House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Eighteenth Report

3 OTHER ISSUES

Making use of the information gathered

33. From the outset of the public debate there has been concern about what the Government would do with the information gathered:

the Five Year Freeze said that "from the outset there was public scepticism that the Government would act on the outcomes of the debate … members of the public felt the process was little more than a PR exercise";[75]
GeneWatch reported that "all stakeholders shared the uncertainty about how the Government would use the findings of the debate";[76]
the National Trust said that it was "concerned that it is still unclear how the views of the public will be fed into the decision-making process on GM … The impression given is of consultation without inclusion";[77] and
the National Consumer Council told us that "the Government failed to make clear what influence the outcomes of the public debate would have on its decision-making process … this still remains unclear".[78]

34. In a letter to the PDSB in November 2002 the Government set out its view of the role to be played by the public debate in decision-making about the application of GM technology in the United Kingdom. It said that

In his evidence the Minister reiterated that view. He told us that the debate "was not meant to be a referendum on GM … [but] we must take account of the findings of the debate, we cannot ignore the views of the people that were expressed".[80] The Government is committed to responding to the debate in much the same way as it responds to a select committee report: that is, in public, and within around two months.[81]

35. The GM Nation? report says that one of the factors by which the success of the public debate should be measured is "the extent to which the report from the debate could reasonably be said to have had an impact on Government. Was information about public views emerging from the debate taken into account in decision-making?".[82] Professor Grant told us that if the Government failed to reflect the findings of the debate in its decisions the whole exercise will have been a failure.[83] He said that the Government should "be able to demonstrate, as it has promised to do, how it has taken into account the findings from the debate".[84]

36. We particularly take note of the comments made by the National Consumer Council in its evidence. It told us that

We endorse the view that it is critically important that the holding of the debate is seen to have an influence on the decisions subsequently made by Government. We recommend that in its response to the report of the public debate (and to this report) the Government set out exactly how it will take into account the outcomes of the debate in its decision-making about GM technology. In particular it should set out precisely the legal framework under which decisions about GM will be taken.

The activities of the Food Standards Agency

37. In February 2003 the Food Standards Agency (FSA) launched what it described as a "distinctive and innovative range of initiatives to independently assess people's views on the acceptability of genetically modified food and how this relates to consumer choice".[86] The FSA set up a 'citizens' jury' to address the question should GM foods be available to buy in the UK?; it set up a website about genetically modified food;[87] published a booklet for consumers; and sponsored various events in schools and elsewhere with the aim of reaching out to young people and consumers on low incomes. The outcome of the citizens' jury was announced in April 2003.[88]

38. The FSA says that its activities amount to "the Agency's contribution to the Government's public debate on GM".[89] However, the relationship between the public debate, the Science Review and the Strategy Unit study was the subject of a formal 'statement of relationships',[90] and it is far from clear how the FSA's work was intended to mesh with the wider work being undertaken. Members of the PDSB quite reasonably felt that there was the "possibility of confusion created by a separate programme of publicly-funded debate",[91] a point taken up by some of our witnesses.[92] We would value an explanation from the Food Standards Agency of its decision to undertake a 'public debate' of its own about GM food, why it chose to do so at the time that it did, what was the cost to public funds of its initiative, and how its work relates to the other strands of the public debate. We would also be keen to learn of future plans for the Agency to study public opinion about GM food.