Memorandum submitted by GeneWatch UK (A5)
1. Summary:
The public debate was a welcome step in efforts
to develop more deliberative and participatory mechanisms in decision
making about GM crops. However, there were several problems with
the conduct of the debate which hampered the process:
— Initial funding was too little and
led to delays as arguments took place about the need for more;
— Government's intended use of the
outcomes of the debate and their importance in decision making
was unclear promoting cynicism;
— there was insufficient time for the
debate leading to the exclusion of many people;
— not all the relevant information
was available to the public—including the science and economics
reviews and findings of the farm-scale evaluations;
— the Central Office of Information,
who were appointed by the Government to conduct the debate under
the direction of the Steering Board, did not appear to be competent
to undertake the task;
— the separate exercise conducted by
the Food Standards Agency was confusing and led to lost opportunities
to integrate methodologies.
However, despite these failings, an important
body of information about public attitudes was collected and should
be used alongside other data to inform policy and decision making.
The government should also conduct an audit of the performance
of the COI and reopen the public debate to allow deliberation
on the findings of the Science and Economics Reviews and the results
of the Farm-Scale Evaluations.
2. GeneWatch UK welcomed the prospect of
an active public debate to engage with and inform the policy and
decision making process on the future of GM crops and food in
the UK so became an active participant in the debate in various
ways:
— as an interested observer, collecting
views of others participating;
— contributing to the process of preparing
public information materials;
— actively trying to engage people
in the process through a dedicated section of our web site and
producing information materials;
— speaking at public meetings and making
GeneWatch's case against commercialisation at present.
3. At the end of the public debate, GeneWatch
undertook a review of the process which has drawn on our own experiences,
interviews with stakeholders observing the debate and comments
from people who took part in the meetings. This evidence is a
summary of the findings of that research and the full report is
also being supplied to the Committee in advance of publication.
We hope the Committee's inquiry will consider how any shortcomings
in the public debate process should be addressed and draw conclusions
which will inform any similar exercises in technology assessment
in the future.
4. In July 2002, the Government announced
that it would have a broad public debate on the future of GM crops
and food in the UK. This was a novel and welcome step that brought
the possibility of a new form of public participation in decision
making. Planning started in the late summer of 2002 and the debate
itself ran for six weeks from June 3rd to July 18th 2003. In parallel,
a series of reconvened discussion groups made up of randomly selected
people were held. These met on two occasions to discuss the GM
issue but were not held in public so are not considered here.
The findings of the whole exercise are expected in late September
2003. Inevitably, there will be useful lessons for any future
process and this report is intended to aid that learning as well
as to evaluate the importance of the debate for GM decision making.
5. Whilst the public debate on the future
of GM crops was widely welcomed in principle, there were considerable
reservations about how it was conducted in practice. The areas
where the public debate was controversial included:
— whether the Government would listen
to the outcomes;
— the financial resources committed;
— the quality of the organisation and
materials.
6. Even the AEBC expressed reservations
at an early stage about the Government's initial plans including
that[1]:
"The AEBC recognises that the process of
the debate will be exceptionally difficult. It has particular
concerns about the time scale, and whether the proposed budget
is sufficient to allow the independent steering board to do the
job properly."
7. For participants in the debate, it was
scepticism about the Government's intentions and their practical
experiences of the organisation of the debate that dominated their
comments to GeneWatch. All stakeholders shared the uncertainty
about how the Government would use the findings of the debate
and most emphasised how constraints had led to the exclusion of
many people (especially those who had not considered the issues
before) and the omission of key pieces of information from the
debate—in the shape of the Science and Economics Reviews
and the results of the Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSEs). For everyone,
the underlying responsibility for these shortcomings was thought
to lie with the Government.
8. The Central Office of Information were
appointed by the Government to run the debate for the Steering
Board, and from the outset the AEBC, among others, was concerned
about the independence of COI from Government[2].
During the debate they were frequently criticised for not responding
to requests, failing to advertise meetings widely, the poor quality
of the information materials, and lack of support in how to host
a meeting where discussion could take place productively. The
absence of advance publicity about the process led to a lack of
broad awareness of the project as the following press report illustrates
in relation to the opening meeting in Birmingham: "While
those inside the room are eager to get the meeting under way—it
is scheduled to start at the helpful time for local working people
of 3pm—awareness of the debate outside the building is a
little more fuzzy. Just outside the sprawl of the NEC, Nick Skeens,
a writer, said he had never heard of the national debate. `I have
to confess to complete and utter ignorance of it,' he said"[3].
9. Preparing the background materials was
one area where GeneWatch had first hand experience of the poor
quality work of the COI. GeneWatch was one of the stakeholder
groups which was asked to participate in the process of developing
the background information—to be presented in booklet and
CD-ROM format. However, the COI and the Science Museum (who were
contracted to work on the materials) managed to create a situation
where no stakeholder, from any perspective, wished to be associated
with the final product. The process was begun in the second week
of January 2003 and took almost four months to produce and probably
cost several thousand pounds. Presenting "views for"
and "views against" to a series of questions emerging
from the original discussion workshops, it lacked depth and substance.
In addition, by presenting the issues in the format that it did,
it may well have tended to polarise discussion by constructing
two `sides' from the outset. The information booklet also had
a bizarre selection of further reading with no discernible rationale.
Overall, the production and final content of the information materials
gave the impression of incompetence, which left the public debate
impoverished and looking rather amateurish.
10. Three tiers of meetings, at regional,
council and grass roots levels were the intended debate forums.
