GM Science Review Panel - Meetings

[This document is also available in Adobe Acrobat format (25kb) for downloading and printing] Further information is available on our Help page about downloading or reading Adobe Acrobat documents.

MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
Thursday 23 October 2003
The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG
THE MEETING WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE

Present

Apologies

1. Apologies were received from Dr Simon Bright, Professor Mike Gale, Professor Mike Gasson, Professor Pat Heslop-Harrison and Professor Peter Young.

1. Chairman's opening remarks

2. Sir David King welcomed Panel members and observers from the public to the eighth Science Review Panel meeting. He particularly welcomed the two new members of the Panel: Dr Michael Antoniou and Dr Bruce Pearce; and members of the GM crop Farm-scale Evaluation (FSE) research team. Observers were invited to join the Panel for lunch.

3. The value of the Panel's First Report in July had been widely acknowledged. The aim now was to build on this by making progress on the four work streams in the second phase of the Review, whilst maintaining the focus on the Panel's original remit.

2. Work plan and structure of the Second Report (Paper SRP/P16)

4. The Secretary introduced Paper SRP/P16, which set out a timetable for the four streams of work, leading to the production of a new (Second) Report. It was agreed that the timetable should be revisited once the magnitude and treatment of comments on the First Report had been further discussed. It was also agreed that discussion of comments on the First Report and completion of the assessment of the FSE results were both important items for the next Panel meeting.

3. Results of the GM crop Farm-scale Evaluations (Paper SRP/P17)

5. The Chairman reminded Panel members that in their First Report, the Panel recognised that the results of the FSEs might make an important contribution to knowledge of the effects of the management of GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops on farmland biodiversity. The results were published on 16 October.

6. Dr Les Firbank, head of the FSE research team, gave a presentation of the team's findings. In essence they had found that the weed management regime used for conventional beet and spring oilseed rape was better for many groups of wildlife than that used for GMHT beet and spring oilseed rape. In contrast, the weed management protocols used for GMHT maize were better for many groups of wildlife than conventional maize. However, differences in mean plant and invertebrate abundances between different conventional crop species were greater than that observed between GMHT and conventional varieties of each crop. And, in general, conventional oilseed rape and beet fields were richer in flora and fauna than conventional maize fields. The differences in weed abundance, seed rain and indicator wildlife species between GMHT crops and their conventional counterparts could be explained in terms of the nature and timing of the herbicide applications.

7. There was extensive discussion of the FSE results among Panel members and the research team. The Panel agreed that its first priority would be to prepare a stand-alone response to the FSE results that would be referred to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) before its open meeting on 25 November. This would also form part of the Second Report. Brian Johnson agreed to lead in producing an initial draft, with help from Alan Gray and Mark Avery. Panel members felt that their response to the FSE work should indicate that it was good science and that it had produced clear-cut results.

8. The Chairman agreed with the overall view of the Panel that the FSE discussion had thrown up much broader issues of biodiversity and farm management practices. He felt that some of the most important conclusions of the FSEs would be missed if the Panel were solely to focus on the GMHT crops without making some broader comments about this in its Second Report.

4. The public debate report: 'GM Nation?' (Paper SRP/P18)

9. The Secretary reminded the Panel that it had agreed to consider the GM public debate report, 'GM Nation?', to see whether it raised any new scientific issues not (fully) covered in the First Report. The GM public debate report had been published on 24 September and posted to all Panel members for comment that day. A wide-ranging discussion followed.

10. Panel members agreed that, whilst the 'GM Nation?' report provided a valuable picture of participants' concerns and sensitivities, there were no new technical or scientific issues falling within the science remit of the Review Panel, and which had not already been covered in the First Report. Julie Hill and Phil Dale agreed to draft a commentary of modest length based on the Panel's discussions.

5. New research (Paper SRP/P19)

11. The Secretariat referred members to Paper SRP/P19, which considered new scientific developments since publication of the First Report, other than those (such as the FSE results) covered by other agenda items. The paper identified eight recent scientific research papers and four reports on research funded by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).

12. Members briefly discussed these papers and reports and concluded that general comments on them should be included in the Second Report. In each case, one or more Panel members agreed to provide a note on the significance of the research for the Secretariat to circulate to the whole Panel before the next meeting.

13. The Secretariat mentioned that the website 'Forum' for contributions on the science had remained open since publication of the First Report until 15 October. Panel members were asked to consider the more recent Forum contributions that had not been considered when preparing the First Report.

6. Comments on the First Report (Paper SRP/P20)

14. The Secretary said that the GM Science Review website now included 55 contributions commenting on the Panel's First Report and received by the mid-October cut-off date. Some letters had also been received. Since much of this material had been posted on the website only in the last day or two, it was agreed simply to consider how to deal with it, leaving discussion of the content until the next meeting.

15. The Secretariat agreed to send a representative set of the written letters to Panel members. All written letters would be available for Panel members to inspect in the office. In addition, the Secretariat would examine all the comments on the First Report and prepare an "issues" guidance note for the next meeting. This would identify:

• peer reviewed scientific literature cited, but not referred to in the First Report;
• concerns raised over the completeness or interpretation of evidence in the First Report;
• concerns raised over the framework or presumptions on which parts of the discussion in the First Report are based.

7. Any other business

16. The Chairman mentioned two forthcoming meetings:

• the Foundation for Science and Technology meeting on 'The GM Debate' on 28 October, at which Howard Dalton was speaking; and
• the Innogen Conference on 13 November considering all three strands of the GM Dialogue, at which Chris Leaver was speaking on behalf of the Chairman.

8. Date and time of next meeting

17. The ninth GM Science Review Panel meeting will be held in the New Connaught Rooms, Covent Garden from 10.30 am to 17.30 pm on 10 November 2003. [It has subsequently become necessary to bring the finishing time forward to 15.45 pm.]

GM Science Review Secretariat
October 2003