Sub Groups

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

Present :

There were no apologies for absence.  All of the group were there.

2. The group agreed that comments made in some of the responses to the Work Plan consultation emphasised the need to consider the terms and presentation of its work very carefully.  The purpose was to use the study of the process relating to the Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSE) as a case study of decision making not an end in itself.  The aim should be to add value by determining what recommendations might be made to ensure that strategic decision making relating to biotechnology worked better in future.  To reinforce this point the facts assembled during the course of the study might be best summarised separately in an appendix rather than in the report itself.

3. The objectives established by the group (attached at A) were a means to an end.  The precise mechanisms for arriving there had still to be considered.  In some ways assembling and analysing the science would be easier than examining the information on public attitudes which tended to be sectorised and ill defined.

4. It was also important to study the broad context in which the decisions relating to the FSEs had been made.  Conventional agricultural practice meant that certain areas of the country were already free of certain types of weeds and this needed to be taken into account when considering the effects on biodiversity of growing gm herbicide tolerant crops.  The European perspective was also important.

5. In terms of timetabling, the group agreed to set an ambitious timetable.  It would work towards an evidence taking session by the whole Commission at its fourth meeting in February and production of a draft report for discussion at the fifth Commission meeting in April. Members of the group then went on to discuss how best to collect the further information needed.

6. Members confirmed that they did want to write to Michael Meacher (Minister of State for the Environment) along the lines of the draft letter previously prepared by the secretariat.  This should, however, be amended so as to seek specific comment on various public statements (see attached note at B) as to the purpose of the trials. A list and copies of all relevant press releases should also be obtained.   Action : secretariat to draft letter and obtain details of press releases.

7. The group also decided to ask the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) to supply the minutes of meetings held to discuss the FSE with organisations such as English Nature (EN) and the Royal Society for Protection of Birds (RSPB). Action : secretariat to discuss provision of further information with DETR.

8. Phil Dale and Rosie Hails were asked to provide an analysis of the issues arising from the science relating to the FSEs and also of other projects aimed at examining the effects of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops on biodiversity.  In addition to the information already commissioned or provided, it was suggested that the group should also consider the evidence supplied by Greenpeace to the Lyng trial. Action : Phil Dale and Rosie Hails.

9. An agronomist’s report on the broader context of the FSE should be commissioned. The writer should be asked to provide an environmental appraisal of developments in agriculture with or without genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops. The impacts of different forms of weed control in three types of agriculture ( integrated crop mangement, intensive and organic) should be examined. Action : secretariat.

10. An analysis of the regulatory system and the differences in application as between gentically modified, conventional and organic crops should also be commissioned.  Action : secretariat.

11. The best means of exploring the views of the general public was discussed at some length. The workshop being set up by Robin Grove-White under the auspices of developmental group A (public attitudes and consumer choice) could be helpful in this respect.  In due course, that group might also be best placed to take forward a study to reliably establish public opinion. The sub-group decided though to take the opportunity the Commission’s visit to Norwich in February to talk to local groups such as National Farmers’ Union, Womens’ Institute and schools to gain a feel for local opinion.  A visit to the Highland and Islands Council (who had commented on the lack of public consultation in its response to the Work Plan) might also be appropriate.  In addition to these specific exercises, a consultation letter should also be issued  so that other groups could feed in comments.  The purpose of these two exercises would be to help the group’s understanding of the nature of public concerns. Action : secretariat.

12.   Future meetings :

Monday 15 January 9am in London;

Wednesday 7 February in Norwich.

AEBC secretariat
December 2000

AEBC SUBGROUP A : OBJECTIVES A

To evaluate the role of the FSEs in the regulatory process and in appraising the impact of GM plant technology on the agri-environment

• By reviewing the reasons for setting up the trials;
• By reviewing the extent of governmental, commercial and public consultation and decision making processes used in agreeing the objectives and the implementation of the trials;
• By understanding the agreed objectives of the trials, and the protocols used to carry them out;
• By reviewing the parameters and extent of the data available to reach conclusions;
• By reviewing the public’s opinions and perceptions of the FSEs;
• By identifying the significant gaps in information that may remain following the conclusion of the FSEs relevant to appraising the impact of GM plant technology on the environment taking into account the public’s continuing concerns about the application of GM plant technology.

AEBC Secretariat
November 2000

Some Statements on the Farm-Scale Evaluations

'These farm-scale trials will ensure that the managed development of GM crops in the UK takes place safely'

DETR Farm Scale Evaluation Fact Sheet, 1999

'The farm-scale evaluation of GM crops is extremely important research which will ensure that the managed development of GM crops will take place safely'   

'A contentious area at present is the development of genetically modified crops. At the farm level, the Government's approach is based on a full ecological evaluation of field-scale plantings before commercial crops are planted. The approach means that we shall be able to identify any problems in time to take the appropriate action, at the same time as being able to assess the potential benefits for the environment and for farmers alike.'

'We cannot take action in respect of GM crops unless we can show evidence that they constitute a risk of harm either to human health or the environment. These trials will show whether there is such evidence'

'The trials will show whether there is evidence of risk or harm to human health or the environment.'