Sub Groups

NOTE OF MEETING

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

Present

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

Judith Harris (secretariat)

Malcolm Grant, Chair of AEBC joined the group for the last part of its discussions

1. Members agreed that the draft minutes of the meeting on 15 January prepared by the secretariat should be expanded to give a better reflection of the nuances of the discussion. To this end members would send comments to the secretariat by close on 13 February.
Action: members and then secretariat

2. The group then discussed the paper on the science of the FSEs prepared by Rosie Hails and Phil Dale. Was its content about right and what purpose should it serve?

3. The authors advised that production of a complete and authoritative examination of all the scientific issues such as had been raised in the Greenpeace summary of the 'Lyng' evidence (published in 'GM on trial') - would be an extremely time consuming task. Members debated whether this was, in any case, what they were looking for especially given that reviewing the scientific decisions made by other bodies such as ACRE and the Scientific Steering Committee was not within the AEBC's remit.

4. They concluded that the paper should be viewed as a resource for the group and, possibly later, the Commission. It would evolve into material which could be included in the report on the case study. Rosie Hails and Phil Dale agreed to produce a revised version which would include additional information from the DETR paper of 26 January.
Action: Rosie Hails and Phil Dale to revise paper.

5. The group then moved on to discuss issues surrounding the science such as the public perception of 'what the science had left out'. There was, for example, a range of other scientific issues extending beyond biodiversity which people felt should be addressed. There was a need for the group to get a better feel for the nature and scope of the criticisms. Were they in fact related to the science or more the manifestation of a feeling of fundamental unfairness. These would be complicated issues to unravel but that, after all, was the AEBC's role.

6. The group would also need to make a judgement as to how far public concerns had been influenced by Government statements (and their reporting in the media) and how far by the restrictions of the regulatory framework which did not allow the views of third parties (eg neighbouring farmers) to be brought into the debate.

7. It was agreed that the group's role was not to track back exhaustively to resolve each and every concern about the science of the FSEs. A more productive way of proceeding would be for each member to write down his or her 'story' on the purpose of the group and the main issues that should feature in its draft report. These might, for example, include views as to whether the science or public perception should be the starting point, the need for FSEs to feature in the regulatory process and the compatibility of organic and 'high tec' farming.

8. Members agreed that they would each write their 'stories' and that these should form the basis of a brainstorming session at the next London meeting on 26 February.
Action: members to write and circulate their 'stories' by close on 23 February.

9. Sue Mayer asked whether it was still intended to send a letter to stakeholders seeking views on the case study. The general feeling of the group was that the time for this might have passed; the situation would though be kept under review.

10. The group then went on to discuss the framing of the questions for the next day's evidence taking session by the full Commission. Malcolm Grant joined them for the latter part of this item. They agreed that the format of the session should be focussed but unintimidating and sufficiently informal to encourage a constructive debate. The group decided that the opening questions (and who should ask them) should be set out in some detail. They discussed and amended a draft previously circulated by Justine Thornton (see Annex for final version). Group members would lead the questioning but provision should also be made for other Commission members to follow up.

11. It was also agreed that those giving evidence should be given the list of questions that evening. This would a reasonable balance between the need for informed responses and overpreparedness.

12. It was noted under any other business that the Commission had, at its December meeting asked that one of the members of the group prepare a paper on the 'state of the debate' over geneflow.

13. Future meetings
Group members (with the exception of Sue Mayer who had previous commitments) would be participating in informal discussions with local farmers, women's groups and local councils in Norwich on 6 and 7 February.

Thereafter the group would next meet in Inverness on 19 February at the invitation of the Highland Council. Robin Grove-White gave his apologies for this meeting (made necessary by previous commitments).

The next London meeting would be on 26 February.

AEBC secretariat
February 2001

Annex

Case study of the Farm-Scale Evaluations: Questions for Witnesses

Science Les Firbank (project co-ordinator fse consortium)

4. Justine Thornton As we understand, the purpose in conducting the FSE''s is to test a hypothesis. Put simply the hypothesis is that the effect on bio-diversity of the GM crops in the trials is no different from non GM crops. We also understand, that biodiversity may be measured by many different factors (e.g. it could be measured by looking at earthworms or it could be measured by looking at birds) The SSC has inevitably had to make judgements about what should be measured. This is not reflected in the hypothesis; this may have contributed to confusion about what the evaluations can show us. Have you had to make such 'judgements' and if you were to write the hypothesis again, would you make the limits of the evaluations clearer?

5. Robin Grove-White (follow up by Phil Dale) The results of the FSEs are unlikely to be 'black and white' and provide clear answers. For example, you are monitoring a range of species (e.g. slugs and butterflies) to see how they respond to the crops. However they may not respond in the same way. (The number of butterflies might increase by 5 while the number of slugs might drop by 10.) How do you decide whether the changes in numbers are ecologically significant and how do you decide which of the results (slugs/butterflies) is more significant. How do you present these complexities in your results? (Are there any other areas of potential uncertainty ?)

6. Rosie Hails As we understand, there has in the past been very little research that attempts to measure the impact of particular crop varieties on bio-diversity and we are very much "cutting our teeth" on these sets of experiments. Will the FSEs help identify organisms that are indicators of the effects of agriculture on farmland biodiversity that we can use for any future GM crops and for non GM crops?

7. Dave Carmichael If GM crops are grown on a commercial basis, what other measures might be needed to evaluate their impacts on the environment?

