Richard Abel
Anne Packer

1.      Roger Turner and Ed Dart were unable to attend.

Previous meeting

2.      The draft minutes of the previous meeting would be sent to Ben Gill and Brian Johnson for comment; members were content with the draft. Action: Secretariat

3.   Julie Hill welcomed three officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA): Henry Derwent, head of the environmental protection group, Dr Linda Smith, head of the GM policy and regulatory unit, and Dr Paul Burrows Secretary to ACRE (the Advisory Committee on releases to the Environment) and head of the Joint Regulatory Authority.  She explained the background to the AEBC horizon scanning group’s work, including consultation on possible future scenarios for agriculture and biotechnology in the UK, informal meetings and a public debate at the AEBC Birmingham meeting in July. The first draft of a report would be considered by the full AEBC at a forthcoming meeting in Belfast.

4.      There were three broad areas where AEBC would welcome input during this informal discussion:

• DEFRA views on likely areas for biotechnology developments not yet in the regulatory system, and of broader trends affecting likely developments.

• The revised Government structures for agricultural and environment policy development, and consequences of the changes

• The way in which EU directives were developing, particularly on public consultation

5.      Henry Derwent said that the AEBC’s consultation paper had been a helpful stimulus to consideration of the future.  He noted that in determining what developments do and do not go ahead, retailers and intermediates in supply chains have an important influence.  Some potential areas for developments include:

• Further developments with herbicide tolerant crops since producers have already concentrated considerable resources here.

• Subsequently, developments of insect, fungal and disease-resistant crops.

• Crops with features that can be of industrial use, such as vegetable oils.

• Drought resistant crops  - these could be important.

• Features directly benefiting consumers eg flavour and appearance as in the earlier FlavrSava tomatoes -a theme likely to return.

• Crops with medical/ health enhancing products.

• Crops with reduced use of inputs such as pesticides or fertilisers.

6.      Much work will be needed to test environmental effects of developments.

7.      Paul Burrows noted that GM animals and fish could be developed, perhaps mainly for xenotransplantation and disease models, and in contained use.  There had been publicity about GM fish and mosquitoes, and animals as biological control agents.  GM virus vaccines were coming near to clinical trials, gene therapy might in future involve live viruses, and there could be GM developments in veterinary medicines.

8.      Linda Smith said that no work on fish was going on for UK markets, but there was experimental work in containment for other countries (by the Department for International Development).  There would be international implications if there were any release of fish.

9.      In discussion it was agreed that it was easier to get early information in a generic area eg from scientific conferences, than on specific developments, as intellectual property rights may be a bar to finding out details.

Government structures for biotechnology in agriculture and the environment

10. DEFRA said that there was an interdepartmental Ministerial committee (SCI-BIO) to consider biotechnology issues, and a group of officials which includes the devolved administrations.  There were inevitably issues about the appropriate extent of separation of sponsorship and regulatory functions in government.  The DEFRA policy and regulatory unit now included the GM co-ordination function which had been with MAFF.  The unit has four teams responsible for: international aspects; ACRE and the Joint Regulatory Authority; policy on GM crops and FSEs; and policy on other GM issues.  With devolution, the team in the Joint Regulatory Authority handle all applications for releases of GMOs, including seeking advice from ACRE, but the final decision on granting the consent is made by the devolved administration, for example the Scottish Executive for releases in Scotland.  

11. AEBC members have concerns about research being in private hands, and it was noted that these concerns were shared internationally eg at a conference in Sweden in June and in the OECD conference in Bangkok, with widespread concerns about decline in independent work.  IPR could be a bar to developments.  The BBSRC were becoming more aware of the need to fund more strategic research.

