Memorandum submitted by the Agricultural
Biotechnology Council (A11)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
abc welcomed the government initiative to hold
a three stranded debate, including the public arm GM Nation?
Designing and running such an extensive project
was always going to be difficult, particularly given the polarised
views. Even so, not enough was done to maximise the effectiveness
of GM Nation? the public debate.
Among our concerns:
— The terms of reference of the overall
programme were not accurately interpreted or followed.
— The general public was not ultimately
or effectively engaged.
— The stimulus material was not accurate
or adequate.
— The timing did not allow for the
Economic and Science Reviews to fully feed into the process.
Too much emphasis and/or credence was placed
on ad hoc public meetings and writing in, rather than more
elaborate public engagement techniques or controlled sampling
in properly conducted qualitative and quantitative surveys. As
a consequence, the whole process was heavily weighted in favour
of already-committed activists being given further opportunities
to express their already well known views, rather than an attempt
to educate and test the opinion of the grass roots public.
abc would like formally to comment on the specific
aspects of the debate, from the emotive naming of the debate through
to the ultimate use of the final results.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 abc is the umbrella body for the UK
biotechnology industry. Its members are BASF, Bayer CropScience,
Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta. It was set up
to provide a forum for debate and education surrounding GM technology
and its key objective is to promote a reasoned and balanced debate
about the use of agriculture biotechnology in the United Kingdom.
This is because, on abc's establishment, market research showed
that 66% of the UK public felt that they did not know enough about
GM crops to come to an informed decision.
1.2 abc therefore, welcomed the government's
approach to a three stranded examination of the issues, including
an economic assessment, a scientific assessment and a public outreach.
In principle we were in full support of the public debate strand
of this process, for which Margaret Beckett set out the following
terms of reference:
— To identify, using methods which
focus on grass roots opinion, the questions which the public has
about GM issues, avoiding as far as possible the polarisation
that has characterised so much of the discussion to date, and
getting to the heart of the issues;
— To develop, from this framing of
the issues and through a wholly open process, the provision of
comprehensive evidence-based information to the public on scientific,
economic and other aspects of GM;
— To provide people with the opportunity
to debate the issues openly and to reach their own informed judgements
on this subject;
— To provide information to government
on how questions raised by the public have shaped the course of
the debate, including on the scientific economic and other aspects
of GM.
1.3 We believed that these terms of reference
above would allow for an open, informed and well conducted debate,
which would:
— Give an opportunity to the general
public to obtain information on GM crops and so allow them to
make an informed judgement on the relative merits and benefits
of the technology, particularly following the publication of the
Farm Scale Evaluations.
— Give the "real public"
a voice in a debate that had been politicised and polarised by
various groups with vested interests.
— Provide an opportunity to de-politicise
the FSE programme. This had been consistently, but wrongly reported
as being the green/red light decision on GM crops since its inception
in 1999. Clearly it was never this, but a set of trials designed
simply to find out how changes in farm management practice associated
with the growing of GM crops, affect the abundance and diversity
of UK farmland wildlife. The public debate gave the opportunity
for people to look at all aspects of GM crops and to recognise
that there are a raft of other regulatory as well as socio-economic
aspects to assess.
— Indicate if the public is deeply
ambivalent about GM and the issue has a low saliency. There is
little survey evidence that unprompted, the public is uniformly
and actively opposed to GM, as some of the activist groups have
alleged. This had been shown on many occasions and is further
confirmed by the most recent opinion research conducted during
the height of the debate where The IGD said in their latest Consumer
Watch:
— 13% of consumers actively avoid GM
foods.
— 13% of consumers would welcome GM
products onto supermarket shelves.
— 74% are not sufficiently concerned
about GM food to actively look to avoid it.
1.4 abc wishes to comment specifically on
certain aspects of the process of GM Nation? in which it
felt the process was not particularly helpful in encouraging grass
roots opinion to be heard and the written material supplied to
participants, lacked the evidence base required as stated in the
terms of reference:
2. MEETINGS
2.1 At the inception of the process, the
Secretary of State stated that the public debate was not a referendum
on GM crops. However, the name GM Nation? gave the opposite
impression. Further, the title implied that it was an all or nothing
decision, not that there would be choice and co-existence.
2.2 GM Nation? was launched on 3
June this year. While there was little advertising, abc does not
agree with some that there was no publicity. Broadsheets, TV and
radio programmes such as the Today programme ran stories from
the end of 2002 on GM Nation?, what it was, and when it
would be taking place. abc agrees with the approach that the majority
of funds for the debate should have been targeted at public engagement
and information rather than advertising.
2.3 The process of having a cascade of meetings
was positive. Opinion polls show that GM crops are not high on
people's list of priorities and so the number of people that would
travel great distances to attend meetings on the subject would
be limited. Thus, facilitating local meetings was a good attempt
at getting engagement from the grass roots.
2.4 However, it relied too much on the meeting
format. For example, it is likely that more people would have
participated in an interactive TV programme than venture out to
the local village hall.
2.5 In addition, any interested party could
organise an event and so the majority of people who actively set
about holding a debate already held an interest or view and invited
a non-representative audience to participate. So while this ad
hoc system led to a few hundred debates, it is very questionable
as to whether this reached a true cross section of the public,
which was the original aim of the process.
2.6 As a consequence, few conclusions can
be drawn from the public meetings, which often served as forums
for activists and the politically committed. Public meetings are
not the same as public opinion.
2.7 Groups including Consumers' Association,
Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace deliberately timed an attack
on the public consultation, which coincided with the launch of
the debate in order to undermine the process. They suggested that
the government would not listen to the outcome and that it was
badly organised and under-resourced. This probably led to some
members of the public concluding that it was not worth taking
part. Therefore, by making the process less representative, the
activist groups helped to fulfil their own prophecy.
