Volume 1

Scientific advisory system : genetically modified foods first report / Food and Technology Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology
Date:
1999
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Scientific advisory system : genetically modified foods first report / Food and Technology Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    8/48 (page 6)
    (m) (n) (0) (p) (q) (r) (s) (t) (u) made by selecting people with the most suitable and relevant expertise (paragraph 48). We condemn the unjust attacks that have been made directly or indirectly against public-spirited scientists who have served the community well on both ACRE and ACNFP. We endorse Mr Meacher’s view that the current members of ACRE who are employed by the biotechnology industry have acted properly and with integrity as have members of ACNFP (paragraph 50). We reject any suggestion that scientists’ integrity is automatically compromised by association with industry. If scientists from academia or the public sector with research connections to the biotechnology industry were to be barred from the Government’s scientific advisory system relating to GM crops and food the Government would be deprived of some of the best scientific expertise available. We agree with Mr Rooker that this would be “totally inappropriate” (paragraph 51). We agree with the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists (IPMS) which argued that “serious thought ... needs to be given by Government to establish clear guidelines on disclosure of interest [for members of advisory committees] backed by active policies of annual disclosure, clear and transparent procedures for review of disclosures and clear criteria for decisions on whether interests are material” (paragraph 52). The Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government has explicitly set out the need “to involve at least some experts from other, not necessarily scientific, disciplines, to ensure that the evidence is subjected to a sufficiently questioning review from a wide ranging set of viewpoints”. We agree. We recommend that such individuals should make up a fifth of the membership of advisory committees (paragraph 53). We recommend the use of the term lay member to refer to experts from other disciplines serving on scientific advisory committees (paragraph 54). We recommend that Government continues to drive for further openness by publishing ACNFP and ACRE papers and data (in full and summary form) and negotiating similar treatment of material from similar committees in other EU states. Such information should be published on the Internet for speed and accessibility as well as by conventional means. Summaries should be provided in plain English. We further recommend that, unless applicants can demonstrate that disclosure would cause commercial harm, all future meetings of ACRE and ACNFP should be held in public (paragraph 56). We believe that there should be a presumption in favour of public disclosure unless applicants can demonstrate that disclosure would cause commercial harm (paragraph 57). We do not believe that it would be either appropriate or practical for ACRE and ACNFP to do anything other than use an applicant’s own data in their assessments. We agree with Novartis that “regulation by review of companies’ risk assessments works well in pharmaceutical and pesticide regulation” and this is accepted by the public. Where inadequate information is provided, it is acceptable that further research is commissioned and paid for by the applicant (paragraph 58). We recommend that when ACNFP moves under the management of the Food Standards Agency, an appropriate part of MAFF’s research budget be transferred to the Agency. Formal links should be established between DETR, the Foods Standards Agency, the Foresight programme and Research Councils so that ACNFP’s and ACRE’s longer-term basic research requirements can be considered. We recommend that the Minister for Science plays a strong role in ensuring proper