Sub Groups

AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMISSION

CONSUMER CHOICE & COEXISTENCE SUB-GROUP

NOTE OF STAKEHOLDER SEMINAR HELD ON 28 APRIL 2003 AT THE CONFERENCE CENTRE OF THE DTI, 1 VICTORIA STREET LONDON SW1 12.30 – 3.30pm

Introduction

1. Dr. Rosie Hails, convenor of the consumer choice and coexistence subgroup opened the seminar and thanked stakeholders warmly for attending to discuss the emerging thought of the subgroup. She explained that the AEBC aimed to publish its advice to Government on consumer choice and coexistence for GM crops that summer. The report would provide strategic advice to Ministers and be a resource for the GM public debate.

2. Members of the sub-group introduced themselves to stakeholders and an explanation of how the meeting had been structured was given. Discussion was invited on each section of the stakeholder paper following a brief introduction of the section by an AEBC Commission member. The session would be held under Chatham House rules and an unattributed note of the meeting would be posted on the AEBC website.

Main points covered in the discussion

Scope of AEBC report

3. Dr. Hails outlined the scope of the report and referred to the paper that had been produced for the seminar which gave an overview of the emerging thoughts from the group. The AEBC recognised that the issues surrounding consumer choice were wider than the problems of coexistence alone.  The report would concentrate on the first generation of GM crops (i.e. those associated with the Farm Scale Evaluations - FSEs) and on the implications to present farming practice of their possible commercialisation although consideration would also be given to future GM and farming developments. The group would limit its recommendations to the “farm gate”, while taking account of the rest of the supply chain.  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) should address further concerns beyond this.

4. Attendees discussed restricting the scope to the farm gate. This was thought to conflict with the scope of the liability subgroup who were looking at possible economic redress if measures for safe coexistence failed and included the actions taken off the farm. Members explained that this related primarily to wider environmental impacts.  The liability group was also looking at economic impacts on farmers rather than on the rest of the supply chain, in line with the AEBC’s remit.  Some stakeholders maintained that it would be better for the report to make recommendations which went beyond the issues surrounding coexistence at the farm level.

5. It was suggested that the supermarkets and food suppliers were “working with” a level of Adventitious Presence (AP) of 0.1% rather than “working towards” this threshold.  Different views were expressed on exactly what this meant.  It did not appear that supermarkets were pressing for a lower threshold to be set in law, even though they were seeking to minimise AP thresholds in their products.  The group would aim to clarify the position to inform their report to the extent that further information could be obtained.

6. Further consideration should be given to the level of adventitious presence in seed, as it would have important implications in influencing controls on the farm later in the production of the crops. It would be necessary to establish exactly which seed base a possible protocol was working from to achieve certain defined levels of AP in the crops. For example a level of 0.9% AP using farm saved seed would be more difficult to guarantee over time, especially for rape. 

7. The scope did not include other crops such as GM wheat the implications of the commercialisation of which were the subject of active discussion by producers and regulators in the United States and Canada. Dr. Hails explained that due to time constraints it had not been possible to look in detail at other crops outside the FSEs but the report would comment on what future consideration may be necessary for additional crops and whether and how the approach eventually suggested by the AEBC might be adapted should it be successful or indeed unsuccessful.

8. The report seemed to separate the environmental aspects of coexistence in GM and non-GM crops but the view of some stakeholders was that there might be a need to keep the two together and look at the overall impacts of GM crops on the environment and the rural economy. 

Thresholds and testing for Adventitious Presence

9.      Dr. Hails introduced this section of the report and referred to the text in the seminar paper.  Confidence limits to achieve a reliable test result for a defined threshold would need to be established and the cost implications of testing should also be considered.

10. Testing may prove expensive, difficult and possibly unreliable depending on sampling methodology and threshold level.  For certified seed the minimum testing sample size was 3000 seeds and depending on the crop, the weight could vary from 10g to 1kg or more for each sample. The GM Inspectorate had published advice and guidelines on sampling methods and sizes and these were currently being reviewed. The guidance addressed the problems associated with the types of sample as more accurate testing was easier with wet samples such as leaf extracts but became more difficult the drier and woodier a sample became.  

11. The conclusion that 0.1% of a whole field measurement was in practical terms the limit of detectability was endorsed by stakeholders with relevant technical expertise.

12. The type of crop being tested made for significant differences in the issues raised. For example, cross-pollination in sweet corn affected individual kernels.  What was tested on the farm might not be the same material that appeared in the food chain. The number of copies of the gene present would also be a factor and whether gene transfer occurred through a maternal or paternal line.

13. Some attendees expressed a view that the emphasis on the thresholds of 0.9% and 0.1% was incorrect. The legal threshold might well be set at 0.9% but the current market operated at 0.1% and there should be more emphasis given to this. Indeed it should be this that dictated any threshold for Adventitious Presence in the UK. If coexistence were feasible it would need to be equally achievable in organic and conventional farming.

14. Opinion was divided about the cost implication of testing and who should pay. There was a view that the subset of farmers using the new GM technology should themselves pay but others thought that the higher standards required by other farming methods should be met by the individuals using these methods.

