 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
LIABILITY SUB GROUP MEETING Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission PresentPhil Dale Matthew Freeman Malcolm Grant Justine Thornton (Convenor) Roger Turner Anne Packer (Secretariat) Apologies 1. Derek Langslow, John Gilliland and Sue Mayer had sent their apologies. Justine Thornton had to leave during the meeting. Minutes of the previous meeting, on 8 July 2. Members had previously agreed these in circulation and they were confirmed. Draft scenarios 3. The secretariat had updated the scenarios in the light of the AEBC discussions on 18 July and subsequent contributions. The secretariat would revise them further in the light of comments; Justine Thornton would send further revisions on legal aspects to the secretariat. Members suggested that the sections on issues raised by individual scenarios should be removed from the scenarios paper. At the end of the chapter on the scenarios in the draft liability report, there would instead be a general note that liability seemed only to help provide a solution in one or two of the scenarios, and a note that most of the scenarios raised generic issues, rather than ones specific to GM. This would enable a greater focus on the laws and on gaps in them. 4. When Malcolm Grant had the opportunity to draft the introductory notes, they would be sent round liability group members for any swift comments, and then the scenarios paper would be sent to stakeholders for comment. The introduction would be drafted to be accessible to non-lawyers. The aim would be to ask for responses by 9 October, so that the group could consider them at the 18 October meeting. In addition to people on the general stakeholder list, the scenarios would be sent to the environmental liability working group of the UK Environmental Lawyers’ Association. Evidence taking on 11 September at AEBC meeting in Edinburgh 5. Members suggested people who might be asked to give evidence on legal liability for GMOs and on limits to liability regimes at the Edinburgh AEBC meeting. The secretariat would explore whether they would be able to attend. Decisions which the group needs to take 6. Members agreed that it would be useful to reach some initial tentative conclusions, in order to test them further. 7. A relevant principle could be to recommend not changing existing laws unless there was a clear need, and unless a change would actually address and solve issues that could not be dealt with currently. One thesis to test might be that all GM issues could be dealt with under existing laws, setting out why. Companies would be liable under current provisions for quite a wide range of aspects - aspects not covered could be quite narrow. Another thesis might be that not all aspects could be covered by existing laws, but that these aspects were also not covered for other forms of agriculture, and, further, that it was hard to see what new provisions might deal with them. A conclusion might be that GM crops seemed not to give rise to substantially different issues than for other crops, in terms of making it necessary to have a whole new legal framework for GM crops, though sensitive treatment was needed not least because of the range of concerns people have over GM crops. Members noted that any new provisions would inevitably lead to borderline issues, and that these could be disruptive in achieving a consistent regime. 8. Considering whether there were instances of GM crops needing different cover, Members noted it was difficult to think of specific rules for GM crops that would not apply equally to other crops. No case had yet emerged suggesting a specific change was required; there were cases that current liability did not cover for conventional crops and would not for GM crops either. 9. The limits to a liability regime were important - as liability would only deal with a small percentage of the potential harms. This would be highlighted since liability provisions looked as if they would provide a solution in only about one of the scenarios. How ‘harm’ was determined, was relevant to thresholds, labelling and consumer choice. 10. The problem might be the lack of proper insurance or indemnity, and the solution might be to deal with that. The recommendations in the AEBC report might well encourage insurance companies to provide cover for GMOs. 11. It could be useful, as the New Zealand Law Commission report did, to highlight areas in which policy decisions need to be taken. Any other business 12. If the liability study was going to focus particularly on GM crops rather than GMOs generally, the title would need to reflect this. Programme for future liability group meetings 13. Members agreed the programme for future group meetings:
August 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
