 |
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 John Gilliland Derek Langslow Sue Mayer Justine Thornton (Convenor) Roger Turner Anne Packer (Secretariat) Graham Davis (DEFRA) Apologies 1. Malcolm Grant sent his apologies. 2. The note of the meeting on 19 March, which had been circulated in advance of this meeting, was agreed and would be put on the website. Discussions with abc representatives 3. Justine Thornton welcomed three members of the recently established agricultural biotechnology council: Stephen Smith (abc Chair and Syngenta), Paul Rylott (Aventis) and Tony Combes (Monsanto) to informal discussions with the liability sub-group, and outlined the group’s work to date. 4. The representatives explained that abc had been formed by the seven major companies in emerging agricultural biotechnologies: Bayer, Dow, BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, Aventis and Monsanto. It was part of a European and global industry initiative, to be pro-active, informative, transparent and accessible, to be joined-up across industry and to sponsor a fresh and fair debate on agricultural biotechnology. As an example of the need for such an approach, a survey last December had suggested that 66% of respondents felt they did not know enough to form an opinion about genetic modification. Horizontal /vertical legislation 5. Industry believes that biotechnology in agriculture should not be singled out vertically for separate legislation, but it does support horizontal legislation, which would apply to all industries equally. This was a consistent theme emerging across Europe. Companies have a responsibility across all of their technologies - including for example the pharmaceutical industry - and see liability for GM crops as being no different from liability for other products. 6. Abc representatives said that many things challenge farmland, and said industry might support a view that farmland should have some coverage from potential hazards across the board – it would not support provisions specifically for GM crops. Industry would work within whatever system was decided, for example with strict or fault-based liability, and would contribute to debate beforehand. Current position 7. Industry considers that economic liability is clear at present through the civil courts, with provisions - if there were harm and damage - through to liability. GM crops have been growing in research fields in the UK for 13 years and there have been no issues of loss of livelihood or organic status being affected. This was clear testament that the SCIMAC codes of practice and guidelines worked. They have been grown commercially elsewhere since 1996. No form of agriculture should have a veto on other forms. Approaching the issue via an assumption of harm did not seem helpful. Industry is properly regulated and works through the freedoms and conditions of licences. In the FSEs, biotechnology companies operate on lines agreed with SCIMAC, and if there were a liability issue, companies would deal appropriately with it. Specific detail of contracts between the industry and farmers taking part in the FSE programme were not disclosed by the abc. Possible commercialisation 8. AEBC members commented that there were issues they needed to address, on how best to facilitate co-existence rather than the prospect of possible widespread litigation in future: litigation was an ineffective regulatory mechanism. (One parallel to GM crop-growing might be the growing of certified seed, where the farmer has the obligation of growing to meet a set standard, without requirements on neighbouring farmers.) Members commented that farmers felt they could be in the front line for potential economic loss, whether or not GM technology is commercialised. 9. Industry has high levels of confidence in the technology, and in moving from the stage of development to commercialisation, would handle risks as for other types of product. Correct introductory stewardship is important for all products. In ensuring commercial viability, developing best practice is important across the board. Farmers are the customers of the industry, which relies on having customers. In future organic farming and genetic modification might become compatible, depending on emerging views of accreditation bodies. 10. Abc representatives said that GMOs were different from other agriculture in the eyes of only some, rather than all, members of the public. Industry stood by all their products, and they were in the business for the long term – for safe products for agriculture, food etc, and with regulatory provisions to ensure that industry is properly controlled. Other countries 11. Members asked abc representatives whether they had information on liability provisions or thinking from other countries, as they might be well placed for this. Abc said they were not aware of any specific liability regimes in any countries, and offered to find out and let AEBC know. They were unaware of any court cases about liability, including any cases about economic loss. (Different countries have different regulatory and monitoring regimes.) Action: abc Novelty 12. In Canada, the concept of novelty triggers the route through the regulatory process. Members said they were considering whether there might be merit in a similar approach to liability, based on novelty. Members also commented that the geographical coverage of the proposed European Directive on environmental liability is unlikely to include much farmland. Levy/ compensation fund 13. Members and abc representatives discussed whether there might be a case for a levy or a compensation fund, which could be available for unforeseeable damage, where companies had acted properly; members said there might be an analogy with existing provisions for oil pollution from tankers. In discussion it was noted that there could be a range of interpretations: for example either that industry was taking pro-active steps, which could help get products to market with public acceptance, or conversely that the need to set up such a fund pointed to an underlying problem. Unlike the oil industry, which has a small number of large companies, there are a large number of enterprises, both large and small scale, working with GMOs. Tolerance levels 14. The group had discussed tolerance levels briefly with Europa-Bio but would find further information helpful. In response, Stephen Smith said he would send the secretariat a paper about tolerance levels. Action: abc Closing discussion 15. Members commented that the AEBC group were approaching this study with an open mind; it was puzzling that industry seemed to be approaching the discussion as if knowing already where the AEBC group was coming from. 16. Members would welcome comments from industry in the course of its study, while its report was in draft form, before being finalised. Abc representatives said industry would be pleased to provide further input, and to give clarification, at the AEBC group’s request, and would be content to comment on interim drafts. Some questions might be feasible for individual companies to respond to, where it was not possible to give a single response from industry across the board. 17. Justine Thornton thanked Stephen Smith, Paul Rylott and Tony Combes for coming to discussions with the AEBC liability group. Discussion of draft issues paper for the full Commission meeting in Cardiff 18. Members discussed the draft issues paper for the full AEBC meeting in Cardiff in early May. In the light of comments, the secretariat would revise the paper, send it round for quick consultation towards the beginning of the following week and then despatch it with the other papers for the Commission. Meantime members would let the secretariat have any drafting comments on the current draft. Action: secretariat, members Scenarios 19. Members discussed scenarios, and their potential usefulness in looking in depth at potential issues. Working through specific examples would help to identify where there are gaps in current provisions. Next steps and next meetings 20. The secretariat would revise the draft issues paper, for clearance by the convenor, and would copy it to all group members at the same time. It would then be sent out before the bank holiday weekend with the other full Commission papers. Action: secretariat, members 21. The secretariat would send group members some preliminary ideas for scenarios, before the bank holiday, for comment and revision after that weekend. The secretariat would then revise the scenarios, and convert them into Powerpoint slides for use in discussion at the full Commission meeting in Cardiff. Action: secretariat, members 22. Members agreed that the next dates for group meetings would be in Cardiff on Friday 10 May, in the afternoon after the end of the full AEBC meeting, from 1.00-3.00pm, and then on Monday 17 June from 10.30 to 1.00pm in London. Any other business 23. The secretariat had been in contact with Professor Jules Pretty, Chair of the ACRE sub-group on harm. That group was also meeting today, and expecting to report in the next few months. Professor Pretty would update the liability group in more detail following the ACRE group’s meeting. AEBC Secretariat May 2002 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
