Sub Groups

INFORMAL MEETING WITH FARMERS ON 6 FEBRUARY 2001

Six members of the sub-group - Dave Carmichael, Phil Dale, Robin Grove-White, Rosie Hails, Jeff Maxwell and Justine Thornton -met with a group of local farmers for informal discussion after the AEBC meeting on 5/6 February. Judith Harris from the secretariat was also present.

Some of the farmers had been present at one or both of the Commission's public sessions in Norwich and some had also attended the December public sessions in London.

A summary of the main points made in the discussion on the evening of 6 February is given below.

The public sessions at the Norwich meeting

On the whole these had been interesting and valuable. It was important to let people have their say but there had been a certain amount of repetition as between the comments made in the public sessions in London and Norwich. Views expressed had not necessarily come from the public - as opposed to activists.

On a practical note 'witnesses' at evidence giving sessions should in future face the audience and attention should be paid to helping the audience identify who was speaking. Single as opposed to paired witnesses seemed to work better.

The role of the sub-group

The group's study had a wide remit. It should focus on the real issues and not become diverted by extreme views. The questions asked at the evidence taking session suggest it is still at the 'sifting' stage. Informal meetings - such as this one - were often a better way of finding out what people really thought than formal public sessions.

Public perceptions of the issues surrounding genetically modified crops and the Farm-Scale Evaluations

Views on gm's fell into three main categories. Pro, anti and a significant middle ground of people seeking information on which to base decisions.

Meetings on FSEs might appear to be well attended but those present were often not local.

Good news stories on gm (eg anti cancer properties) attract only low key media coverage bad news/Frankenfoods went to the front page.

There seemed to be a fear that 'something would go wrong that couldn't be put right again'.

The views of farmers

Separation distances were needed to maintain the integrity of the crop being trialled but there was no reason why the 2m standard distance used in breeding trials should not suffice for gm crops.

The use of gm herbicide tolerant crops would allow stubble to be left until the spring because farmers could be certain of treating weeds. This would help encourage biodiversity.

The evidence did not necessarily substantiate claims that modern farming techniques resulted in reduced biodiversity.

GM technology was not new - it had been around for 20 years. Concerns now being raised should be looked at in the context of those raised about previous new technologies eg irradiation in the 1960s. Farmers did not want to be left behind in the adoption of new technology.

There was a need to keep up with EU and global developments but worries about 'global domination' were overplayed. Keys to public acceptability were the production of crops with improved price, flavour, keeping quality or, for example, anti cancer properties. GM could prove beneficial to organic farming by reducing pesticide usage. Production of industrial crops was also a possibility.

There would be an increased need for traceablity. Farmers would need to be prepared to provide a history of crops grown in a particular field and the treatments given.

Scientists could not say there was no risk but Greenpeace and other organisations could claim risk and immediately attract the attention of the media. This made it difficult for farmers to explain their views.

AEBC should continue to seek the views of farmers in addition to other groups.

AEBC secretariat
February 2001