being grown commercially in developed and developing countries. The experience of others indicates that it is important to allow sufficient time to prepare for and carry out a programme of activities like this properly. We suggest, therefore, that the programme of events should be designed to start in autumn 2002 and run on to autumn/winter 2003, after the first set of results from the FSEs is published (in summer 2003). An indicative timetable is at Annex B. The provisional timetable for the FSEs is at Annex C. Management of the programme 44. We believe that the debate should be conducted at arm's length from Government by an independent organisation. Why at arm's length? First, to help make clear that the debate is different from a detailed consultation with stakeholders and the public about specific pre-determined aspects of a proposed Government policy. Government would normally carry out such a consultation exercise. The issues for debate here are likely to be more wide-ranging. Second, outside organisations would probably find it easier to engage the public than Government because, for various reasons, there is some public mistrust about Government's intentions in this area. Third, because using outside bodies would draw in external expertise about engaging the public on science and society issues. Finally, it makes it easier for Ministers and officials to stand back and look at the results of a public debate if Government has not been involved in the detailed organisation of the programme. 45. Government would need to fund the programme. There should be an independent steering board to oversee the programme of debate. The AEBC would be willing to contribute members to the steering board. The steering board would be separate from the independent evaluators who would report on the contributions made in the course of the debate. The evaluators would produce a report that would be published. We envisage that management of the programme of events would be contracted to a company or external organisation, supervised by the steering board. Further details of suggested arrangements are at Annex A. Costs 46. Production and distribution of a broadcast quality film is likely to cost in the region of £70,000. The whole programme of events, including the film, would cost a few hundred thousand pounds, the amount depending on the extent to which the programme is run on a devolved and regional basis and the nature and number of the elements included in the programme. Learning from the process 47. Assessment of the programme of debate would also be worthwhile. Was it an effective means of stimulating public debate? What could have been done better? How applicable might it be to other complex areas of policy? Did it give value for money? The process should be monitored from the outset by a small group of suitably qualified individuals, who at the end of the programme would draw up an assessment of the lessons learned. Including the additional elements (more focus groups, one or more consensus conferences and a comparative analysis of stakeholder views) in the programme of debate would add to the value of this methodological lesson learning exercise. Informing participants of the outcome 48. Giving feedback to participants in the various parts of the programme so that they can see what use had been made of their contributions would be important. At the very least, their attention should be drawn to the final report from the debate. A UK-wide event (paragraph 37 above) at the end of the programme of debate could also be a vehicle to help achieve this. Summary of suggested core programme
April 2002 ANNEX A PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS General principles 1. We believe that it is important that the programme of events and activities should be organised at arm's length from Government. 2. There needs to be proper accountability for spending public money on promoting a debate. The contract or contracts for the one or more organisations carrying out the work on behalf of Government must be properly managed. Government must have sufficient oversight of the programme to ensure this. 3. The various elements of the debate will generate information about public views which should be evaluated independently in line with best academic and professional practice. We also believe that the whole process should be separately assessed, to determine the value of the exercise for other areas of public policy. Arrangements 4. Taking account of these principles, we suggest the following arrangements. Government would tender for a suitably qualified principal contractor to take responsibility for managing the whole programme of events across the UK. The principal contractor would be a company or organisation qualified to manage public engagement exercises of this sort. It could either sub-contract as necessary to other organisations or different elements of the programme, possibly including production of the film, could be the subject of separate contracts. 5. The process would be overseen at a strategic level by a steering board. The membership would be a matter for Ministers but the AEBC would be willing to contribute to membership of the steering board and the AEBC Chair would be willing to chair the board. We would expect Government to wish to be represented at official level on the board not least for reasons of financial accountability. In addition to a few AEBC members, one or two other individuals with particular expertise in running programmes of this sort could be co-opted as required to serve on the steering board. 6. The steering board should offer advice on drawing up the specification for the tender to find a principal contractor. The steering board would be responsible for supervising progress in delivering the programme, giving strategic guidance on the different elements and providing advice on resolving any significant difficulties that arose in carrying out the programme. The chair of the steering board would regularly report on progress and any serious problems with the programme to Ministers. Day-to-day supervision of the project would be the responsibility of Government officials who would report progress and any significant difficulties to the steering board. The steering board would have a joint secretariat drawn from Government officials and the AEBC Secretariat. Editorial questions in relation to the film or other issues about content in the course of the debate should be resolved by the chair and those members of the steering board who were independent of Government, in line with the principle of keeping the debate at arm's length from Government. 7. Separately, an evaluation group should be appointed to independently synthesise and analyse the results from the various elements of the public debate. This group would need to be carefully selected. Its members should be independent and professionally qualified to undertake the synthesis of the contributions made in the debate. The evaluation group should be appointed at the outset of the process. We would expect the principal contractor to be responsible for management of the nuts and bolts work of gathering written feedback from the local events, data from the national and regional events, and from the focus groups. The evaluation group would produce a report at the end of the programme about the information gained in the course of the debate. 8. There would also be value in forming a separate small group of people to assess the process for stimulating a debate with the aim of testing its applicability to other areas of public policy and the extent to which it has offered value for money. We suggest that this could include officials from the Centre for Management and Policy Studies in the Cabinet Office, scientists, social scientists and a member of the AEBC. It would be worth forming this group at an early stage. ANNEX B
ANNEX C FARM SCALE EVALUATIONS: PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE FOR REMAINDER OF PROGRAMME
