 |
Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) | |||
 |
Sub Groups |
 |
 |
|
|
LIABILITY GROUP NOTE OF 18th MEETING, AT 3.30pm 26 FEBRUARY 2003 1 VICTORIA STREET, LONDON SW1 Note: These are the views of the sub-group, not necessarily of the full Commission Present Phil Dale Matthew Freeman Malcolm Grant Derek Langslow Sue Mayer Justine Thornton (Convenor) Roger Turner Anne Packer (Secretariat) Matt Hughes (Secretariat) Apologies for Absence 1. Apologies had been received from John Gilliland. Minutes of the Previous Meeting 2. The minutes of the January 27 meeting, incorporating Members’ comments had been circulated with the meeting papers. The sub-group confirmed the minutes as a correct record and agreed to their being posted on the AEBC website as such. Draft Liability Working Paper 3. This liability group meeting preceded the main AEBC meeting on 27 February. It was agreed that the meeting would give group members the opportunity to identify and outline the key areas to focus on at the main Commission meeting. 4. There was a discussion of the draft liability working paper. Discussing the emerging conclusions and recommendations, members concluded that best way forward was for a note outlining the liability group’s current thinking to be tabled for discussion at the 27 February Commission meeting, in addition to the AEBC paper (AEBC/03/01). 5. The key points in this note and in the group’s discussions were taken forward at the full Commission meeting on 27 February, and have been included in the minute of the main Commission meeting. Issues to Discuss at April Stakeholder Seminar 6. Sub-group members agreed that any coexistence rules or protocols, including separation distances, might well need to be enshrined in law. Members agreed that any possible commercialisation of GM crops could result in negative secondary economic impacts, for which there would be no compensation mechanism available. It was seen as essential that food processors and retailers agree on any protocols and this issue should be raised at the seminar for stakeholders. 7. Members discussed the analogous farming practice of certified seed production and it was noted that approximately 8% of cultivated arable land is given over to seedbed production. Breaches of standards for certified seed were not common and it was agreed that clarification of current practices was needed. 8. Similarly, sub-group Members discussed current rules governing organic farming. Some Members believed that inspections are undertaken to ensure practices such as separation distances were observed, but that there was no testing of the final product. Members agreed that evidence should be obtained from the organic farming associations on current practices as well as evidence on dispute resolution when organic standards were breached. There was subsequent discussion of whether a tracing and labelling regime did have a negative economic impact on industry, and that the costs involved in auditing or ‘identifying damage’ could add as much as 10% to the costs of production. This might be covered in the Prime Ministers Strategy Unit study into the economics of growing GM crops, but some members suggested this issue might be referred to in the report. 9. There was a general discussion of the hypothetical scenario of economic losses incurred through adventitious presence (AP) without any evidence of a protocol having been breached with the subsequent apportionment of blame. Some members pointed out that if all regulations and protocols were adhered to, the likelihood of AP would be minimal and this should be emphasised in the report. It was agreed that this issue should be raised with stakeholders at the April seminar. Future Meetings 10. The date of the next sub group meeting was scheduled for 21 March at 10.30am. Any Other Business 11. There was none. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||
| Back to top |  |
|
 |