12.  DEFRA said that the EU regulation of genetic modification had become deadlocked: no decisions had been made for several years.  There will be a new Directive in effect from 2002.  DEFRA is currently consulting widely – including AEBC – on the arrangements for implementation.  The Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly and Northern Ireland Department of the Environment are organising parallel consultations.  The new arrangements will include enhanced prior consultation on research releases and enhanced information for commercialisation decisions.  The debate about marketing applications had not been as open is it might be – with no powers under the Environmental Protection Act.  There was also consultation underway in the EU about proposals on traceability and labelling of food and of feed.  Liability issues are relevant to regulatory framework for approvals, though if the problem of coexistence of GM and non-GM crops could be solved, the need for a liability regime could decrease.  Within Europe there was also provision for EC ethical debate on generic issues, eg for a view on animal genes in crops or on terminator genes, though not on case-by-case issues.  Methods of consultation had moved forward enormously over the past ten years since the previous Directive on deliberate release, with developments in information technology.

13. Considering biotechnology beyond GM technology, and the possibility of producing similar products by non-GM means, DEFRA said that plant breeding genomics will mean that plant breeding in future will be done in many new ways.  There could be inconsistency between GMO and pesticide regulatory regimes and risk assessments for other forms of agriculture.  As genomics moves forward there may be further discussions about whether the product or the process is the major aspect to consider – in UK /Europe it is the process, in the USA it is the product, while in Canada regulation is based on ‘novel crops’.  The New Zealand GM Commission report is very interesting about possible developments.  There may be a need for biodiversity action plans, with an effective international biodiversity ‘clearing house’ to help countries understand the implications of specific GMOs. 

14. Julie Hill thanked the officials for their helpful input to the AEBC horizon scanning group’s work, and said that they would be welcome to send in any further information. 

15. Julie Hill welcomed Dr Monica Darnbrough, Ian Shaw and Dr Sue Armfield   from the DTI Chemicals and Biotechnology team. She explained the background to the AEBC horizon scanning group’s work, including a consultation on possible futures for agriculture and biotechnology in the UK, informal meetings and a public debate at the AEBC Birmingham meeting in July. The first draft of a report would be considered by the full AEBC at a forthcoming meeting in Belfast.

16. Monica Darnbrough explained that their views would primarily be personal ones, based on the work they were doing, rather than necessarily being those of Ministers.  The aim of her directorate was to help ensure that the UK remains a good place for doing bioscience and for supporting the science to turn it to economic activity and products across all areas.  This covered a wide range of bioscience through diagnostics, personalized medicine, health care and screening to bioscience for environmental cleaning-up processes to food and crops, and particularly to non-food crops, with probably a particular emphasis on pharmaceutical products. 

17. Factors making the UK a good place for bioscience and its application included a skills base, regulation, taxation, attractiveness to inward investment via patent laws, planning system and regional funding etc.  DTI had a wide range of links with people involved in bioscience and its regulation.

18. In relation to the scenarios AEBC set out, DTI officials saw biotechnology as a very wide field, and scenario C might be the most likely, but with a rejection of GM for crops and food alone rather than biotechnology more broadly.  There would be a danger in the UK and Europe lagging the rest of the world, as the UK had great scientific and research strengths in agricultural horticultural and bioscience research, and it would be unfortunate if those disappeared because of a focus on GM, with GM being seen as undesirable.  If products could not be marketed in Europe, research would probably dwindle.  What would be best would be a variation on scenario A, where regulation and policy is always there and constantly evolving.  It was helpful for industry to know the regulatory framework within which they are working, within an ethical and social background that is supportive.  Regulation should be based on sound science, proportionate and enforceable.  The HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority) was a good model – wide debate of scientific considerations long before the research and applications started, with the consequent setting up of a framework which has proved far sighted and proactive. 

19. Looking at likely trends within biotechnology and trends affecting biotechnology, the most difficult aspect was to accurately predict possible research developments and regulatory demands.  (One recent example was selective breeding of yeasts for agriculture and environmental clean up.)

20. DTI was interested in non-food crops for energy and energy efficiency, and plant oils in a range of industrial applications.  Testing, regulation in use and end disposal for industrial oils were relevant issues.  A wide range of basic bio-science research might find ecologically advantageous applications in agriculture, and remote sensing and precision farming could have important roles in future.  It was difficult to assess what would be the coming social and ethical issues.  Looking at developments across the board, if GM and non-GM plants produced the same product, perhaps the focus for attention should be regulatory regimes, with the prospect of things being produced by a whole variety of methods. 

