Sub Groups

• The group had heard inconsistent evidence about the scale of the costs farmers and other parts of agricultural industry would face as a result of the new regulations on labelling and traceability. The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit (PMSU) study underway should give a clearer picture on costs. The group noted that the PMSU study would not make recommendations about where the costs should fall.



• The work of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) sub-group on monitoring and testing would be relevant to the issues being considered by the sub-group and close working would be valuable. (Note: in response to an invitation from ACRE it was subsequently agreed that Dr Hails would serve on the ACRE sub-group as an AEBC representative.)



• It was apparent to the group that there was an absence of baseline data on environmental impacts of different farming systems. The DEFRA-sponsored research would be important in the context of monitoring of environmental impacts (rather than on the impacts on the viability of different kinds of farming), even though these were not central to the work of the sub-group.



• It was agreed that the question of possible co-existence had to be approached firmly in the context of existing and likely future agricultural practice. Would guidelines for maintaining separation distances be followed sufficiently rigorously and on a sufficiently widespread basis to work in practice? Some members were sceptical; others thought that with proper monitoring the SCIMAC guidelines would be sufficient.



• Dr Turner said that he expected that while the agricultural biotechnology industry would be able to take on board any requirements to monitor any direct effects on the environment of changes in agricultural practice associated with GM cultivation; looking for unknown unknowns would be another matter. The group noted that a publicly funded monitoring scheme would be on option. The scheme could consume significant resources. The forthcoming ACRE work would be relevant.



• One of the main messages arising from the technical workshop had been that for many crops geneflow by means of pollen transfer would not be the principal cause of adventitious presence of GM in non-GM crops were commercialisation to occur. It seemed by no means certain to some members that if GM maize and, especially, GM rape were commercialised, farmers would follow guidelines – which would have to include spraying field margins and eliminating volunteers year on year, monitoring for seed spillage etc – sufficiently rigorously to keep AP thresholds below the limits set at present for non-GM and organic crops, although for sugar beet it did seem more practicable, and non-food crops for biodiesel, bioethanol, packaging, etc, similarly might be less problematic. Other members pointed to the long-standing successful cultivation of High Erucic Acid Rape alongside other varieties of rape and the fact that no organic farm had lost its organic status as a result of the FSE programme.



• The report should be explicit about the possible trade-offs under different scenarios. The report should make very clear the potential difficulties of achieving co-existence of organic, conventional non-GM and GM cultivation on the present thresholds, but also distinguishing between crops – it would be much harder for some than others. The main organic organisations in the UK showed no sign of relaxing their present position of allowing no detectable presence of GM.



• Regional zoning was one option, but the sub-group concluded provisionally (as had the liability sub-group) that this would be unacceptable as it would represent too great a restriction on individual farmers’ freedom to farm. Another possibility would be a ‘stewardship’ boundary round parts of farms where GM crops were being cultivated. Again, the trade-offs needed to be spelled out for these and other options under the scenarios described in the draft report.



• The board noted that uptake of GM crops by farmers in the UK might well be a gradual process which could allow a de facto ‘phasing in’ of commercial growing, with opportunity to monitor how co-existence was or was not being achieved in practice. Gradual uptake seemed likely due to the nature of the GM crops available or close to approval for commercial cultivation and suitable for cultivation in the UK, and the fact that many farmers seemed likely to wait to see how their markets reacted to cultivation of GM crops.