The
OECD Edinburgh Conference on the Scientific and Health Aspects of Genetically
Modified Foods (2000) / OECD Consultation with Non-Governmental Organisations on
Biotechnology and Other Aspects of Food Safety (1999)
ISSUES: Scientific
and health aspects of GM food
GOALS: To bring together a
diverse group of participants for a constructive dialogue on the safety of GM
food
PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS: Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); governments; industry;
scientists; civil society organisations such as Greenpeace International,
Friends of the Earth, GeneWatch; consumer groups
TIME FRAME: OECD Conference
– 2000; OECD first NGO consultation process 1999
MSP
CONTACT DETAILS; URL: www.oecd.org/subject/biotech/edinburgh.htm
and www.oecd.org/subject/biotech/ngoconsultation.htm
Classification:
Type:
Informing
Level:
International / national
Procedural Aspects:
Designing the MSP
1999:
Consultation process initiated by OECD with 50+ invited NGOs with the purpose of
hearing/understanding their views.
2000:
OECD Conference, hosted by UK Government as part of an ongoing programme of work
at the OECD on biotechnology.
NGOs
did not have input into the conference planning process. However, it is possible
that the 1999 consultation had impact on
the design of the 2000 conference.
Identifying the issues to be addressed in an MSP
The
initiative arose out of a request from the G8 Heads of State and Government that
the OECD “undertake a study of the implications of biotechnology and other
aspects of food safety…” (G8 Summit, Cologne, June 1999).
The
conference focus was GM food safety and human health. There was discussion of
the science (including social science of consumer attitudes) with agreement from
the Chair, Sir John Krebs (Professor of Zoology, Oxford University and Chair
Designate of the future UK Food Standards Agency) that other “non-scientific
issues e.g. values and beliefs" should not be excluded from the debate.
From
an NGO perspective, it appeared that the Government felt it needed to constrain
the dialogue to health; the debate was then constrained by the fact that unless
evidence was peer-reviewed, issues could not be raised. Therefore, scientists
who had peer-reviewed work because it benefited biotechnology were able to
dominate.
Identifying relevant stakeholders
The
OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry (DSTI) responded to
concerns of the OECD Council & the Secretary-General that “Communication
with the public and representatives of the many concerned elements of civil
society is crucial to promoting progress in the fields of biotechnology and food
safety”.
Civil
society participants included scientists, business, industry, agriculture,
labour, consumer groups and a few environmental organisations. Plus a number of
representatives from developing countries.
Identifying MSP participants
The
Conference was attended by approximately 400 invitees from more than 25
countries. The aim was to be inclusive, to encourage a wide diversity of views
to be expressed both on the platform and in the audience.
NGOs
included Greenpeace International, Friends of the Earth, GeneWatch, Soil
Association, RSPB. There were also health professionals/NGOs but no
opportunities to overlap.
Setting the goals of an MSP
The
purpose of the 3 day event was to bring together a diverse group of participants
for “a constructive dialogue on the safety of GM food”, with an emphasis on
the underlying science and on human health.
NGOs
view that the format – a large conference hall with no possibility of
clusters/sector groupings etc. - was not appropriate. There was very little
evidence of MSP dialogue – more a ‘showpiece’ event. With 80/20 ratio–
no real cause for concern.
The
conference perceived there was a strong sense of the need to rebuild trust
between various actors, particularly governments, industry, scientists,
regulatory agencies and the public.
Setting the agenda
OECD
set the agenda.
Setting the time-table
OECD
set the time-table in response to G8 Industrialised Countries Heads of State and
Government (1999) request and OECD mandates.
Preparatory process
Communication process
A
one-off event. Conference format with short introductory presentations to each
section, followed by commentaries from panel members before opening the
discussion to the audience.
There was, however, an
informal segment during the event which would have allowed for a mixing of the
different groups and more sideline discussions. Industry commented that at an
unofficial side event organized by a Scottish environmentalist group, the debate
was more informal and got a little more into the fundamental philosophical
issues; the impression was that this was a step towards overcoming the usual
"Feindbild".
The
speakers and panellists were, in approximately equal numbers, proponents of GM,
opponents, and those who were neutral. Presenters came from a wide range of
developed and developing countries: they were primarily scientists, regulators,
NGOs and industry representatives.
It
was recognised that the debate needs to become more open, transparent and
inclusive.
NGOs
were not happy with process, described as a 'complete abuse' of what a MSP ought
to be, when compared with other events like the World Conservation Congress
(similar to Environment Council debates but squeezed into 1-2 days). NGOs said
they would not participate in this kind of set-up again.
Some
industry representatives view is that some activist groups were not happy with the format which did not work in
their favour; they had problems to respond to the chair's repeated explicit
invitation to support their anti-GMO claims with evidence - be it scientific or
anecdotal. This made them look stupid so that even the press reacted negatively
at the Greenpeace press conference.
Industry also commented that
there was a (deserved) degree of discomfort among some industry people who tried
to stick to their pre-approved corporate speak in a setting which would have
required a more open, flexible approach. There were interesting internal
discussions on the industry side.
Decision-making process: procedures of agreement
The
conference didn’t aim at finding a consensus, rather it identified “areas of
greater agreement, of divergence of opinion, and of uncertainty due to lack of
knowledge.”
The
Chair’s report suggested that “the most significant aspect of the Edinburgh
conference was that it included all sides of the debate surrounding GM foods and
nevertheless identified certain areas of agreement (…) It also succeeded in
separating out issues which are subject to scientific analysis and those which
are related to political factors, beliefs and values” (OECD 2000).
Implementation process
No
implementation process was aimed at.
Closing the MSP
There
was support for continuing the process to deal with other parts of the debate.
The
Chair recommended that an international forum be created. One possible model is
that of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which informs but
doesn’t make policy and acknowledges minority scientific views. IPCC reports,
however, come under scrutiny of governments before publication. For a similar
process on GMOs, wider stakeholder involvement and a global scope would be
required.
Structural Aspects:
Structures / institutions of the MSP
OECD
as Secretariat and facilitating role.
Facilitation
OECD;
facilitation of panel discussions by conference chair.
Documentation
The
OECD undertook the responsibility to summarise and report on the findings. Its
documentation clearly states that, unlike other OECD reports, these outcomes do
not necessarily represent the official views of Member governments, instead they
“reflect broader and sometimes conflicting views of civil society, indicate
areas of agreement and disagreement, and attempt to show a way forward towards
resolving some of the controversies raised by genetically modified foods”
(OECD 2000).
Documentation
published in hard copy and electronic format.
Relating to not-participating stakeholders
Participation
was by invitation only.
Relating to the general public
The
reports are freely available on the OECD web site.
Proceedings
acknowledged need for trust building. “The general public –consumers and
citizens- not only have a right to know, but they also have valid points of
view, which need to be effectively voiced, understood and given weight in the
decision-making and policy making process. A range of good practice examples
were put forward for public engagement" (OECD 2000).
Linkage into official decision-making process
Arose
out of official request from G8 leaders; linkage of outcomes into
decision-making are unclear – informative process. It will be up to
governments to make use of the conference report.
Funding
The
conference was hosted and funded by the UK Government. NGO Consultation meeting
(1999) was hosted by the OECD.
Information
as of 19 February, 2001