8. Phil Dale In view of the fact that very few weeds are currently observed in conventional agriculture, and that there are herbicide tolerant plant varieties produced by conventional plant breeding, how reasonable is it to ask for farmland biodiversity impact studies for GM herbicide tolerant varieties, and largely ignore the impact of the rest? As there have been no comparable experiments to assess the impact on farmland biodiversity of specific conventionally bred varieties, do you think all crops should be evaluated or neither GM or non GM?

Regulatory (DETR (Linda Smith) and English Nature (Brian Johnson))

9. Justine Thornton Are you on track for the FSEs to be completed in 2002 and will there be sufficient data on which to make decisions about the future commercialisation of the crops?

10. Sue Mayer We have looked at statements made by Michael Meacher and the DETR about the FSEs in press releases and in the media. We think that the language used may have contributed to misconceptions about the nature of the FSEs. As we understand from the DETR, the trials are a set of monitored plantings of three GM crops to assess the impact on wildlife of crops which tolerant to particular herbicides (info provided in DETR background paper to AEBC). However the language of the press releases is different e.g.

"The FSE of GM crops is extremely important research which will ensure that the managed development of GM crops will take place safely" (Michael Meacher DETR press release June 99)

Do you agree that this may have caused confusion as to why the FSEs have been undertaken and what the results show? If so, are you intending to make any changes to future statements on the FSEs?

11. Robin Grove-White Does EN believe that the FSEs will answer all the questions surrounding impacts of growing GM crops on biodiversity and are there any other outstanding issues? Should fse's be carried out on future crops? Assessing the impacts of herbicides on biodiversity is directly within EN's terms of reference, nature conservation advisors to the Government. This is however only part of the fuller range of concerns reflected in the views of wider public and NGOs like Greenpeace and FOE, etc. but perhaps not one EN can comment on. Is this correct and do you agree that for many people, other aspects (potential alergenicities, etc) which will not be covered by the FSEs, are as important?

12. Robin Grove-White One of the aspects of the FSEs causing public concern is the potential for genes to transfer from the crops to other crops/plants via, for example, bees. As we understand, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) have considered this. Their approach, to generalise, is that there will almost always be gene-flow. Their recommended separation distances will reduce any flow but what is more important are the consequences of that gene-flow. There is no evidence yet of harm but a precautionary approach should be adopted and technologies to reduce/prevent gene-flow should be adopted. Since those judgements were made has there been in your view any evidence to contradict this approach and how does this fit with the "zero tolerance" concept.

13. Rosie Hails/Phil Dale In view of the fact that very few weeds are currently observed in conventional agriculture, and that there are herbicide tolerant plant varieties produced by conventional plant breeding, how reasonable is it to ask for farmland biodiversity impact studies for GM herbicide tolerant varieties, and largely ignore the impact of the rest? As there have been no comparable experiments to assess the impact on farmland biodiversity of specific conventionally bred varieties, do you think all crops should be evaluated or neither GM or non GM?

NGO's Greenpeace (Doug Parr)/Friends of the Earth (Pete Riley)

14. Justine Thornton As we understand, Greenpeace and FoE were consulted by the DETR in October 1998 about the FSEs. Do you think the consultation was adequate, bearing in mind that to be consulted does not necessarily mean 'to be followed'!!

15. Jeff Maxwell We know you have concerns about the conduct of the trials. Unfortunately we do not have time today to hear your evidence in detail on this. We do however have written evidence from you on this (e.g. replies to workplan consultation and recent e-mails). For the purposes of the more strategic approach we're taking today; what scientific concerns do you have about the growing GM crops which are not addressed in the farm-scale evaluations?

16. Rosie Hails How have you evaluated the views of the public on the FSEs? Given the conflicting views on the trials, how do you think the Government should make future decisions on commercialisation of crops.

17. Phil Dale If we asked you to prioritise your concerns; what is of most concern to you? - the scientific merits of the FSEs, how the results will be used, whether GM crops should be grown at all or whether there is room in the current regulatory process for wider ethical socio-economic "non scientific" concerns?

Industry SCIMAC (Stephen Smith and Daniel Pearsall)

18. Justine Thornton Farmers are expected to follow the SCIMAC guidelines in the operation of the farm-scale evaluations. What steps are being taken to ensure this is happening and what problems (if any) have been experienced to date?

19. Sue Mayer We have heard considerable disquiet expressed from people living close to FSE sites that they were not consulted about them. Do you think that local people should be consulted and do you have any views on how this should take place?

20. Jeff Maxwell If FSE are required for future GM crops, this will slow down your ability to get the crops to market. Industry must be faced with an inevitable tension between ensuring that the crops don't harm people or the environment and remaining competitive. Is this a problem and if so, what can be done about it?

21. Dave Carmichael The trials may reveal uncertainties in how the environment might be affected by GM crops. If GM crops are commercialised. What steps will industry take to prevent any harm to the environment and do you have any views on the position of farmers who may face legal action if anything should go wrong?

22. Sue Mayer Are there any issues not addressed by the FSEs which industry considers are important either now, or in the future, to address in relation to growing GM crops.

23. Phil Dale In view of the fact that very few weeds are currently observed in conventional agriculture, and that there are herbicide tolerant plant varieties produced by conventional plant breeding, how reasonable is it to ask for farmland biodiversity impact studies for GM herbicide tolerant varieties, and largely ignore the impact of the rest? As there have been no comparable experiments to assess the impact on farmland biodiversity of specific conventionally bred varieties, do you think all crops should be evaluated or neither GM or non GM?

5.2.01