 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
CONSUMER CHOICE SUB-GROUP
NOTE OF SEVENTH MEETING: TUESDAY 4 MARCH 2003 1 VICTORIA STREET, LONDON, 11.00am-3.00pm MINUTES OF MEETING Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission UNCONFIRMED Present Dr Dave Carmichael Dr Rosie Hails Ms Julie Hill Professor Jeff Maxwell Dr Roger Turner (Convener) Secretariat Richard Abel Laura McMahon 1. Apologies had been received from Helen Browning. Minutes of previous meeting 2. The draft minutes of the last meeting were confirmed subject to paragraph 16 being revised to make it clearer that the draft report would concentrate on what happened on the farm and only go ‘beyond the farm gate’ so far as the point of delivering the crop product to the merchant or processor: There were some other minor editorial corrections. Discussion Protocols 3. The group agreed at the outset that the report would set out a number of options relating to possible co-existence. The group then discussed further how to examine the practicability of coexistence under different scenarios and the protocols that could be used to achieve coexistence. 4. The level of Adventitious Presence (AP) would be affected by a variety of factors that included separation distances, farming practice – such as proper cleaning of seed drills etc and control of farming contractors to ensure they did the same – and storage and transport of the crop/seed. It was agreed that the protocol should be set out on a crop-by crop basis and that reviews of the protocols may become necessary after they had been thoroughly tested so that they could be refined. It may become apparent that the conditions for managing the crop were not sufficient or equally that the regime was over rigorous and certain aspects were not necessary. 5. The protocol could be voluntary or statutory. 6. Roger Turner explicated the nature of the statutory framework in which a co-existence protocol might sit. The protocol, if made statutory, would be separate from the existing statutory provisions for seed production. But the existing seed production statutory framework could be used to enforce compliance with the protocol by individual farmers. The existing framework entitled the holder of intellectual property rights (IPR) in relation to a protected variety of seed to control specific acts undertaken with the protected variety, including the offering for sale of the seed to farmers. 7. On this model, the holder of the intellectual property rights can ask the BSPB to enforce strict conditions in relation to the seeds’ use. The BSPB manages this role now in relation to conventional varieties. In the case of the seed of GM crops, therefore, the BSPB could on the instructions of the agricultural biotechnology companies, stipulate that the GM crop seed was sold only to farmers who would abide by the terms of the protocol (whether the protocol was statutory or voluntary). If an individual farmer did not abide by the protocol, then the BSPB would have the authority under the existing statutory provisions to deny the farmer future access to the GM technology if it decided to do so (after a ‘yellow card’ warning, perhaps). What was less clear was whether there was scope in the present legislative framework for punitive sanction in the case of flagrant breach of the protocol. There was scope under the 1997 Plant Varieties Act for civil remedy in law for recovery of royalties due to the IPR holder but further examination was needed on whether there was provision for the IPR holder (via BSPB) to require a crop to be destroyed (as was the case in the North Essex Seed Zoning legislation) in the case of a serious and ongoing breach - in this case, a breach of the co-existence protocol. 8. There could be a ‘sunset clause’ or provision for review after a period of time built into any legislation which gave a protocol statutory force. The detailed terms of the protocol itself would need to be capable of variation (say if a separation distance needed to be changed in the light of experience in the field) by statutory instrument rather then requiring revisiting the original legislation. The Report 9. The different thresholds for food and for seeds needed to be clearly distinguished in the report. The draft report structure at present under-emphasised non-GM agriculture compared with organic production and this needed to be changed. 10. Given the process of agreement that they would entail, and the rigour with which they would be monitored, it seemed to the group appropriate to view the protocols as a potential opportunity for furthering other objectives such as biodiversity and good environmental management. Possible benefits should be quoted under the different scenarios (e.g. improvements in biodiversity achieved on leaving a 5m field margin and the distinction between a grassland and crop margin). This could ultimately lead to higher standards of biodiversity and environmental management than for conventional crops. 11. Section 3 of the report would show the life cycle and management of beet, oilseed rape and fodder maize. The non-food crop would now be the production of bio-ethanol from sugar beet. 12. Wheat should be flagged up for future discussion along with GM crops grown for pharmaceutical uses. Neither of these issues would now be included in the report because the scope of the report needed to be kept manageable in order to deliver advice to Government soon. But the issue of the production of novel substances in crops would be a useful topic for the planned AEBC horizon scanning conference in July. The report would therefore focus on the first generation of GM crops which might be commercially grown in the United Kingdom. 13. A table would be developed to show the impact on farming practice of an AP of 0.1%, 0.5% and 0.9% on each crop. This would need to where relevant (ie in oilseed rape into categories of conventional hybrids, partially restored hybrids and varietal associations). The initial assumption would be that that there was no AP in the seed sown, but this would need to be subject to further analysis. The data used in the scenario building was limited and this should be specified as it would be possible (perhaps within a year) to give better guidelines especially on aspects such as geneflow. The CSL report on geneflow had not been published. The report from Ingram in 2000 on “The separation distances required to ensure cross-pollination is below specified limits in non-seed beet maize and oilseed rape” would be the basis from which distances to achieve these levels would be taken. The secretariat would consult Professor Phil Dale in drawing up the table. 14. Separation distances would be the first factor for testing the practicability of coexistence at different thresholds. This would be the first analysis to test the threshold scenarios against any possible protocol. The aim was through the table and supporting analysis to show where and to what extent any changes to present farming practice would be needed in order to achieve coexistence at particular thresholds for particular crops. 