2.8 The initial meeting in Birmingham turned
into a media circus and an opportunity for the activists to grandstand.
There was little time for debate and the views of public were
drowned out by polemical argument. Unfortunately, this became
a blueprint for the other regional events. abc was present at
all of these first tier regional meetings. The regional meeting
in the South West was the most well attended, but also was the
most overwhelmed by vehement anti-GM protestors. The Scotland
meeting was sidetracked by anti-American and anti-Westminster
sentiment, primarily as a consequence of the Iraq war.
2.9 As the debate progressed, Defra and
the AEBC secretariat referred all requests for pro-GM speakers
to abc in order to facilitate attendance by members of abc. This
worked well and we worked hard to facilitate such requests. It
is interesting to note however, that of the 600 plus meetings
that apparently took place, abc was only invited to speak and
represent a pro-GM stance, at 60 meetings, giving further evidence
to the balance of debate "required" at many of these
meetings. Of these 60 meetings, we were able to attend nearly
40, and the debates continue despite the formal end of GM Nation?
in July. abc will continue as they did before the debate ie to
take the opportunity to present the industry view, when asked.
3. STIMULUS MATERIAL
3.1 Our biggest concern about the GM
Nation? debate process was the provision of the stimulus material.
The one thing that the GM debate does not lack is evidence. Yet
the stimulus material concentrated on opinions and gave no opportunity
for factual evidence to be cited or weighted.
3.2 The public debate was launched with
a set of stimulus material, available in both CD-ROM and paper
forms, with positive and negative opinions rather than fact on
a wide range of subjects many of which were not specific to GM
such as trust in Governments, multi-national companies, globalisation
etc. Of the opinions expressed on GM evidence to corroborate these
views was absent. In the absence of this weighting and given that
this material was the primary information source for the debate,
the facts regarding the regulation, testing for safety, and the
genuine response of farmers who grow GM crops, were reduced to
assertions. Sadly, under such conditions, factually unsupported
questions, responses or criticisms assume equal weighting.
3.3 It is our belief, that the personal
opinions and assertions given in the booklet should have been
followed by an independent scientist explaining some of the evidence
or data, not necessarily drawing a conclusion, but giving an explanation.
Without such guidance, abc feel most members of the public were
left with little understanding or guidance on an in-depth topic.
4. COMMISSIONED
REPORT
4.1 It is unfortunate that neither the Science
Review nor the Economic Review strands of the public debate were
available during the formal part of the public debate. Many of
the shortcomings of the stimulus material could have been obviated
if they had been.
4.2 The Economic Review was published first
but appeared to focus more on consumer attitudes than the economics
of GM crops. It concentrated on the macro-economic level and ignored
or minimised the importance of much of the evidence that GM technology
can improve economic viability. As a consequence, its main conclusions
did little to put into context the fact that GM technology has
the ability in the first three crops to make farming at an individual
level, significantly more profitable. We were left with the conclusion
that the contribution from GM crops in the first instance would
be relatively small and dependent on consumer uptake. This is
not surprising, given that the crops currently under consideration
are of relatively minor significance to UK agriculture, the turnover
of UK agriculture as a whole is less than the value of the ready
made sandwich market and that consumers are currently denied the
opportunity to choose GM products.
4.3 The Science Review was published shortly
after the economics report and again too late to have an effect
on the formal public debate. Nevertheless, this report re-confirmed
and further enforced both the safety of current GM crops and food
and the effectiveness of the current regulatory process. This
further undermined many of the opinions expressed by those opposed
to the technology that were put forward in the stimulus material
and many of the unsubstantiated but well received messages that
were banded about during the debate.
4.4 Whilst the Food Standards Agency (FSA)
input to the public debate does not fall under the remit of the
select committee inquiry, it is relevant since it demonstrates
what can be achieved with a minimal financial outlay. The FSA
carried out a `schools debate' and Citizens' Jury in which non-stakeholders
were able to sift through information similar to the GM Nation?
stimulus material. The fundamental difference however, was the
opportunity for the jury members to challenge the viewpoints of
the various stakeholders (including abc).
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 abc welcomes the public debate, but
are disappointed that in many ways, it did not fulfil many of
the expectations or even some of its main objectives.
5.2 It is clear that GM Nation? did
not fulfil the expectations of increasing the knowledge base of
the general public. Much of this is due to the lack of evidence-based
fact that was contained within the stimulus material which only
served to continue the polarisation of the debate rather than
to take the debate forward. The unfortunate timing of the debate
meant that the science review and economic assessment were not
available at the time.
5.3 GM Nation? has not reduced the
politicisation of the Farm Scale Evaluations, but has rather heightened
it. This is clear from the Early Day Motions tabled in parliament
and from general commentary in the press.
5.4 It was disappointing that those opposed
to the technology hijacked most of the meetings and attempted
to undermine and engineer the results of the debate, rather than
entering into a genuine discussion. Given the publicity and high
profile of the debate, the number of people that took part was
surprisingly low. Additionally, given the profile of the vast
majority of the people that attended the six main debates and
the profile of the people who attended and even organised the
other debates, it is not possible to use this information as any
realistic indication of the mood of the "public". It
is well known that when the general public is invited to take
part in a debate, the majority of participants who attend will
already hold a strong opinion on the subject. Thus, the process
of a public meeting does not achieve a view of public opinion.
We can instead conclude that as the debate was largely attended
by the NGOs, the public level of concern for this technology is
minimal and they remain predominantly ambivalent.
15 September 2003
| 
