Sub Groups

NOTE OF MEETING

These minutes represent the views of the sub-group or its visitors, not the full AEBC

Present

Dave Carmichael
Phil Dale
Robin Grove-White
Rosie Hails
Jeff Maxwell
Sue Mayer
Justine Thornton (convenor)

Judith Harris (secretariat)

1. The group spent the first part of the meeting discussing the draft report on the FSE case study which it was preparing for the full AEBC meeting on 23/24 April.

2. Members agreed that the final version needed to be sharp, concise and should make constructive and positive comment on the decision making process. Robin Grove-White's proposed structure (tabled at the meeting) was agreed to be a good framework for analysing the ideas and information assembled by the group.

3. Care would be needed to ensure the report was clear as to when evidence of various sorts was being reported and when the group or Commission were making judgements and/or drawing conclusions based on that evidence.

4. It was important to ensure that all relevant issues were aired and discussed and that concerns brought forward by others were properly acknowledged. It might be necessary to reflect that there was more than one view within the group in a particular case but the aim should be debate and arrive at a consensus. Outstanding issues should be kept to a minimum.

5. It was agreed that Robin Grove-White and Jeff Maxwell would prepare a revised draft for discussion at the next working group meeting (now fixed for 9 April). Action: Robin Grove-White and Jeff Maxwell

6. The group discussed whether ACRE should be approached for their views on certain scientific issues surrounding the FSEs (eg soil biodiversity) but decided not to do so at the present time. Note: the group is now making an approach following further discussion at its meeting on 23 April.

7. After lunch the group were joined by Judith Jordan and Paul Rylott (Aventis) and Stephen Smith (Syngenta) for a discussion of the seed industry's view of the decision making process surrounding the FSEs.

8. The following points were made:

• Public reaction to the FSE's appeared to be evolving. The response to the announcement of the spring sites is different this year (more muted) than last. There might be various explanations for this. For example, some of the sites are 'repeats' or in the same parish as last year; information has been more timely and better focused and media attention has been concentrated elsewhere. It also has to be said that there were still some parts of the country where there is considerable local opposition.
• Improved information provision takes a number of forms. Farmers hosting FSEs are encouraged to inform their neighbours in advance of the final decision and thereafter to formally notify them as soon as possible. Industry and government officials are attending local meetings by invitation. The regional meetings held last year had been seen as being rather remote and unwilling or unable to address local concerns.
• The initial point of local contact is at County Council (CC) level. If the CC's advice is that there is sufficient local interest a public meeting would be organised at parish level. Information is also available via company 'helplines', websites and from DETR. In some 'new' FSE localities the advice has been that a local meeting is unnecessary as sufficient information had been supplied by other means.
• There is a need to get information to the public in a factual and understandable way. This can be difficult given the differing levels of understanding of, for example, the regulatory framework and conventional (non-gm) agricultural practice. Unrelated local factors might also have a part to play.
• Typical questions asked at local meetings are:
  • why are the FSEs being carried out?
  • is the terminator gene involved (or the antibiotic resistance gene)?
  • how can farmers deal with 'invasions' of actual or supposed FSE sites and (currently) could such action encourage the spread of foot and mouth disease?
• The FSEs should concentrate on biodiversity. Wider concerns need to be addressed but this should not be done by way of additions to the FSEs. In some cases (eg geneflow) examination of existing literature might provide the answer.
• Dealing with the potential consequences of gene stacking is an agronomic issue. Arable farmers are already aware that weeds can become resistant to herbicides and adopt appropriate management strategies to avoid this (eg by changing rotations or using different products).
• Historically industry has not been concerned with wider issues and the process used to be more linear ie: development of product -- approval process -- marketing. It is recognises that this has changed and that consumers (or manufacturers and retailers on their behalf) are now demanding more information on production processes.
• Industry does not expect government to act as an 'unpaid salesman' for the technology but it does expect the regulatory framework to be fair, even, robust and transparent. AEBC can help the public, the government and the industry by ensuring that good quality information is communicated well and to the right audience.
• Consideration is already being given by industry to what might happen at the conclusion of the FSEs. As things stand it is likely that other issues (eg herbicide approval) will remain to be resolved before commercial planting can take place.
• Industry does make information on the position outside the UK available (eg size of gm crop plantings and scientific data) but UK consumers do not necessarily relate this to their own experiences.

9. For the final part of the meeting the group were joined by Ian Gardiner and Michael Paske (NFU), John Dalby (UKROFS) and Patrick Holden (Soil Association).

10. The discussion focussed on three propositions that had been put forward by a farmer at the AEBC's public meeting in Norwich:

No1 A farmer should be able to engage in the method of farming (gm, conventional or organic) that he or she chooses;
No 2 Those three distinct sectors should retain their integrity in order to preserve choice for the farmer and consumer;
No 3 Whichever method the farmer chooses should not interfere with or be to the detriment of another farmer or to members of the public at large.

11. Proposition No1 was ready accepted. The following points were made in the ensuing debate on propositions 2 and 3:

• Choice offered to some consumers might be to the detriment of others. For example, the introduction of gm crops had incurred additional food labelling costs so that preferences for 'conventional' or 'organic' could be exercised. Some consumers might prefer a crop which allowed food to be produced more cheaply or efficiently than one which was gm free.
• The need for labelling is implicit in the marketing of organic crops but their status is currently determined by way of the production process (eg by requiring separation distances). Any move to 'analytical' methods necessitated by the introduction of gm crops would be both difficult and expensive.
• Experience in the USA, where gm crops had been grown for ten years, suggests that choice would be removed over time in any case. The level of 'contamination' there is now such that it is impossible to source gm free crops. Tolerance levels are not appropriate if what the consumer wants is a guaranteed gm free product.
• Liability for damage arising from the introduction of gm crops should be a matter for the farmers who grow them and the biotechnology industry - not the taxpayer.
• Society has had to cope with change (eg the industrial revolution) and would continue to do so. Making unanimous agreement a condition for change would result in no progress whatsoever. The choices might prove to be 'hard' but not necessarily 'wrong' in the longer term. Government should play the role of co-ordinator and decision maker where the views and rights of different parts of society conflict.
• Society is generally risk averse (probably more so when it came to food resources) and wishes to prevent problems rather than to deal with the aftermath (as has been the case with eg BSE and asbestos).
• People are uneasy about gm crops and the regulatory system which controls their introduction because they do not understand what is going on. The process should be more open and transparent so as to encourage a well informed debate.
• Additional criteria should be adopted for the pre-introduction assessment of new technology. These should embrace ethics and public concerns as well as science.

12. Future meetings of the group:
Monday 9 April in the DTI Conference Centre, 1 Victoria ST (9.30am -3.30pm);
Monday 23 April in the Jarvis Mount Royal Hotel, Edinburgh (9.30am - 11.30am).

AEBC secretariat
May 2001