 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
CONSUMER CHOICE DEVELOPMENTAL SUB GROUP MEETING Ms Helen Browning Dr Rosie Hails Ms Julie Hill Dr Sue Mayer Dr Roger Turner (Convener) Richard Abel (Secretary) Apologies 1. Anna Bradley and Jeff Maxwell had sent apologies. Minutes of previous meeting 2. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed subject to incorporation of one amendment from Helen Browning. Presentation on public attitudes 3. Laura Simons, Head of Public Relations for the Food Standards Agency (FSA), gave a presentation on the data about public attitudes gathered by the FSA. A copy of Ms Simons' presentation is attached to these minutes. 4. In the light of recent public research, particularly new qualitative research on "Public Attitudes to GM in Food" carried out for the FSA, the Agency was now reviewing the information it made available to consumers about the uses of modern biotechnology in food production. The research suggested that most people do not want information about GM food all the time but when it becomes a particularly topical issue, when people want more information than provided at present, particularly about the basic science underpinning the technology. 5. Members noted the differences in people's immediate and prompted responses to questions in social research. Where people make trade-offs, and why people did not make purchases consistent with their stated intentions based on the issues they believed important, would be a fruitful area for further exploration, although unfortunately probably impracticable for the consumer choice group itself to take forward at this stage. 6. Members thought that it would be interesting to compare the data from the recent FSA research with findings from research on similar topics undertaken from the early 1990s onwards. The Secretariat would draw together available material. Action: Secretariat 7. The group thought it important that the data in the FSA annual consumer attitudes survey and that produced in connection with the Farming and Food Policy Commission were interrogated fully to gain as full an insight as possible into the likely trajectory of consumer concerns about modern biotechnology and food. The group noted that there were relatively low levels of concern about broader production-related concerns, which may in part be due to low levels of public understanding of the connections between farming and food. 8. The group requested further copies of the FSA annual survey of consumer attitudes. Action: Laura Simons 9. Members thanked Ms Simons for her presentation. They would revert through the Secretariat with any follow-up points that arose as they considered the FSA's research data further. Flow diagram of regulatory and industry control measures to ensure compliance with SCIMAC guidelines 10. Roger Turner introduced a diagram mapping out regulation in this area. Rosie Hails said that on a recent visit to the United States, the American Soybean Association had told her that a 1% adventitious presence threshold for soya would be impossible because even for varieties designed for Identity Preserved production, seed producers could guarantee no more than 98% purity. What levels of seed purity could be achieved for crops grown here? Dr Turner said that it varied depending on the crop. For UK wheat, 99.8% purity was routinely achieved by UK seed producers. For oilseed rape figures between 94 and 98% were usual. 11. Members noted that for the herbicide-tolerant crops being studied in the Farm-Scale Evaluations, the on-farm audit of crop growers and compliance with the guidelines was voluntary. Looking to the future, if such crops were to be commercialised, some Members thought that the question of adequate enforcement of standards of agricultural practice would come to the fore. It was further noted that one possibility might be for present voluntary practices to be made legal requirements under circumstances of widespread cultivation of GM crops. Enforcement of farm standards more generally had been identified by the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food as increasingly important. The group's workplan 12. Members decided that the revised statement of the group's area of work was not yet adequate. They believed that more emphasis was needed on the impact of the draft traceability and labelling regulations on the food production and supply chain. These draft regulations were controversial and the subject of considerable debate. The AEBC needed to make sure that it did not make recommendations on consumer choice uniformed by this debate. The draft regulations were part of efforts in Europe to find a way through the informal moratorium on GM crops and to take account of perceived consumer demands. The regulations would affect the practicability of co-existence of different GM and non-GM crops on the farm, both in terms of scope - what materials were covered by the regulations - and in terms of thresholds for adventitious presence (AP) of GM material. 13. Sue Mayer would prepare and circulate to members a briefing note on the political context and range of likely outcomes on the revised European labelling and traceability and food and feed regulations. Action: Sue Mayer 14. Questions that the group would need to consider in addition to the practical and economic implications of different AP thresholds on the farm and elsewhere in the supply chain included where the costs should fall from a new regulatory regime; how any regulations would be enforced; the implications for seed legislation; and what consumers wanted. The group would look at the following crops: beet, oilseed rape, wheat and trees. 