15. It was explained by some stakeholders that the British Retail Consortium and the Food and Drink Federation outlined in their guidance that retailers should not rely wholly on testing but look at other handling and production methods. A combination of audits in the retail chain when sourcing their produce with periodic analysis to confirm the reliability of the method was an acceptable approach.

Possible options for coexistence

16. Dr. Hails gave an overview of the criteria the group had used for assessing possible options for coexistence. Reference was also given to the options that were unlikely to satisfy the criteria and a possible way forward.

17. Views were expressed that consideration of the feasibility of coexistence for each individual GM crop should be undertaken as part of the EC2001/18 approvals process.  The European Union had not yet made an overall decision on coexistence guidelines.  Legally Member States could not under EC/2001/18 declare themselves GM free zones.

18. The issue of biosafety was mentioned and it was suggested that perhaps this should be looked at separately. It may be possible to permit only genetically isolated crops for GM commercialisation which could negate the need for a coexistence regime in some circumstances. Various technologies were also now available which could help such as using characteristics such as male sterility. 

19. Clarification was sought as to the meaning of an option being “proportionate to the issues being addressed”.  Dr. Hails explained that this meant that the overall costs of any coexistence arrangements should not be greatly out of step with the negative costs that the arrangements are designed to prevent or alleviate. 

20. It was noted that during the recent EU roundtable event Commissioner Fischler had made it clear that coexistence between GM and non-GM farming practices had to be even between the two and equal consideration to the rights and practices of all types of farming regimes and the impacts on them should be given.

21. A comment was made that the report seemed to approach the angle of consumer choice from the opposite guidance given under the Curry report i.e. that farmers should respond to markets and what the consumer wanted. Dr. Hails stressed that whilst the report would be very considerate to farmers growing what they wanted, the group acknowledged that consumer choice was paramount - something that farmers increasingly appreciated.  A further comment was made that in fact consumer choice and farmer choice were distinct but the report’s recommendations could address both consistently.

22. Suggestions were made that post-commercialisation the views of the rural communities surrounding the possible sites for growing GM crops should be sought before they were produced. Some attendees felt that during the FSEs there had been great difficulty in finding suitable locations due to the unease of the local community. This was however disputed by others who said they in their first hand experience of the FSEs had never encountered any hostility from the villages surrounding the sites.

Approaching coexistence though protocols

23. Roger Turner introduced what might be needed in a protocol to ensure adherence to a particular threshold of AP. These would include ensuring seed purity, separation distances, crop rotation and good farm management and record keeping. The SCIMAC guidelines used in the FSEs were being used by the group as a starting point for terms in protocols.  

24. Several stakeholders explained that the guidelines used in the FSEs were designed for oilseed rape, beet and maize respectively, each of which raised slightly different issues. They were based upon the guidelines issued for certified seed production which had been used for 30 years. They had been independently audited by ADAS and declared to be robust.

25. Some attendees felt that the SCIMAC guidelines were not as robust as previously thought and cited a report from the National Pollen Research Unit who had performed a study which disputed the separation distances and the extent to which pollen can be distributed. These attendees cited evidence that a third of farmers surveyed performing the FSEs said that changes needed to be made to the guidelines to ensure safe coexistence.  Other attendees said that this did not imply that the guidelines were unsound.

26. Differing views were expressed regarding control of GM volunteers and in particular bolters in beet crops. It was generally agreed that the control of weed beet was of the utmost importance, but the extent to which this could be achieved was debated.  Some felt that good farming practice would easily deal with the problem where others felt that it would be a much bigger problem especially if the use of herbicides was not available to the farmer. Organic farming stakeholders said that legal advice was being sought on whether an organic farm or field would lose its organic certification if a GM volunteer or a GM weed (formed by cross-pollination of wild relatives leading to weeds containing a GM event) was found to be present in a field being used for organic food or feed production.  It was clear that volunteer control would be of great importance in maintaining thresholds.  In the case of rape and weed beet this would be harder on organic farms because they did not spray with herbicides. 

27. Some attendees thought that it would be difficult when thinking about a possible protocol for coexistence to separate the issues surrounding liability. If farmers were confident that any economic loss due to GM contamination would definitely be covered by a liability regime then a more relaxed approached to coexistence might be adopted by those that stood to lose economically if contamination occurred. A balance was needed and to try and look at a protocol without looking at the liability issues was only looking at half the picture.  Dr Hails indicated that the AEBC intended to consider the issues together.

28. Seed purity and farm saved seed had not been addressed in sufficient depth in the report. It was suggested that the proportion of farm saved seed in oilseed rape was probably higher than the figure quoted in the seminar paper of 15-20% and was probably nearer 40%.

29. The separation distances quoted in the paper were discussed and it was explained that the separation distance meant the nearest point between fields, thus cross pollination would rapidly decline further into the field and the percentages quoted were based upon a whole field basis where AP might be relatively high at a distance of 2m into the field but extremely low or non-existent further across the field.

30. Several attendees felt that a threshold level of 0.1% in oilseed rape would not be achievable. It was also noted that there was at present a market for organic sugar beet and not GM sugar beet. If commercialisation went ahead, the uptake of GM crops was likely to be slow with farmers growing them alongside conventional crops to start with.

