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 FOURTH MEETING
Tuesday 29 April 2003
The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1

THE MEETING WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE

Present

Members

Secretariat

Guests

Mr Ian Coates - Team Leader, Strategy Unit.

Apologies

1. Apologies for absence had been received from: Professor Diana Bowles, and Professor Michael Wilson, Professor Mike Gasson and Professor Bernard Silverman.

Chairman's opening remarks

2. Sir David King welcomed Panel members and observers from the public to the fourth Science Review Panel meeting and invited observers to join the Panel for lunch. He welcomed Professor Howard Dalton, chief scientific advisor to the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs and Deputy Chair of the Panel.

3. At it's March meeting the Panel agreed that it would discuss the issue of GM and developing countries a little further but that the Strategy Unit should be invited to take part in discussions. Sir David King welcomed Ian Coates - team leader of the Strategy Unit team.

4. The main business of the day was to agree on a consistent format for the Review Report papers prepared by drafting groups.

1. Minutes of the third meeting (19 March)

5. The minutes of the third meeting were confirmed as an accurate record subject to a few typographical changes.

2. Matters arising and Secretary's update

6. A Public Interest and Concerns page had been established on the Science Review website hosting the Corr Wilbourn report questions arising from the foundation discussion workshops, popular summaries of Science Review Open meetings, and a glossary of terms. 73 contributions across all areas had been received and there were interesting challenges between contributors contesting the quality of evidence submitted to the Review. Drafting groups met in April and minutes were posted on the website. Groups crosschecked with the CW report to help frame some of the issues for Review.

Science Review and decisions on commercialisation of GM crops

7. In light of misreporting by the media, Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for DEFRA, said in a press release on 24 March:

"No decisions have yet been taken in the UK on the commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops, including those being grown in the crop trials. Nor are final decisions, whether about cultivation or import of GM crops, likely to be taken at EU level until the end of the year, by which time we will have the report of the public debate on GM issues and the first set of results from our crop trials. The public debate will help to inform the Government's policy-making on GM, including its policy on the cultivation of GM crops."

A full transcript can be viewed on the Science Review website.

Food Standards Agency role in the Review

8. The Food Standards Agency had clarified how it viewed its input to the Science Review. The two advisory committees (ACNFP and ACAF) that provide the agency with advice on food and feed safety will consider the draft texts. The chief scientific advisor of the FSA will then write to Sir David King with the Agency's comments.

Timing of the public debate

9. The public debate will be launched on 3 June and the Public Debate Steering Board will report to Government in September on what the debate has indicated about public views.

Correspondence

10. Professor Sir Tom Blundell's letter to Sir David King, and Sir David King's reply were tabled.

The Strategy Units economics study

11. One member proposed that a recent workshop organised by the strategy Unit "shocks and surprises" might be useful to the work of the review. Ian Coates explained the purpose of the event, which was attended by some members of the Panel and Secretary to the Review. It was decided that in the first instance the food and feed group would give consideration to one of the scenarios discussed in relation to its review.

12. The Strategy Unit aim to publish a Report at the end of June and this is viewed as an input to the public debate. It was not envisaged at this stage that it will be revised but conclusions will need to be assessed in the light of views recorded in the public debate.

3. GM and developing Counties (Paper SRP/P09)

13. Professor Pretty introduced his discussion note. Ian Coates from the Strategy Unit gave an overview of the coverage his group were giving to developing Counties. Members thanked both for their useful contributions.

14. A wide-ranging Panel discussion followed covering a range of viewpoints. Agreement was reached that the Panel did not have the expertise around the table to review this area comprehensively and that it would be unwise to treat it superficially. However, it was thought essential that the Review did include, within the general introduction of the Report, a section, explaining why it was not dealing with the area fully. The Report would be read widely and the Panel would have to be responsible for any unintended effects of the Report in Developing Countries. The Secretariat was asked to prepare a draft introduction including this aspect for the forthcoming Panel meeting on May 13.

4. Drafting group work (Paper SRP/P10)

15. Drafting group secretaries introduced draft papers prepared by members each Group and the Secretariat. There was agreement that there should be a consistent approach to the structure of the papers and that it should be modelled on the Review framework. Members congratulated the three drafting secretaries in the way in which they had demonstrated how effectively the framework could be applied in reviewing the issues. A model was adopted.

16. The timing, logistics of working and status of the June Report were discussed. The Panel formally agreed that it would: (1) produce a Report in June; (2) add an additional meeting on 24 June (3) that the Report in June would be a first report, placed on the website in addition to publication. A second report would follow in the autumn, taking on board the outcome of the public debate and any new scientific developments. Agreement was reached that the Secretariat would consider the various systems of working and develop one that would strike the correct balance between drafting group activity and opportunities for effective interaction and discussion especially where there was a divergence of views.

5. Report structure (Paper SRP/P11)

16. Members approved the proposed structure of the Report subject to some detailed changes. Key additional changes were:

General Introduction: to inclued: (1) a brief overview of regulatory oversight; (2) a commentary on GM and developing countries; (3) the extent of GM in cultivation and in the food chain.

Headings: The headings in the chapter on gene flow should present the issues as questions to be consistent with chapters four and five.

Annexes: Will be web-based except for a single Bibliography, which will be at the end of the Report.

6. Any other business

20. None.

7. Date and time of next meeting

21. The next Panel meeting will be on Tuesday 13 May, 10.30 am to 11.30 at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 21 Albemarle Street, London SW1S 4BS, followed by drafting group work until 5.30 pm.

GM Science Review Secretariat
May 2003