AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION
NOTE OF FOURTEENTH MEETING
ON 22 JANUARY 2002
DTI CONFERENCE CENTRE, 1
VICTORIA STREET
Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission
Ms Anna Bradley (convenor)
Ms Judith Hann
Dr Matthew Freeman
Professor Jeff Maxwell
Professor Ben Mepham
Richard Abel (AEBC Secretary)
Mileva Novkovic (AEBC Secretariat)
1. Michael Banner and Helen Browning had sent apologies.
2. The minutes were agreed, although it was noted that the treatment in the report of the likely trajectory of public concern (point 8 on page 3) would now be revised in the light of chapter 5 (factors in decision-making) of the current draft report in conjunction with further analysis of social research data.
3. Jeff Maxwell had met Dr Mike Radford, an authority on animal welfare legislation. Dr Radford had been generally supportive of the group’s draft report. He had a number of concerns in particular about the enforcement of animal welfare, which were been set out in his recent book Animal Welfare Law in Britain.
4. The sub-group group agreed the following:
· Professor Maxwell and one other member would have a meeting with members of the veterinary profession under the auspices of the RCVS, in order to gain their views on the draft report. The Secretariat would prepare a list of questions for the vets prior to the meeting;
· the draft report should note some of the concerns raised with the sub-group about enforcement but not seek to make detailed recommendations. The report would state that this was outside the AEBC’s remit and that others were better-placed than the AEBC to do this. Enforcement issues would be something for existing advisory bodies and the new strategic body to consider as necessary;
· that the secretariat should obtain further information about the Zoos Forum.
Action: Secretariat
5. The sub-group had before it a note from the Secretariat. Members noted the views of the sporting industry bodies on the implications of applying biotechnology to animals used in the sports and also what the existing rules for the breeding of racehorses, other horses and greyhounds said about whether artificial insemination, genetic modification, or cloning, could be used. The sub-group agreed that the proposed strategic body could usefully keep a watching brief on developments in this as in other areas. The sub-group noted that these sporting animals were employed in different ways to companion and farm animals and this had to be taken into account in considering how they should be governed in regulation. There was a grey area over whether sporting animals should be considered companion animals for the purposes of the present advisory structure. The new strategic body might consider whether the remits of FAWC or CAWC could usefully be extended to cover some or all sporting animals. The report would note this.
6. The sub-group noted that the application of modern biotechnology to wild animals could be an issue for the future which the new strategic body could usefully monitor. The RSPCA’s organisational structure in relation to companion animals would also be checked. Effective interaction between the new strategic body and the environmental agencies would be important.
Reference group Workshop on 2 February
7. MORI had asked for a steer as to what the sub-group wished to gain from the third Reference Group Workshop.
8. The sub-group agreed that the day should start with a presentation from the sub-group which would reiterate how they had approached their task and how the reference group had contributed to the sub-group’s work. The sub-group would then set out the way in which their thinking and the report had developed (a flow diagram illustrating the development of the argumentation would be used); how the reference group viewed the sub-group’s recommendations for the regulatory and advisory structure (a map showing the existing and recommended regulatory and advisory structure would be used); and future public involvement in the regulatory system. MORI would take care of the practical arrangements for the interaction of sub-group members with the three groups.
9. The sub-group would consider using the reference group further to get their reactions to the full and summary versions of the final report. Citigate were producing a draft summary of the report aimed at a wider public audience. To sit alongside this, Judith Hann agreed to produce an even simpler version which could be readily understood by schoolchildren. The sub-group asked for Citigate’s draft summary by 8 February.
10. The outcome of the reference group workshop would be reported orally to the public attitudes developmental group meeting on 11 February.
11. The issue by DEFRA of a consultation document on a review of general animal welfare legislation was noted. The group also noted the need to avoid confusion between the forthcoming Animal Health Bill and the review of legislation.
12. The sub-group
considered the revised draft prepared by the Secretariat. In general, they thought that the report was
now sufficiently comprehensive. The
need was to ensure that all the facts were correct and that the evidence
leading to conclusions was robust.
13. The sub-group agreed that the report now contained most of the necessary material, but that it would benefit from restructuring. The logic of presentation of the early sections of the report required revision to reflect the sub-group’s latest thinking: it needed to be more consistent with the recommendations in Part 6. The titles of some of the parts also required amendment. The aim should be to set out clearly what the group had set out to do, present logically its methods and, consequent upon its general conclusions about animals and biotechnology, explain why it had taken the direction it had in determining its approach to formulating its conclusions. The group agreed the following new structure:
Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations
Part 3 – The Method and Scope of our Work
3.1 Our Purpose
3.2 Our Method
3.3 Present and Future Biotechnology Relating to Animals [para 7-30]
3.4 Society’s Relationship with, and Attitudes To Animals [para 47-51]
3.5 The present Regulatory Framework [para 72-92]
3.6 An analysis of our findings [31-46 with some revision]
Part 4 – What Should a Legislative and Regulatory Framework Do? [para 52-67]
Part 5 – Our Conclusions and recommendations [para 68-71]
5.1 On Legislation [para 93-115]
5.2 On Advisory Bodies [para 116-148]
5.3 On Monitoring and Enforcement [para 149-155]
5.4 On Responsibility Within Government [para 156-170]
Part 6 – Some Observations on Public and Private Research [para 159-170]
14. In addition to the revised structure, the sub-group agreed the following changes into the next draft of the report:
· develop the new section on factors in decision-making, which members generally welcomed, by revising paragraphs 53 and 54. The cross-cutting issues that had been identified in this section supported the conclusion that there was a need for a new strategic body. The conclusions from this section should be more clearly related to the subsequent conclusions about the advisory bodies. The conclusion that there should not be double standards in relation to the application of modern biotechnology and other techniques to animals should underpin the whole report;
Members also made in discussion a number of other detailed points which the secretariat undertook to incorporate into a revised draft of the report. Individual members undertook to forward any further detailed drafting points to the secretariat after the meeting.
Action: Sub-group and secretariat
15. At the next meeting the sub-group would give priority to the sections dealing with public attitudes; review the report’s recommendations and consider how best to present the report’s recommendations. In the meantime, the Secretariat would draft a letter for Malcolm Grant to send to people who had written with particular concerns about the scope of the report being outside the sub-group’s remit and other particular points. The draft letter would explain again the way the group had approached its work. The Secretariat would incorporate factual corrections received in this and other correspondence. The sub-group would also clear sections of its developing report with AEBC members who had expressed particular concerns at the last AEBC meeting.
16. Members were aware of the forthcoming publication on 29 January of the Food & Farming Policy Commission report. The secretariat would flag up the relevant recommendations of the report before forwarding it to members.
17. Copies of the FSA video from its ‘Talk Food’ event would be obtained and sent to AEBC members.
18. The secretariat would attend the House of Lords Animal Procedures Committee session at which the Royal Society was to give evidence next week, and report back to the sub-group.
19. Anna Bradley, Matthew Freeman and Ben Mepham would attend the reference group workshop on Saturday 2 February, accompanied by Malcolm Grant and Richard Abel. Anna and Richard would arrive by 10.00am, others may arrive up to an hour later, depending upon their travel arrangements. Judith, Jeff, Helen and Michael had all sent apologies.
20. The next sub-group meetings would be on Friday 15 February and Thursday 14 March.
AEBC Secretariat
January 2002