21. Discussing the balance between private and public research agendas, and possible problems of Intellectual property rights (IPR), Monica Darnbrough said there needed to be both types of research.  She would send AEBC the Baker report on IPR from a few years previously.  There was a tendency for too much intellectual property to sit on shelves and not be turned into anything useful; there was now more pressure to make use of results.  There was a balance to strike, between information made available at no cost and the need for some payback for a product with a lengthy and costly development time.  Action: Dr Darnbrough

22. Julie Hill thanked the officials for their helpful input to the AEBC horizon scanning group’s work and said that AEBC would be interested in any further information on yeasts, and that DTI would be welcome to send in any further information.  DTI agreed to provide information on yeasts, and perhaps further examples of novel biotechnology uses outside recombinant DNA technology. Action: Dr Darnbrough

23. Julie Hill outlined plans for the open meeting in Belfast and for the discussions for school students.   There would be four speakers at the evening meeting and over 150 people had asked for tickets.  The students would work in small groups for much of the morning, with an AEBC member facilitating discussions in each group.  There would then be a feedback and general discussion meeting. The facilitators would meet in Belfast on 13 September, with a member of the Belfast Education and Library Board to give advice on how to make best use of the time available.

Progress on drafting a sub-group report.

24. Members discussed what should be treated as ‘evidence’ in the draft report, and agreed that that submissions to the group should be included, and that other documents that have been circulated or noted should be included in references, but would not be considered as evidence.  Some main sources of evidence were papers from English Nature; papers from the Church of Scotland Science, Religion and Technology Project; the Environment Agency ERM/Green Alliance report; responses to the scenarios consultation; input from the AEBC Birmingham meeting; and input from people who have had informal discussions with the group.

25.  Julie Hill had expanded the draft sub-group outline report on the lines agreed at earlier meetings, had circulated it to members in July, and not received subsequent comments.  Members agreed that the draft should be circulated to all AEBC members for the Commission meeting on 13-14 September, for discussion.  The secretariat would then help Julie to take the revision forward. Action: Julie Hill, Secretariat

26. Members discussed the main uses to which the horizon scanning report could best be put, and hence the best form for it to take, and the timing for its issue.  They agreed the report would be to inform AEBC thinking, and for wider use, for example to stimulate debate.  The report should be descriptive, largely for information, including data, and relatively quickly completed, rather than a detailed report with recommendations to Government.  Members agreed there should be thorough referencing, that the report might be a ‘living’ document on the web, for others to contribute to, or it might be updated at regular intervals (for example every six months or yearly).

27. Members discussed possible additions to the next draft.  The annex would include statistical data on the global economy; there would be reference to the New Zealand Royal Commission study (possibly with the executive summary included in an annex); there could be more about problems in exporting environmental degradation and indigenous production; more on developments in legislation and technologies, and on the social/ethical debate across the world.

28. Some major themes for the report to identify included:

• Directions of public/ private research agendas and the articulation of research goals.

• Intellectual property and consultation/ consent – particularly for synergies, and discussion of a ‘social contract’ model.

• Risk-benefit assessments, embracing competitiveness, and the risks of not developing technology.

• Contamination and geneflow: with two aspects: (1) fish/insects etc travelling across national boundaries and (2) ‘outlying’ science which has concerns over instability and horizontal gene transfer.

29. The next meeting  - on 31 October - would focus particularly on agreeing the issues, themes and conclusions of the report.

30. Julie Hill had been sent a copy of a Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) paper by Robin Grove-White, which the secretariat would circulate to group members.  Action: Secretariat

31. Members agreed that they would try to encourage groups with which they have contacts to send some further, late responses to the June scenarios consultation paper.  The responses so far received were useful, but not many groups had replied.  Action: members

AEBC Secretariat
September 2001