Sub Groups

Meeting Note
16 March 2001
10.30am, Room 4/ 4, Albany House, 94-98 Petty France, London SW1

These minutes represent the views of the sub-group not of the full AEBC

Present
Ed Dart
Julie Hill (Convenor)
ChiChi Iweajunwa
Derek Langslow

Anne Packer (Secretary)

Apologies
1. Roger Turner and John Gilliland had sent their apologies and were unable to attend this meeting.

Minutes
2. The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed without changes.

Actions from previous meeting
3. Julie Hill had drafted the outline for a report, which had been circulated to sub-group members. Anne Packer had circulated a note covering the EU-US report and FSA work. In discussion arising from the latter, it was agreed that Julie Hill would discuss substantial equivalence at a forthcoming meeting with the FSA. Ed Dart's matrix had been circulated. He provided information about the Public perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe (PABE) studies at the meeting, Roger Turner had sent copies of the reports listed at the end of this note, which had been circulated; Matthew Freeman had drafted a matrix on possible biotechnology developments relevant to animals, based on his earlier paper for AEBC, which had been circulated; Derek Langslow had provided material on environmental risk from English Nature, which was circulated at the meeting; ChiChi Iweajunwa had undertaken research on levels of investment in biotechnology in USA and Australia, the results of which she summarised at the meeting.

4. Remaining actions from January, were for Roger Turner to draft material on intellectual property rights - on which the Nuffield report might provide some help - and for John Gilliland to write a couple of paragraphs as a resume of agricultural trade implications and UK market place rejection issues, to follow up for reliable sources of estimates of investment eg from OECD and EU material, and to seek input from an NFU biotechnology contact. Rosie Hails was going to discuss a possible matrix on bioremediation with the developmental group. Action Roger Turner, John Gilliland.

5. Anne Packer circulated the summary of a paper from the Department for International Development which a Commission member had recommended: "Feeding the World with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence". She would find out more about DFID's involvement with the project, while members would read and comment on the summary. Action: Secretariat and all members

6. Julie Hill would arrange for members to see a copy of the report written by green Alliance and ERM for the Environment Agency. Action: Julie Hill

Discussion of outline of report
7. The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss and take forward the draft outline of a report. Members discussed this in detail and the outline was revised and developed.

8. Some main points were: the report's central aim was to flag up the coming issues in biotechnology, identify views on these issues, put them in the context of broader trends, and make some comment on their relative significance. The report would be the sub-group's narrative, but referencing others' perspectives. Where it was not possible to provide a complete picture, the report would frame key questions. The sub-group would aim for a relatively short report covering the main trends with detailed information on the technical developments presented in table form. Discussion of possible future developments could be presented in the form of alternative scenarios. The global context would be included, and the report would include debate on posited risks and benefits, and possible ways of assessing and comparing risks and benefits. The report would focus intentionally on GM issues, but recognise the significance of non-GM developments.

Further information
9. Ed Dart would produce a short description of apomixis and the potential of controlling such events in the major crops. He would also produce a table of crop effects that have been created by non-gm technology (eg mutation breeding) that could equally well have been achieved by gm technology. Action: Ed Dart

10. The secretariat would explore using UK embassies, and other international sources, to get comparative information on the scale of investment in biotechnology in a number of countries, as well as information on the main aims of that investment. Action: Secretariat

Plans for a workshop
11. After discussion, the group decided to plan for informal discussions at its June meeting with people who could comment on current agricultural trends. It also decided to plan a workshop on possible future scenarios for agriculture. Julie Hill would prepare a draft structure for discussion as soon as possible. The Secretariat would explore the practical arrangements. Derek Langslow would advise the secretariat on possible workshop locations. Action: Julie Hill, Derek Langslow, Secretariat

Future meetings
12. The meeting of the horizon-scanning group with the Church of Scotland group in Edinburgh had now been fixed for 4.30-6.30pm on Tuesday 24 April. The secretariat would find out who was attending, has commissioned a note about their current work, and will obtain copies of the book, 'Engineering Genesis' for those members who have not read it. Discussion might include the draft scenarios if they have been prepared by then. Action: Secretariat

13. Julie Hill would continue drafting an outline report, for circulation to subgroup members at least a week before the next meeting (ie by 2 May); she would also work on scenarios and workshop structure. The plan was for the next meeting, on Wednesday 9 May, to discuss (1) a draft report, (2) draft scenarios for the workshop, (3) draft workshop structure and (4) issues to talk about with those invited for 11 June. For the 11 June meeting, the morning would probably be for discussion of the workshop already held, and the afternoon for meeting those invited. (Timings on these dates are from 10.30am to 3.30pm.) Action: Julie Hill

14. Alongside the AEBC July meeting, it might be possible to have an additional subgroup meeting on the morning of 18 July.

Note of the papers from Roger Turner sent out on 8 February (see paragraph 3):

Transgenic Crops, an environmental assessment, Winrock international, November 2000;
Global Review of Commercialised Transgenic Crops, ISAAA, Clive James, N021-2000;
Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin, World Health Organisation, 2000
Preparing for the Future, Food Chain and Crops for Industry Panel report, Foresight, December 2000;
Foresight for agriculture, horticulture and forestry - crop production, Roger Turner, May 1998;
A review of the role of agriculture, horticulture and forestry in the UK economy, John S Marsh, Foresight, 1997;
Various articles by Gianessi, Carpenter: Agricultural biotechnology: Benefits of transgenic soybeans, Rockefeller Foundation/ National Center for food and Agriculture Policy, April 2000; Why US farmers are adopting genetically modified crops - case study in benefits and risks of agricultural biotechnology - roundup ready soybeans; Value of BT and herbicide resistant cottons; Response to WWF paper 'transgenic cotton: are there benefits for conservation?

AEBC Secretariat
March 2001