15. Other agronomic measures in the protocol would be those set out in the SCIMAC guidelines. 16. The report would need to look at the practicalities of the measures needed to ensure the AP thresholds and see if for example a separation distance appeared completely unworkable whether they could be reduced by other means (e.g. barrier methods). In assessing whether separation distances were practicable, geographical location needed to be taken into account. There may be a problem with some crops in the west of England where fields and farms in were smaller. If possible, the table should show the economic impact of each threshold on the farm. This data may be difficult to obtain but the emerging work of the Prime Ministers Strategy Unit should help. Action: secretariat 17. The number of options on page 8 of the draft report structure could now be narrowed down. 18. Members felt that the report needed to be informed by an indication of the likely trajectory of organic farming and the long term implications of this crop-by-crop, in order to assess how severe or otherwise on a crop-by-crop basis coexistence problems might become. The practical constraints around where and how testing of crops for AP could be undertaken would need to be borne in mind in developing the report, but the focus would beon-farm measures, where there might be testing, depending on the extent to which an audit of compliance with a protocol was taken as sufficient. 19. Who would pay for auditing compliance with the protocol and who would do it was a further issue, which would need to be considered. 20. Introducing a crop registration requirement more generally was another option as part of a general solution for monitoring possible coexistence arrangements, but this had wider implications for farming which would not be supported by all interested parties. 21. Development and production of greater numbers of organic seed varieties was limited by technical barriers, particularly the difficulty in controlling fungal growth, rather than in most cases because there was insufficient volume of demand for new organic varieties in the organic farming sector. 22. The secretariat would take these and other detailed points into account in a revised outline framework report, starting with developing the table of crops/thresholds. Action: secretariat Reflections on advice from the AEBC meeting on the 27th February 23. There had been a request from Commission Members at the meeting that the liability report should link closely with the work being carried out by the consumer choice and coexistence group as there would be a degree of overlap and issues from one could impact on the other. Indeed, options being considered by the liability group in their report depended on an assessment of the viability of a protocol for possible coexistence. 24. As had been discussed at the Commission meeting, unlike the case of an individual clearly breaching a protocol for management of the GM crop (e.g. separation distances), a problem arose when there was no evidence that a protocol had not been adhered to, as indicated by a satisfactory audit and yet adventitious presence (AP) was found to be above the threshold limit. The apportionment of “blame” in such cases would be impossible. 25. A suggestion was made that an insurance scheme should be implemented to cover such cases and this idea was discussed briefly by the sub-group. 26. The group realised that for a system of insurance to develop, further data would be required by the insurance companies and a period of refinement would be needed. In order to cover this period one option would be setting up a sinking fund that would be funded either directly from the Government or industry perhaps aided by contributions from interested parties – principally industry - and underwritten by Government. The fund would only cover the transitional stage until a comprehensive insurance mechanism could be devised. Industry, however, had indicated to the liability sub-group that they were concerned that such a fund could be portrayed by opponents of the technology as an indication that the introduction of GM crops was in some way dangerous or harmful. On the contrary, some members thought that creation of a temporary fund underwritten by industry would demonstrate a sign of confidence in the product rather than the negative view. Not all members supported this concept. 27. There was concern that some farmers might see a general insurance scheme without control as an opportunity to operate poor farming practice, as any errors would automatically be covered. For this reason it would perhaps be necessary on this option to introduce alongside the scheme an economic incentive with a “yellow/red” card penalty system. It would appear to be in the agricultural biotechnology companies’ interests in terms of achieving a smooth introduction of the commercial growing of GM crops, to make sure that the technology was licensed only to ‘responsible’ farmers. Most members expected that the insurance scheme would be a “backstop” and there would be very little need to make use of it as indicated by the fact that in most cases farmers were able to come to an amicable arrangement when disputes associated with crop spraying arose. Similarly, the requirements of crop assurance schemes suggested that the sorts of practices associated with a protocol would be familiar to farmers and reflect existing practice for many farmers. 28. The group asked by way of background to see an outline of the compensation regime adopted when the spraying of crops caused unwanted damage, so that parallels could be drawn, while recognising that the liability sub-group would be taking this aspect of the work forward. Action: secretariat 29. Overall the group considered that the process in which the insurance scheme would develop was outside their remit and for the purposes of the report there should only be a relatively brief reference to it. Stakeholder Forum Attendees 30. The stakeholder meeting was provisionally booked for 28th April 2003. The group decided that a broad range of farmers should be invited, as they were likely to be able to give an objective view to the practicalities of a coexistence regime. Other possible groups were: Food Retailing Organisations (IGD, BRC, FDF) UKASTA SCIMAC NIAB LEAF Members would inform the secretariat of particular names or if other parties came to mind. Action: Members Update on report writer 31. Richard Abel informed the group that unfortunately two possible candidates for help with the report writing had been unable to take up the position but he was hoping to secure someone in the near future. NFU focus groups 32. If these went ahead, the sub-group would request their output in order to inform the AEBC report. Action: Dr Dave Carmichael Next meeting 33. This was scheduled for Wednesday 26th March AEBC Secretariat |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
