GM Science Review Panel - Meetings

[This document is also available in Adobe Acrobat format (20kb) for downloading and printing] Further information is available on our Help page about downloading or reading Adobe Acrobat documents.

GM SCIENCE REVIEW PANEL
MINUTES OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING
Monday 22 December 2003
The New Connaught Rooms, Covent Garden Exhibition Centre, London WC2B 5DA

THE MEETING WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE

Present

Members

Secretariat

Apologies

1. Apologies had been received from Mark Avery, Chitra Bharucha, and Professors Diana Bowles, Mick Crawley, and Chris Leaver.

1. Chairman's opening remarks

2. Sir David King welcomed Panel members and observers from the public to the eleventh GM Science Review Panel meeting. He thanked Panel members for their efforts over the last month in further developing the draft Second Report. Observers were invited to join the Panel for lunch.

2. Minutes and matters arising

3. The minutes of the tenth meeting were confirmed as an accurate record. There were no matters arising.

3. Secretariat update

4. The Secretary briefly went through the contents of the second draft of the Second Report, highlighting progress that had been made since the previous meeting and the main issues that were outstanding. It was agreed to consider each section of the draft Report in turn, in the same order as was done at the previous meeting.

4. Second draft of supplementary Second Report

5. Drafts of the following sections of the Second Report were discussed:

• Executive Summary;
• Section 1: The Significance of the Public Debate Report for the Science Review;
• Section 2: New Published Research;
• Section 3: The Farm Scale Evaluations;
• Section 4: Comments Received on the First Report;

  4.2 Comments on Chapter 4: 'How Reliable is GM Plant Breeding?';

  4.3 Comments on Chapter 5: 'The Safety of Food and Animal Feed Derived from GM Crops';

  4.4 Comments on Chapter 6: 'Environmental Impacts of GM Crops';

  4.5 Comments on Chapter 7: 'Geneflow, Detection and Impact of GM Crops'; and

  4.6 Comments on the GM Science Review Process.

6. Overall, it was agreed that the work on the Second Report had not altered the main conclusions in the First Report, but had been useful in prompting the Panel to refine its reasoning and clarify a number of issues.

7. Section 4, which considered the various comments that had been received on the Panel's First Report, was subdivided into the same science chapters and main sections as had appeared in the First Report. Each section was itself now divided into three, addressing:

• summary conclusions from the First Report;
• the main points made by commentators; and
• the Panel's response.

Although this gave a good overall picture of the comments that had been received in any one area, in some sections it meant that the points made by commentators were rather separate from the Panel's respective responses. It was therefore agreed that for each main issue the Panel's response should immediately follow the summary of the commentator's views. It was also agreed that the 'summary conclusions from the First Report' should simply contain the relevant text from the Executive Summary of the First Report.

8. Some Panel members agreed to send further text to the Secretariat on specific issues. The Secretariat would revise the current draft in light of the discussions and these further contributions and circulate a final draft for comment by mid-January.

5. Any other business

9. It was agreed that it would not be necessary to hold any further meetings of the GM Science Review Panel.

10. The Secretary outlined a timetable for the remaining work. The aim was to be ready to publish the Second Report by the week of Monday 19 January. It was noted that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment would be publishing its advice on the FSE results on 13 January.

11. The Chairman thanked Panel members for their valuable contributions to the Review, and Professor Pretty in turn thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat on behalf of the Panel.

GM Science Review Secretariat
December 2003