Biotechnology, Regulation and Public Opinion: lessons from the GM public debate

1
Steele Raymond Lecture 2003

• Biotechnology, Regulation and Public Opinion
  lessons from the GM public debate
• Malcolm Grant
• Bournemouth, December 3, 2003

2
The double helix 50 years on
3
Social acceptability?
4
Global GM crop cultivation
5
GM crops 2002
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
Conventional breeding, genomics and transgenics

• Sequencing of plant genomes
• Arabidopsis
• Marker-assisted breeding
• Manipulation of complex traits in conventional
  breeding

• Insect resistance
• Herbicide tolerance
• Glyphosate
• Glufosinate ammonium
• Other traits

9
Regulatory models

• Product equivalence
• Separate regulation because of process
• Social strategy

10
EU regulatory processes

• Criteria risk of harm to human health or the
  environment
• Process
• Application to any State (lead)
• 90 days for assessment
• If positive, dossier forwarded to EU
• Decision-making processes

• EU-wide effects of the decision
• Subsequent amendment or revocation
• The informal moratorium
• New directive
• Labelling and traceability
• Liability and co-existence
• The US and the WTO

11
Operation of the EU Directive
12
The AEBC
13
(No Transcript)
14
The AEBC crop trials study
15
Action against the trials
16
Crops on trial

• Complete the trials
• Prepare now for decision-making
• More publicly funded research?
• Ensure post-marketing monitoring
• Be explicit about handling of risk and
  uncertainty
• The role of GM in future of agriculture in the UK
  
• Improve understanding of basis of public views

17
Framing the issues
18
Attitudes toward GM
Anxiety
Passivity
Possibilities
Progress
Que sera, sera
Suspicion
CORR WILLBOURN RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT
19
The 3 strands of the GM debate
20
GM Nation? The programme of debate

• Reconvened focus groups
• Stimulus material
• Facts and opinions
• CD-Rom
• Video
• Printed materials
• Interactive website
• BBC links
• Large regional meetings
• Local events
• Questionnaires

21
The public debatewww.gmpublicdebate.org.uk
GM Nation? The public debate This is the official
website for the Genetic Modification (GM) public
debate taking place in June 2003. Use this site
to find out more about the issues surrounding GM
- and find out how you can join in the debate
22
The reports the economic strand

• Prime Ministers Strategy Unit
• Reported July 11, 2003
• Openness and transparency of method
• Publics framings of issues

• existing GM crops could offer some cost and
  convenience advantages to UK farmers
• however, any economic benefit to the UK is likely
  to be limited, at least in the short-term only
  a narrow range of existing GM crops are currently
  suited to UK conditions, and weak consumer demand
  is likely to limit take-up
• looking to the longer term, future developments
  in GM crops have the potential to offer more
  wide-ranging benefits, to farmers and to
  consumers possibilities include GM crops with
  agronomic benefits more suited to the UK GM
  crops delivering direct health benefits (e.g.
  delivering foods with reduced allergenicity or
  added nutrients) or non-food GM crops used as a
  source of pharmaceuticals and vaccines
• however, the overall balance of future costs and
  benefits will depend on public attitudes, and on
  the ability of the regulatory system to manage
  uncertainties.

23
The science strand

• Methodology panel composition
• Report 21 July 2003
• Open acknowledgement of uncertainties and limits
  to scientific understanding
• Headlines
• For human health, to date there is no evidence
  that currently commercialised GM crop varieties,
  or foods made from them, are toxic, allergenic or
  nutritionally deleterious.

• Superweeds unlikely but insect resistance may be
  problem
• Case by case assessment essential
• Environmental damage unlikely
• Important issues around agricultural production
• Increasing sophistication of non-GM plant
  breeding

24
The public debate outcomes

• Seven key messages
• People are generally uneasy about GM
• The more people engage in GM issues, the harder
  their attitudes and the more intense their
  concerns
• There is little support for early
  commercialisation

25
Outcomes contd.

• There is widespread mistrust of government and
  multi-national companies
• There is a broad desire to know more and for
  further research to be done
• Developing countries have special interests
• The debate was welcomed and valued

26
The remaining steps

• October The crop trial results
• Growing conventional beet and spring rape was
  better for many groups of wildlife than growing
  GMHT beet and spring rape. There were more
  insects, in and around the conventional crops,
  because there were more weeds to provide food and
  cover.
• In contrast, growing GMHT maize was better for
  many groups of wildlife than conventional maize
• November AEBC report on coexistence and
  liability
• November House of Commons report on GM Nation?
• December ACRE on Part C applications for FSE
  crops
• January-February Government policy paper
• 2004 decision-making in Europe on
  commercialisation WTO proceedings
• UK decision-making/implementation on coexistence
  and liability regimes

27
AEBC report on coexistence and liability

• Unanimous
• Statutory protocols for GM crops
• Objective at least 0.9 threshold
• Compensation underpinning
• Analysis but not unanimity
• 0.1 threshold (organic objective)

28
Lessons learnt

• New machinery for public engagement?
• Shortfalls
• Independence of steering board
• Timing and project management
• Getting to broad public
• Funding and timing
• Government commitment
• Gains
• Extent of public interest
• Measure of opinion
• Breadth of issues
• Basis for policy

29
Steele Raymond Lecture 2003

• Biotechnology, Regulation and Public Opinion
  lessons from the GM public debate
• Malcolm Grant
• Bournemouth, December 3, 2003