Sub Groups

CONSUMER CHOICE DEVELOPMENTAL SUB GROUP MEETING
WEDNESDAY 6 MARCH 2002
ROOM 4/4, ALBANY HOUSE, LONDON SW1

MINUTES

• the issue of geneflow was important in preserving the identity of different food stuffs and offering consumers choice in their purchasing decisions;
  
  
• choice was not the only concern of consumers. Consumer organisations commonly list seven factors of importance to consumers in making purchasing decisions: in no particular order, safety, information, choice, equity, access, redress, and representation. When consumers make choices they make trade offs between these criteria and the trade offs will vary from one occasion to another;
  
  
• consumer preferences could and did change over time;
  
  
• maximising consumer choice did not lead inevitably to improved profits for UK agriculture. It could mean more imports;
  
  
• decisions about commercialisation of GM crops involved societal choices and not just choices by consumers at the point of sale;
  
  
• the determination of the price of food was complex. The possible impact of co-existence and consumer choice in relation to GM crops on the competitiveness of UK agriculture had to be considered in the broader context of other factors affecting competitiveness of the industry. Competitiveness did not necessarily equal profitability. Moreover, competitiveness and profitability for UK agriculture was related to that of the different parts of the industry food chain;
  
  
• labelling and adventitious presence thresholds were not the only issues to be addressed. The wider question of the importance attached to maintaining diversity of GM and non-GM agricultural systems in the United Kingdom required consideration. The group would need to address in its work the difficult questions about specific thresholds and possible co-existence of GM, organic and other non-GM crop production;
  
  
• the group needed to take full account of the technical and scientific aspects of geneflow, testing for adventitious presence of GM and maintaining separation in the supply chain, as well as the economic implications of options;
  
  
• the group should not necessarily look for a single solution to these questions. There was a spectrum of achievability which would be different from crop to crops, depending on the characteristics of the crop itself and the use made of the product in the food chain;
  
  
• agricultural production systems were dynamic and what diversity meant in this context could change over time; and
  
  
• the group agreed that they would also examine the issues in relation to non-food GM crops.

• possible changes in consumer attitudes and needs;
  
  
• present and future diversity of systems; and
  
  
• trade offs made by consumers.'

• Anna Bradley agreed to prepare a note for circulation to the group setting out in more detail the seven factors which were important to consumers' decision-making;
  
  
• Sue Mayer would pass to the Secretariat for circulation to Members the European Environment Agency review of the significance of geneflow through pollen transfer;
  
  
• The Secretariat would draft a proposal for an initial literature survey of social research on consumer attitudes to the questions of how important diversity of agricultural production systems and those systems' co-existence with GM technology;
  
  
• The Secretariat would also prepare a tender proposal for the recruitment and running of a reference group;
  
  
• The Secretariat would invite the Food Standards Agency to send a written brief to the group setting out related work the FSA had done in this area. The group expected that it would wish to discuss with the FSA what it had done so far, probably at its third meeting;
  
  
• The Secretariat would ask DEFRA for a brief on research they were aware of on the causes of cases of adventitious presence of GM in non-GM crops or produce to date in the UK and elsewhere;
  
  
• The Secretariat would also write to Canadian organic and other industry bodies to seek their views on geneflow and co-existence in relation to commercialised GM crops there;
  
  
• The Secretariat would also ask DEFRA about follow-up action taken in relation to determining the causes of the RT73 oilseed rape seed contamination incident in 2000;
  
  
• The Secretariat would obtain further information about how non-food GM crops were treated in present and proposed EU regulations; and
  
  
• The Secretariat, after consulting Phil Dale and Rosie Hails, would set up a technical workshop on detectability of GM material in non-GM produce; and look at the possibilities of visiting seed production facilities to gain information about how crops were separated in practice;