Notes: (i) Timings are approximate (ii) The FSE results will be presented on an individual crop basis. There are three spring-sown crops (oilseed rape, beet and maize) and one autumn-sown crop (winter oilseed rape). The results will therefore be published in two tranches. DEFRA GM Crops Policy Branch February 2002 ANNEX D Extracts from Government Response to ‘Crops on Trial’ (Presented on behalf of the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland [13]) Recommendation 6: Commit to an open and inclusive process of decision-making around whether the GM crops being grown in the FSEs should be commercialised, within a framework, which extends to broader questions. Government Response: Ministers will have to decide, within the framework of European legislation, whether the crops grown in the FSEs should be commercialised. Government is committed to taking public opinion into account as far as possible through an open decision-making process. There will be a public debate on the possible commercial growing of GM crops. The debate will cover the FSE results and the wider review of the other information gathered to complement the FSEs outlined under the AEBC’s recommendation 4. Members of the public will continue to be able to make their views known on proposed variety listing, on the National Seeds List or EU Common Catalogue, of the crops involved. Government asks the AEBC to advise, by the end of April 2002, on how and when to promote an effective public debate on possible commercialisation of the FSE crops and how to make the best use of the results of such a debate. The advice should also cover how to determine the public acceptability of GM crops, in particular cross-pollination thresholds and GM presence in organic crops. The AEBC are asked to be imaginative in the options they consider but to bear in mind that their recommendations must be practical and cost effective. The debate should involve interest groups but also reach beyond them to the wider public. The methods advocated by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in its 1998 report on environmental standards and in the March 2001 report of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (Open channels: public dialogue in science and technology) should be considered. The AEBC will not necessarily be asked to carry out all aspects of its recommendations - DEFRA, the Devolved Administrations and Government Offices might each participate in different areas of the dialogue with the public. AEBC should advise on which are the most appropriate organisations to carry out the different parts of the process... Recommendation 8: Improve understanding of the basis of public views by drawing on the work of social scientists in this field. Government Response: We acknowledge the need for improved understanding of public views. This is an objective for which all involved in the GM crops debate should strive. It would be helpful if the AEBC would consider this issue further and take this work forward as part of the advice requested in paragraph 30 of this document, under recommendation 6, as to the best methods of promoting an effective public debate on possible commercialisation. Recommendation 10: Include specific consideration of the future of GM crops in the discussions about the future of agriculture in the UK. The various strategic reviews of farming and food being undertaken by the UK administrations should explicitly address how to promote the co-existence of different forms of farming in the UK. There should then be a wider public debate involving a series of regional discussion meetings to consider what role GM crops might have in UK agriculture in the future. The AEBC is willing to contribute to this process. Government Response: We welcome the recommendation that there be a wider public debate on co-existence between the different farming types. Government acknowledges the suggestions made in paragraph 69 of the report about the form of such a debate and is pleased to note the AEBC’s interest in advising on the development of this process. Government is taking up this offer in asking the AEBC to advise further on how a broad public debate might be achieved and how the outcome of such a debate should be used (paragraph 30, under recommendation 6 refers). The report refers, in paragraphs 57 and 58, to the independent Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food that is to report to the Principal Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by 31 January 2002. The Policy Commission’s terms of reference are wide-ranging and relate to England only; however similar exercises are being carried out by the Devolved Administrations. We will take into account the AEBC's recommendations in considering our response to the Policy Commission’s report. DEFRA has been discussing with the various interested parties what measures might be necessary to allow for practical co-existence of GM and non-GM crops. One of the key issues underpinning this process is whether there is public acceptability of the presence of GM material in non-GM produce and if so at what level that might be. Further debate is needed on this issue. Agreement upon this issue could provide a way towards practical measures to preserve consumer choice within the context of commercial GM cultivation, were that to occur. It is against this background that Government has asked (in paragraph 30, under recommendation 6) the AEBC to consider further the issue of public acceptability. ANNEX E AEBC Terms of reference In 1999 the Government reviewed its advisory and regulatory framework on biotechnology. It concluded that a broader approach was needed for strategic issues. The Agriculture and Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) forms part of the new strategic framework. The Commission will:
* In the context of the work of the Commission ‘Government’ comprises the UK Government and the devolved administrations. ANNEX F AEBC Members Professor Malcolm Grant (Chair) Pro Vice Chancellor at the University of Cambridge Ms Julie Hill MBE (Deputy Chair) Programme Adviser and former Director of Green Alliance Reverend Professor Michael Banner Professor of moral and social theology at Kings College, London Ms Anna Bradley Director of the National Consumer Council Ms Helen Browning OBE Tenant Farmer, Eastbrook Farm; Founder and Director of Eastbrook Farm Organic Meats Ltd Dr David Carmichael Arable farmer concentrating on seed production from combinable crops Professor Philip Dale Leader of the Genetic Modification and Biosafety Research Group at the John Innes Centre, Norwich Dr Ed Dart CBE Chairman of Plant Bioscience Ltd Dr Matthew Freeman Senior Researcher at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology Mr John Gilliland Arable farmer with a particular interest in sustainable production systems and the pioneering of non food crops. Professor Robin Grove-White Professor of Environment & Society, and Director of the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University Dr Rosemary Hails MBE Ecologist, and Principal Scientific Officer, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Oxford and lecturer at St Anne’s College Oxford Ms Judith Hann Freelance Broadcaster and Writer who presented Tomorrow’s World for 20 years. Ms Chi Chi Iweajunwa Member of executive evaluation group for NHS Direct and member of Partners Council for NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) Dr Derek Langslow CBE Scientist specialising in nature conservation/biodiversity and former Chief Executive of English Nature Professor Jeff Maxwell OBE Former Director, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute Dr Sue Mayer Executive Director of GeneWatch UK Professor Ben Mepham Director of the Centre for Applied Bioethics at the University of Nottingham and Executive Director of the Food Ethics Council Ms Justine Thornton Barrister specialising in environmental law Dr Roger Turner Chief Executive Officer, British Society of Plant Breeders
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