15. The group remained of the view that it would be necessary to review the scientific data in relation to geneflow. The group in its work would draw the distinction between volunteers and possible introgression from wild relatives, and consider these crop by crop. 16. The secretariat would redraft the statement of work and draw up an outline report structure in the light of the working group's discussion. Action: Secretariat 17. The group would seek a briefing from the FSA and DEFRA officials who had responsibility for advising on policy on labelling and traceability and the food and feed regulations to discuss the implications for consumer choice and the supply chain. They would seek a statement of the United Kingdom's position on the draft regulations and an understanding of why the specific provisions, particularly the 1% AP threshold, had been selected in the European Commission when the regulations had first been drawn up; and the rationale for the United Kingdom's position. The group noted that the European Parliament's Environment Committee’s report had recommended amending the threshold to 0.5% for food; and that seed purity levels vary according to crop. The group would possibly take evidence from economists at a later stage. Subject to Commission approval, it would invite Professor Joe Perry from the Institute of Arable Crop Research to give evidence to the AEBC meeting in September. 18. A revised matrix setting out a plan of future evidence sessions is attached to these minutes. Action: Secretariat Other papers 19. The group deferred consideration of other papers tabled at the meeting until they had a clearer idea of what information they needed in relation to their plan of work. Public and stakeholder engagement 20. The group endorsed the recommendations about public and stakeholder engagement made in the paper (attached) by Jeff Maxwell and Anna Bradley. Other actions agreed 21. The secretariat would create a database of documents used in the course of the group's work. Each document would be given an individual reference number. The database would be put on the consumer choice group page on the AEBC website. The aim would be to make it possible to interrogate the database by keywords on-line. Action: Secretariat 22. The secretariat would prepare a summary of several papers on the economics of implementing a regime to keep GM and non-GM material separate in the agricultural production and distribution system. This would be circulated along with the reports (which included several gained from a study visit to the United States and a further study of which Sue Mayer was aware, which she would provide to the secretariat). Action: Secretariat and Sue Mayer 23. The group decided that the 19 September workshop should cover two areas:
Next meeting 24. The next meeting of the working group would be on Tuesday 9 July, between 10.30am and 3.30pm. DEFRA officials had agreed to attend and officials from the FSA would also be invited to talk about the revised food and feed and labelling and traceability regulations. Action: Secretariat Future meetings 25. The Secretariat would set dates for meetings after September once all sub-group members had indicated their availability. Action: Members and secretariat AEBC Secretariat June 2002 AEBCFollowing an earlier meeting Jeff Maxwell and Anna Bradley were asked to consider: 1. The need for a Reference Group, acting in a similar way to the Group that supported the work of the Animals and Biotechnology Sub-Group The use of a Reference Group (following the remit used for the Animals Sub-Group) would allow a group of chosen members of the public to shadow the work of the AEBC Group addressing the same set of objectives and ultimately test the conclusions of the AEBC Group against their own. At present the scope of the work of the AEBC Group is still being developed and is likely to be modified as new information becomes available and as EU legislation is formulated. Recent discussions suggest that the focus of the work of the Consumer Choice Group will be to examine the implications of setting defined standards of purity of non-GM food commodities for the operation of agricultural systems involving both the production of non-GM and GM food crops. The work is likely to be technical in nature and will also address the implications for the seed production and handling industry. There may also be implications of world trade and GM production of food commodities in non-EU countries that need to be considered. At this stage it is difficult to define unequivocal objectives for the Consumer Choice Group let alone terms of reference for a Reference Group even if it were thought desirable to have such a group. We are not convinced that, taking our current approach to our work, a Reference Group would add value to the work of the Consumer Choice Group. 2. The need for consumer choice research The context of the work outlined above needs to be set in the context of our understanding of consumer choice particularly as it relates to GM food. It is important that we can describe a context that is robust and takes account of the various parameters that ultimately determine a consumer’s decision about food choice. The most recent review of survey work in this area was produced by NCC and provides a good deal of information and some insight into consumer behaviour. The Group would need to be confident that more work is required to describe the context for the technical scenario testing described above, before commissioning further work. 3. The stage at which it would be appropriate to involve stakeholders and to consult the public The above work programme, if it is to be followed through, has the potential to be undertaken in two stages. The first, would involve the translation of the ‘defined standards of purity’ into potential agricultural and seed handling systems. Second, these systems could then be investigated in detail on a theoretical/modelling basis and the results considered and recommendations formulated. Stakeholders could be involved and consulted in the design of the potential agricultural and seed handling systems and finally to participate in the formulation of recommendations and/or to comment upon the recommendations agreed by the Group prior to them being considered by the Commission; In addition to stakeholder involvement, there would be merit in testing out directly with the public the extent to which our conclusions are likely to meet consumer aspirations . This suggest that we should mirror the (NCC) consumer research we are using at the outset of our work with some consumer involvement and consultation towards the end of our work. Jeff Maxwell & Anna Bradley 2 June 2002 Evidence gathering sessions Planned
Other possible people/organisations to include in the timetable
June 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
