Sub Groups

1. Professor Alan Gray (Chair of ACRE) joined the group for the first part of the meeting.  He was accompanied by Dr Linda Smith from DETR, representing the ACRE secretariat. A summary of the issues discussed is given below.

ACRE relationships with its secretariat and other bodies (including AEBC)

2. In response to questions from members of the group, Prof Gray explained that he had asked Dr Smith to accompany him to help answer any detailed questions and to deal with any follow up from the morning’s discussion.  He would arrange for a copy of a letter he had recently sent to Ministers about the role of the ACRE secretariat to be copied to members of the group (this has now been done).

3. ACRE members did not rely on the secretariat’s interpretation of the scientific data presented to them but they did rely on its members to locate and present the data to the committee. There was no reason why this method of working should in any way compromise public confidence in the scientific integrity of the decisions made.

4. Where appropriate ACRE would consult other expert advisory bodies such as the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF) and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP). In the absence of a relevant advisory body (as had been the case until fairly recently for animal feedingstuffs) ACRE would still seek advice from outside experts on an individual basis. Various measures were in place to ensure that there were no ‘gaps’ between the advisory bodies. The Chair of ACNFP was, for example, an ex-officio member of ACRE.

5. ACRE considered both specific applications and strategic issues such as impact on biodiversity.   It was, however, a scientific committee and did not provide advice on wider issues such as public involvement in decision making, socio-ethical considerations or the potential benefits of GM crops.  That was where the AEBC came in. The two bodies could and should work together to ensure that all the issues were covered.

Decision making on GM crops and the current FSEs

6. ACRE was following up the additional information on animal feeding studies brought forward at the hearing on the seed listing of non-GM maize (Chardon LL).  It had been aware of these studies when determining the original application for release and had taken advice from MAFF scientists who had assessed the data from animal feeding studies. Consent holders had a duty to send any relevant new information to ACRE and, if necessary, a further risk assessment would be carried out.

7. ACRE had consulted DETR and the Pesticides Safety Directorate on the use of glufosinate on FSE sites.  Decisions had not been made on a ‘site by site’ basis. The expectation of ACRE was that these would all be on agricultural land where crops such as oil seed rape would normally be expected to be planted and subject to a conventional herbicide regime.  ACRE would expect to be consulted about any specific sites where this expectation was incorrect. There was no context for local consultation on herbicide usage on agricultural land.

8. ACRE was looking at strategic issues that fell within the scientific context and a working group had set up to advise on the assessment of ‘harm’ to the environment.  At present the only available indicators were those in the UKs biodiversity action plan.

9. Baselines were required in order to assess whether change had occurred.  This would make it difficult in the case of soil micro-organisms – one of the two issues most frequently raised in AEBC’s discussions with members of the public.  The second, water quality, was more a question relating to herbicide use and therefore for the Pesticide Safety Directorate.  It was important to remember that not all types of ‘harm’ were irreversible and Professor Gray thought that any unexpected adverse effects resulting from the release of those GMOs that had been given marketing consent to date, were reversible.

10. The GM crops that ACRE were currently being asked to assess were annual ones.  Different issues might arise in the risk assessment of other types of crop eg permanent plantings of salt tolerant crops. 

Public consultation

11. Comments made to AEBC and the group by members of the public suggested that there was a clear - but unmet- demand for local consultation on the selection of FSE sites. The various parties involved also needed to develop a better understanding of what terms such as 'risk assessment' and 'variability' meant to other participants in the debate.

12. GM crops were not new but current developments were going at a faster pace and possibly acting as an accelerant for wider concerns about intensive agriculture.  A more holistic approach was required and new methods of debate should be explored.  ‘Experts lecturing from platforms’ did not create the right environment for constructive discussion.

13. Bodies such as ACRE could advise on the science but many of the decisions were political ones.  It was, for example, possible to identify the scientific consequences of separation distances between GM and non-GM crops but additional considerations applied when making decisions as to whether these were acceptable to society in general or particular sectors such as organic farmers.

14. The second part of the meeting was taken up with discussion of the framework and the issues to be covered in the draft report on the FSE case study which the group was to present to the Commission at its next meeting on 23/24 April.  To assist with this each member had circulated in advance a short 'story' summarising his/her own views as to what had been learnt and the central features to be addressed in the report.

15. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that Jeff Maxwell (assisted by Judith Harris) would draw up an outline structure for the report which would aim to encapsulate the various roles and issues that had been identified (this has now been done).  Group members would then provide draft contributions which Jeff would edit to give consistency.  Once the issues had been set down, the group would be in a position to develop draft recommendations to Government at its next meeting on 26^th March.  The draft report would then be circulated to all Commission members with a request for initial comments before the Commission meeting.  Action : Group members to provide draft contributions as requested.

16. The group also agreed that it should aim to have discussions with representatives of the farming and seed producing industry on 26^th March.  The secretariat was asked to make the necessary arrangements.  Action: secretariat.

Future meetings

17. Monday 26 March in room 4/4 Albany House to consider first draft report and meet with industry representatives.

18. A further meeting to be arranged immediately before the Commission meeting on 23/24 April to consider comments from other Commission members.

AEBC Secretariat
March 2001