How would the system operate?

31. The group invited views on the nature of any sanctions that might be imposed. Should they be contractual or imposed by statute? There had also been mention of including other objectives such as environmental measures as part of coexistence protocols.

32. Although no one could predict the rate of uptake for GM crops it was generally felt that the AEBC must assume that there would be a take-up at a rate the market wants and therefore a rigorous system would be needed to control whatever the take up rate proved to be. Crops would not be grown if there were not a market for the product and this principle applied to all modes of farming not simply GM. In the view of some attendees, the coexistence model of genetically modified Bt cotton in Australia provided an example of how cooperation and harmony within the farming community had been proved to work. 

33. Consideration of changing tenancies and shared equipment needed to be incorporated. Many farmers took on areas of land under short tenancy agreements and measure built into the protocols to allow for this would be necessary. Good record keeping would be key and a general record of the history of distribution of GM crops that have been grown should be held centrally and be available to individuals purchasing or leasing the land.             

34. The assured crop schemes were based on audits. Who would ensure the practical components of the protocol were adhered to and how would they be audited? The assured schemes gave an advantage in that they induced consumer confidence and had a wide range of participation. It would be important for any similar scheme for GM to involve the industry but to be seen to be wholly independent.  

35. There would be great difficulty in implementing a statutory system by the next growing season, but some stakeholders felt that a non-statutory system would not command sufficient public confidence. They therefore felt that there should be a mandatory regime to start with and if the protocol was proved to work then the status could be relaxed at a later date but there should be legal underpinning to ensure liability was addressed.  Others thought that these measures would be disproportionate.

What should be done where protocols alone might not achieve coexistence?

36. It was stated that if commercial GM oilseed rape seed production became widespread, conventional hybrid oilseed rape production would not achieve a threshold of 0.5% adventitious presence without zoning for seed production.

37. There was agreement for the difficulties that would arise with the potential contradiction between treating all forms of agriculture equally while promoting organic agriculture.  It was difficult to speculate on the growth of UK organic crops’ share of the market.  If targets for doubling the domestic organic food output were to be achieved then significant growth in the production of animal feeds – probably including fodder maize - would also increase.

38. Some stakeholders could not see a voluntary scheme being satisfactory to get around these problems. If an animal sold as organic was subsequently found to have eaten food above containing GM, then meat from that animal could not be sold as organic.

39. The problems associated with beekeeping and honey were not easy to define. In one sense, everything in the jar besides pure honey was an adventitious presence. It was generally thought by beekeepers that an AP for GM would never reach the threshold required for labelling (because pollen was only present in miniscule quantities in honey in any case).  However consumer confidence in honey was more difficult to assess: consumers generally looked for “wholesomeness” and “goodness” although these were difficult to describe accurately.

40. For conventional and organic production of oilseed rape, accumulation of GM seed in the seedbank (it was very persistent) might well be a more serious long-term cause of AP over time than cross-pollination from cultivated GM crops.

The future

41. It was generally felt that a regime should be created that would allow all crops proposed now and in the future to potentially coexist but that each crop would have to be looked at individually to ascertain precise control points in any protocol. 

42. A pragmatic approach to threshold levels would be needed. The figures were perhaps irrelevant if consumer confidence was not maintained, as there would not be a market for the goods.        

AEBC Secretariat

May 2003

List of Attendees

David Hill                                                                    National Farmers’ Union

Daniel Pearsall                                                          SCIMAC

Paul Rylott                                                                  Bayer Crop Science/ ABC

John Hoyles                                                               Farmer

Phil Dale                                                                    John Innes Centre

Lynn Insall                                                                   Food & Drink Federation

Vivian Moses                                                             CropGen

Maurice de Billot                                                    Monsanto

Anna Hope                                                                 English Nature         

John Turner                                                                Farmer

Emily Diamond                                                        Friends of the Earth

Julie Simpson                                                         Scottish Executive

Angela Meadows                                                       Women’s Farming Union

Joe Perry                                                                   Rothamsted

Jan Ingram                                                                 Ex NIAB

Archie Montgomery                                                   National Farmers’ Union

John Gilliand                                                              AEBC/Farmer

David Leech                                                              Organic Farmer

Glyn Davies                                                               British Beekeepers assoc

Oliver Dowding                                                         NFU – Organic committee

Nick Downey                                                             NAAC

Gundula Azeez                                                 Soil Association

Peter Melchett                                                          Soil Association   

Tony Hardy                                                                 Central Science Laboratories

Renaud Wilson                                                            DEFRA

David Calpin                                                              DEFRA

Matthias Kempf                                                 PMSU/Cabinet Office

Tony Palmer                                                              British Retail Consortium

Heather Hamilton                                                         DEFRA

Jeremy Sweet                                                 NIAB

Paul Rooke                                                                UKASTA

Tony Pexton                                                               Farmers’ Association

AEBC

Rosie Hails

Jeff Hamilton

Julie Hill

Dave Carmichael

Roger Turner

Helen Browning

Secretariat                                                                 Also present

Richard Abel                                                 Elizabeth Hopkins

Laura McMahon