 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
CONSUMER CHOICE DEVELOPMENTAL SUB GROUP MEETING Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission PresentMs Anna Bradley (until 12 noon) Ms Helen Browning Dr Rosie Hails Ms Julie Hill Professor Jeff Maxwell Dr Roger Turner (Convener) Apologies 1. Dr Sue Mayer had sent apologies. Minutes of previous meeting 2. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed. Matters arising 3. Some members expressed concern about the intelligibility of the starting question that the group had set itself. It was agreed that it would be useful to produce a short background brief, including a workplan note, which could be used to support letters requesting information, tender documents, etc. The present description of the group's work in the draft tender literature survey document and draft letters to Canadian industry bodies was too opaque. The Secretariat would produce a first draft and circulate it to members for comment. Action: Secretariat 4. The group reviewed the actions agreed at the previous meeting. It was agreed that the letter to Canadian industry bodies should be sent to equivalent US bodies. The letters should explicitly seek information about non-food as well as food crops. Action: Secretariat The Food Advisory Committee Report 5. The group discussed the Food Advisory Committee Review of the Use of the terms Fresh, Pure, Natural etc in Food Labelling. The group agreed that the report indicated the complexities around labelling of foods. This would be useful background to the group's work and, in particular, the principles for labelling set out in paragraph 26 of the report were helpful. The Secretariat would enquire whether the recommendations of the FAC report had been accepted by Government. Action: Secretariat European Environment Agency (EEA) review 6. The group noted the contents of the report. Further exploration of the assessment of risk of outcrossing by pollen transfer was needed. The BRIGHT research project had found that there was a low risk of outcrossing for canola; whereas the EEA assessment was that this was a high risk. Judgements about the significance of the data clearly varied. 7. The main requirement for the work of the consumer choice group was to draw out the implications of the data for questions of co-existence of particular crops. The group agreed that in the context of looking at co-existence of different farming systems, they would look at geneflow from crops to wild relatives insofar as any such geneflow created reservoirs of volunteers which could cause crop management problems, such as the transfer back to crops of an undesired herbicide tolerance. Geneflow to wild relatives might be a matter of more general public concern but was unlikely to be a major factor in relation to successful co-existence. Criteria affecting consumer decisions 8. Anna Bradley gave a presentation to the group explicating the seven criteria affecting consumer decisions. A copy of the presentation is attached to these minutes. 9. The group agreed that the 'hurdles' to be jumped to achieve consumer acceptance of a product, set out in the presentation were a useful basis on which to consider consumer attitudes to GM crops. The hurdles were:
Co-existence scenarios 11. After discussion, the group thought that the issues relevant to this analysis could be considered in four steps: 12. First, what do we mean by gene-flow? The important issue was likely to be crop-to-crop gene-flow rather than gene-flow to wild relatives. 13. Second, why is co-existence an issue? ‘Adventitious presence’ instances from around the world should be looked at, including the potential problems for UK organic and non-GM production and the solutions adopted elsewhere where GM crops have been commercialised. Crop-to-crop geneflow and mixing in the supply chain should be addressed. 14. Third, what kind of co-existence might be practicable in the UK? Practicability in this context would be in terms of establishing thresholds, enforcing thresholds, maintaining thresholds, the costs, and trade-offs. The issues and answers would depend on the crop variety: some crops did not feature greatly in organic production; some crops were simply not grown widely at all in the UK; and the extent to which crop-to-crop geneflow occurred. These questions could be explored crop by crop, as follows: a) the crops in the Farm-Scale Evaluations (both in the FSEs and data from abroad where the crops have been commercialised; b) with new crops (particularly wheat) becoming commercialised; and c) one or two non-food crops, including perhaps trees. 15. Scenarios with different thresholds - zero (is it possible to guarantee this for any crop?); lowest detectable; 0.1%, 0.5%, 1% etc. - could be posited for each crop to get to the heart of what would be practicable. The economic implications would need to be brought out in each scenario. 16. Fourth, what do people think of these issues? a) unprompted; and b) knowing what is deliverable and what the trade-offs might be. 17. Going through the first three stages to some extent was necessary before embarking on the fourth with adequate clarity of purpose. This was relevant to the question of commissioning a literature review of research on public views. In any case, more work would be needed in narrowing the scope of any review. Also, members would consider the material from the National Consumer Council submitted to the Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming. The group would also request the raw data as well as the summary report from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) to the Policy Commission. The Secretariat would circulate this material. It might be that no literature review was needed, at least not at this stage. The Food Standards Agency had accepted an invitation to the working group's 10 June meeting to discuss the FSA's work on public attitudes. Action: Secretariat 18. Constructing the different scenarios, particularly looking at the economic implications of different threshold levels, might be an area on which work from external researchers could be commissioned. But in the first instance, the Secretariat would approach DEFRA for briefing on relevant data DEFRA had accumulated thus far and its implications for possible co-existence management regimes. DEFRA would also be invited to the July meeting to give evidence to the group. Action: Secretariat 19. The group asked the Secretariat to prepare a matrix setting out the options for public engagement, including stakeholder seminars, focus groups and a public reference group, which might be employed in the course of the group's work. Jeff Maxwell would discuss further the merits of the public reference group approach with Anna Bradley. 20. The secretariat would circulate to members the recent report from MORI about the public reference group recruited for the AEBC's work on animals and biotechnology. 21. Testing out scenarios and the group's emerging recommendations about possible solutions could be undertaken usefully at a stakeholder seminar, although this would require some careful handling: the question of thresholds in particular was a battleground. Focus groups and perhaps other elements of the programme of debate recommended by the AEBC on possible GM crop commercialisation could be used to inform the group's work rather than commissioning a separate exercise, if Government agreed to the AEBC's recommendations. Action: Secretariat and Jeff Maxwell Detectability Workshop 22. The group agreed that the practicability of detection of GM material remained a worthwhile subject to explore in a technical workshop. In addition to exploring what was technically achievable, the practical and economic consequences of particular threshold levels should be explored, crop-by-crop. The workshop would be held in September. Invitees would include: Professor Phil Dale; one or two people from the Central Science Laboratories; IACR; and a company working in the field. Members would inform the Secretariat of any other people or organisations who should be invited. Action: Members and Secretariat Other actions agreed 23. Roger Turner would pass data he had had from the US about co-existence, and a map of the supply chain for seeds, to the Secretariat for onward circulation to members. Action: Roger Turner 24. The Secretariat would explore with the FSA the indicative timetables for implementation of the revised European labelling and traceability regulations; and circulate to members the material issued for consultation on this topic. Action: Secretariat 25. The Secretariat would circulate for discussion at the Commission's next meeting a list of people and organisations that the group should speak to in the course of its work. The group would also discuss at this meeting from whom it should take evidence at the September Commission meeting. The evidence-taking could usefully be part of the main Commission meeting, in public. Action: Secretariat Next meeting 26. The next meeting of the working group would be on Monday 10 June, between 10.30am and 3.30pm. Future meetings 27. The Secretariat would canvass members for dates for meetings after September. Action: Secretariat AEBC Secretariat April 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
