 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
HORIZON SCANNING SUB GROUP MEETING Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission PresentEd Dart John Gilliland Julie Hill (Convenor) Secretariat Ms Anne Packer Mileva Novkovic Apologies for absence 1. Derek Langslow, Roger Turner and Chi Chi Iweajunwa had sent apologies. Previous meeting 2. The draft minutes of the previous meeting were agreed and would be put on the website. 3. As a matter arising, Anne said fusarium had been checked against the Environment Agency ERM/GA Report and would be put back into the tables of biotechnology applications. Action: secretariat Discussion of papers from secretariat circulated before the meeting, including written or verbal comments from any members unable to attend 4. The aim of today’s meeting was to decide on the final format of the tables, the revised commentaries on the different categories of technology reflected in the table and the section called ‘Issues for Commission’. The sub-group would also consider how to use to the commentaries as a way of linking the study to the Work Plan, and would consider if the draft Work Plan should be revised before sending to all AEBC members for discussion at the March meeting. It would then be further revised and sent out for consultation. It would be particularly useful for AEBC if the sub-group could suggest how the issues in the draft Work Plan should be prioritised. 5. Mileva had prepared a draft glossary,and comments received from Roger would be incorporated with the next revision of the study. Any further comments on the glossary should be sent to Mileva. Action: members and secretariat Discussion of revised tables 6. Members noted that the tables had been re-ordered in line with UK relevance and additional information had been inserted. They also noted that the applications listed in the tables had been labelled ‘C’, ‘F’, ‘R’ or ‘G’ (greenhouse trials) to indicate their state of development. It might be appropriate to substitute ‘L’ for ‘R’ to distinguish between lab research and field research. Ed might be able to help Roger with information for Annex C, containing draft tables with biotechnology industry statistics. Action: members and secretariat 7. There was discussion about the best place for additional information about developments. Members agreed that the current balance of information between the tables and the commentaries should be maintained . It would also be important to concentrate on issues of relevance to the UK. Revised commentaries section 8. The sub-group was generally content with the introduction but wanted to ensure that the information under the various categories in this section was as complete as possible. Drafting points were made which would be incorporated, but some substantive points and additional issues for inclusion are set out below. Herbicide tolerance 9. Herbicide tolerance work spanned agricultural crops, trees and grasses. Study of research agendas might establish whether work was focussing on tolerances to the same chemical across a broad range of plants/trees, in which case the implications could be substantial. Rotations were important, and there were anecdotal stories from Argentina about rotations being ignored, with over - use of the same crops year on year and misuse of herbicid resulting in the emergence of herbicide tolerant weeds 10. Julie would talk to the Environment Agency to establish whether a Soil Strategy was imminent, and, if so, it would be helpful for the study to refer to this. Pest resistance 11. Pest resistance should be considered in the round in the commentary. Nematode resistance should be included. The ‘environmental footprint’ issue should be included. A study of comparative environmental impacts would cover pest, viral, fungal, bacterial resistance and herbicide tolerance, asthese have implications for sustainability. Fungal resistance 12. Fungal resistance is relevant to UK farmers given the importance of cereals to UK agricultural production. The thrust of this section should be on the aim of developing GM resistance to replace losses due to fungal attack, and the low efficacy of chemicals. Developing fungal resistance in bananas and sunflowers, although of lesser UK relevance, would be included. Viral resistance 13. As there were no known chemicals to treat viruses, it is the carrier that has to be treated. In the UK, barley yellow dwarf virus is a substantial problem. A-biotic stress resistance 14. Increasing frost tolerance would also be significant to UK producers. Hot, cold and water stress would be covered. Increased yield 15. This section needed to note the environmental costs of increased yield. Trees 16. The main point to include was the implications of geneflow associated with trees and grasses. Fish 17. Julie would check with Phil Harris whether there was anything more to include here. Section on generic issues 18. A section on generic issues, at the end of Part 3, would replace the earlier Part 4. It would identify subjects for future AEBC study, including the impact of the visions for agriculture being developed within the UK. AEBC might consider inviting an external expert to compare and analyse these. This could include three dimensions: competitiveness, environmental delivery and consumer aspirations. There were possibilities for linking the outcome of this work with public attitudes work – if there were an early study it could be considered at the AEBC meeting in Cardiff. A study might also cover trans-boundary regulation issues. First draft of AEBC revised Work Plan 19. Members were generally satisfied with the draft, and discussed the range and priority for future studies. The draft would be revised for sending to the full Commission. 20. The secretariat said that DEFRA were producing a paper on trans-boundary issues eg fish/insects before the March Commission meeting. Members asked the secretariat to ask ACRE for its latest thinking on likely issues arising from non-native species of trees and grasses arriving in the UK. Both sets of information would be useful in considering future work priorities for AEBC. Action: Secretariat Next sub-group meeting 21. This has been arranged for Monday 25 March, from 10.30am to 3.30pm. AEBC Secretariat February 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