The regional meetings were intended, in part, to facilitate lower
tier meetings. However, although the minutes of the Steering Board[4]
state that "Members agreed that time should be allocated
at the regional meetings to offer `tutorials' to those people
interested in running local meetings", this did not take
place. "There was nothing about advising people on how to
go about arranging debates. I filled in the forms but heard nothing,"
one member of a large membership organisation intending to run
a meeting told GeneWatch.
11. Despite these criticisms, it was clear
that many people were keen to try this new form of participation.
Estimates of the number of public meetings held ranges from 130
to 500. Some 37,000 feedback forms were returned and 24,609 people
visited the website, 61% of whom submitted forms. However, because
of the restricted time scale and poor organisation, many of the
people who participated were those who had already thought about
GM foods and crops and formed opinions.
12. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) decided
to conduct a totally separate exercise from the public debate
to investigate peoples' attitudes to GM foods. This involved:
— holding a Citizens' Jury to address
the question: "Should GM foods be on sale in the UK?";
— undertaking research with low-income
consumers on their attitudes to GM foods;
— holding several schools debates.
13. By having their own separate process
rather than working with the independent Public Debate Steering
Board, the FSA came under justified criticism from many quarters.
This included some members of the Steering Board who were concerned
about the confusion created and the independence of the process[5].
Three leading consumer groups, the National Consumer Council,
Consumers' Association and Sustain, also criticised the FSA's
public debate information considering it pro-industry and anti-consumer[6].
Even the FSA's own Consumers' Committee criticised the Agency's
separation from the wider debate process.
14. GeneWatch acted as a witness at the
Citizens' Jury held in Slough in April 2003. The process was broadcast
via a live web link, allowing people to hear the witnesses but
not the Jury's deliberations. In contrast with best practice in
situations where a jury is considering a highly controversial
subject, there was no independent steering board and the FSA did
not consider that the Public Debate Steering Board was worth consulting
in depth about the question posed or the conduct of the Jury.
Instead, they left this to the private company, Opinion Leader
Research, who were contracted to organise the citizens' jury.
15. The FSA's process became mired in further
controversy because the verdict of a majority of the Jury that
GM food should be available to buy in the UK was the headline
of the FSA press release on the outcomes[7].
The unanimous opinions that GM crops should not be grown in the
UK at present and that comprehensive labelling was needed to ensure
consumer confidence had less prominence. The FSA has sent the
findings of all its research to the Government[8].
16. The findings of GeneWatch's review suggest
that the Government should take the following steps to ensure
that the information gained from the public debate is capitalised
upon and lessons are learned:
17. Political commitment: clear connection
with policy and decision making
— make a statement which demonstrates
the weight it will place on the findings of the public debate—unless
the whole process is to be a waste of taxpayers' money, this has
to be significant;
— ensure that in any future exercises
in public participation, the way in which the findings will inform
policy is made clear before the process starts—without this,
there is little reason or incentive for people to become engaged.
18. Time: enough time, at the right time
— reopen the public debate for a period
of at least three months in November when the findings of the
FSEs have been published—only this will ensure the widest
and best informed public is engaged;
— ensure that future exercises consider
more carefully the length of time over which they are conducted
and that they are not overshadowed or hampered by other parallel
processes.
19. Money: sufficient funding, wisely spent
— ask the Audit Commission to review
the spending on the public debate and determine what were the
implications of the constraints in funding;
— ensure that any future public debates
are properly funded.
20. Expertise and support: using people
experienced in public engagement
— review the performance of the Central
Office of Information (COI) in the public debate and investigate
whether there is any evidence of mismanagement or incompetence—considerable
public funding has been expended and it is important to determine
whether the COI have acted properly;
— recognise that a public debate is
not a public relations exercise but requires special skills and
ensure that only properly qualified and experienced organisations
are used in any future public participation exercises.
21. Information: quality materials, professionally
produced
— make the findings of the Science
and Economics Reviews and FSE results key resources in a reopened
public debate—there must be investment in providing these
in imaginative and engaging ways;
— undertake research to establish what
are the key principles of good quality information provision in
such a public engagement exercise.
September 2003
1 National debate on commercialisation of GM crops-AEBC'S
response. July 2002. Available on www.aebc.gov.uk. Back
2
Minutes of the AEBC Meeting 11-12 September 2002, para 12. http://www.aebc.gov.uk/aebc/meetings/meetings_110902_minutes.shtml
Back
3
Government's 10-day public roadshow opens with a whimper. The
Guardian, 4 June, 2003. Back
4
Minutes Steering Board meeting 23 May 2003, paragraph 12. http://www.gmnation.org.uk/docs/minutes_27052003.doc
Back
5
See letter from Professor Malcolm Grant, Chair of the Steering
Board to Sir John Krebbs, Chairman of the Foods Standards Agency,
5 March 2003 http://www.gmpublicdebate.org.uk/latest/letters06.asp Back
6
National Consumer Council Press Release 13 March 2003. "Leading
consumer groups unite to condemn the Food Standards Agency (FSA)
for shirking a genuine debate on GM." Back
7
See GeneWatch UK Press Release 9 May 2003: Food Standards Agency
hides unanimous findings of Citizens' Jury that GM crops should
not be grown in the UK now: GeneWatch challenges the FSA to come
clean. Available on www.genewatch.org. And: Minutes Public Debate
Steering Board meeting 23 May 2003, paragraph 4. http://www.gmnation.org.uk/docs/minutes_27052003.doc Back
8
Food Standards Agency, July 2003. "Consumer views of GM
food" Available at: www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/report_gm_activities Back
| 
