AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
NOTE OF THIRTEENTH MEETING
ON 13 DECEMBER 2001
1 VICTORIA STREET CONFERENCE
CENTRE
Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission
Professor Michael Banner (until 1pm)
Ms Anna Bradley (convenor)
Dr Matthew Freeman
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Professor Ben Mepham
Richard Abel (AEBC Secretary)
Mileva Novkovic (AEBC Secretariat)
Tanya Croft (Citigate) (until 1pm)
1. Judith Hann and Helen Browning had sent apologies.
2. The minutes were agreed.
3.
The sub-group considered further work on the first
draft of the report on animals and biotechnology in the light of the points made
by AEBC members at the AEBC meeting on 5 December.
4.
The sub-group discussed the new chapter on
decision-making (part 5). It was
agreed that for the purposes of this part of the report ‘ethical
considerations’ should be understood broadly, encompassing in particular
environmental and economic considerations.
The chapter should be drafted to include concrete examples of some of
the ethical issues and dilemmas in public policy relating to modern
biotechnology and animals. The report
would not aim to give definitive answers to these issues and dilemmas. This would be a task for the present animal
advisory bodies and the new strategic body.
The chapter should include reference to the different possible
approaches to the task: in particular using a framework of ethical theories to
facilitate analysis of the issues; or starting from the ways in which we tend
to think and act about all the relevant factors relating to the humane use of
animals (bounded by, say, the Banner principles) to reach a consensus on the
issue in question.
5.
The sub-group agreed that the qualitative social
research into public attitudes to animals and biotechnology undertaken
by Phil Macnaghten should be treated separately in the text from the findings
from the public reference group. These
were methodologically and substantively different exercises. The purpose of the reference group was to
allow the sub-group to ensure that its specific conclusions about the
regulatory system were more likely to take account of deeper public concerns and
interests relating to society’s relationships with animals, and are described
in the report in ways which would allow the public to recognise that their
concerns were being addressed. The
qualitative research, while complementary to this purpose, dealt in much more
detail with the way people thought and felt about animals. Paragraph 14 of the draft report should be
restructured to reflect these differences, making clear that the sub-group had
reached its conclusions independently first and then tested these out both with
the reference group and with stakeholders.
The work of the reference group could be discussed in part 3
(methodology) and in the conclusions and recommendations. The quantitative social research on the
other hand was part of the sub-group’s evidence base.
6. The sub-group noted that there was some quantitative data on public attitudes, particularly the Eurobarometer surveys, which was of prima facie relevance to the subject matter of the report. This data could be discussed alongside the report’s discussion of quantitative research into public attitudes.
7. There were a number of bodies which looked at the environmental impact of agriculture, notably the Environment Agency, the Sustainable Development Commission, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage. This should be noted in the report; and supported the conclusion that Farm Animal Welfare Council’s (FAWC’s) remit and membership should not be changed to make it responsible for looking at environmental impact, which it was feared could risk blurring FAWC’s focus on animal welfare.
8. The section in the report on the role of the State Veterinary Service in the enforcement of farm animal welfare (paragraphs 118-119) required expansion. It was essential that any recommendations for change were underpinned by adequate evidence. In addition, the possible role of codes of conduct in agriculture required further work. It could be that the Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming would make recommendations in this area which would be relevant. Codes of conduct could be relevant to both the sections on legislation and enforcement in the report.
9. The sub-group agreed a number of other points in relation to the report, as follows:
i. there was a question about whether selective breeding of farm and companion animals would have negative implications for genetic diversity. The new strategic body could consider what further work was required and by whom it should be undertaken;
ii. the implications of public distrust of the Government as a regulator of agriculture should be brought out more fully in the report;
iii. rather than refer to the ‘uses’ of animals in the report, description of ‘relationships’ with animals would avoid misinterpretation of the report as presupposing an entirely instrumentalist view of what could be done with animals. For the same reason, the new strategic body would be better called the ‘Advisory Council on Animals’ or the ‘Animals Council’;
iv. as techniques improved, cloning might have positive as well as negative implications for animal welfare and the text should reflect this;
v. the point made in evidence from PPL to the sub-group, that research to improve animal welfare is only likely to be funded publicly, should be included in part 7. Basic, applied and other research needed to be distinguished in this section of the report;
vi. the description of the rationale for the conclusion that general animal welfare legislation should be updated (paragraph 58) was confused and should be reordered and explicated. It should include an early statement that the AEBC had examined whether the status quo was adequate and had concluded that it was not. More generally, the report should make clear that the presumption of the sub-group was to support the regulatory status quo unless there was evidence to support specific changes;
vii. the definition of ‘GM animal’ used in the 2001 Royal Society report should be employed throughout the AEBC report (paragraph 9 onwards);
viii. the likely trajectory of public concern about biotechnology developments relating to animals should be examined in part 4, building on an expanded survey of future such developments in part 3;
ix. the point about the equivalence of GM animals with other foreign species in relation to adventitious or deliberate spread through ecosystems (paragraph 79) required qualification;
x. the account of farm animal legislation in part 6 should describe European Community provisions more explicitly;
xi. bovine somatotrophin had been banned in the EU on human health as well as animal welfare grounds (paragraph 102);
xii. the extent of infertility in the dairy herd and the proportion of the national herd populated from a single bull (paragraph 7) required enumeration;
xiii. the executive summary (part 2) of the report should be more than a simple list of the report’s recommendations;
xiv. references in the report should be to primary source documents wherever possible.
The Secretariat would incorporate these points in a revised draft, which would be circulated in sections, beginning with part 4, to sub-group members for comment and agreement, before a revised text was circulated to the whole Commission in advance of the March meeting.
Action: Secretariat
10. It was agreed that the only evidence taken by the whole sub-group at its next meeting would be from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The remainder of the time would be used for further discussion of the draft report. Jeff Maxwell would meet Professor Mike Radford in Aberdeen to discuss legislation and other issues emerging from the report. The Secretariat would provide Professor Maxwell with an aide memoire of questions in advance of that meeting. The Secretariat would undertake further research in relation to sporting animals and report to the sub-group.
Action: Secretariat and Jeff Maxwell
11. Professor Mepham agreed to provide the Secretariat with further information on the commercial production in Japan of cloned beef and other developments relevant to part 3 of the report.
Action: Ben Mepham
12. The Secretariat would meet the Regulatory Impact Unit, who had expressed interest in some of the subjects covered in the report.
Action: Secretariat
13. This would take place on Tuesday 22 January, with subsequent meetings on Saturday 2 February (with the reference group), 15 February and 14 March.
AEBC Secretariat
January 2001
