GM Crop Farm Scale Evaluations:
Scientific Steering Committee Minutes
14 June 1999
Attending:
Members:
-
Professor Chris Pollock (chair) (IGER)
Dr David Gibbons (RSPB)
Professor Mick Crawley (Imperial College)
Dr Nick Sotherton (GCT)
Dr Nicholas Aebischer (GCT)
Mr Jim Orson (Morley Research Centre)
Dr Alastair Burn (EN)
Assessors:
-
Dr Brian Johnson (EN)
Mr Dave Bench (MAFF)
Dr Emma Hennessey (MAFF)
Dr Roger Turner (SCIMAC)
Mr Toby Willison (SOAFED)
Dr Bill Parish (DETR)
Dr Nick Brickle (DETR)
Contractors:
-
Dr Les Firbank (ITE)
Professor Joe Perry (IACR)
Dr Geoff Squire (SCRI)
Operational Issues
The committee agreed the Terms of Reference:
"To advise the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport & Regions, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly on the ecological studies in the GM crop farm-scale evaluations, particularly:-
- The progress of the ecological studies;
- All aspects of the design and methodology used in the studies;
- Statistical analysis of data;
- The conclusions which may be drawn from the results;
- Publication of results; The need for further research."
It was agreed that the steering committee will hold two scheduled meetings a year, in March/April (before spring planting) and in October (after harvest), with the option of holding extra meetings if required.
Publication strategy
The steering committee agreed that prior to each meeting the contractors will produce a progress report and a technical report. The progress reports will contain no data analysis or conclusions, but will report on activities and methodologies. The technical report will include any preliminary results or data analysis, in order that the effectiveness of the sampling methodologies can be properly assessed by the committee.
The steering committee gave full support to the transparency of its actions and advice. It was agreed that progress reports should be made publicly available once approved by the steering committee. However, it was unanimously agreed by the steering committee members that no data, analyses or conclusions should be made publicly available until accepted for publication in peer reviewed scientific journals. This will ensure that any conclusions will be based on appropriate data and analysis and thus be scientifically valid. It was agreed that every step should be taken, by all parties concerned, to ensure that no results are released before publication.
In reality this would mean that no results will be made available following the 1999 growing season and very unlikely that any results would be made available following the 2000 season. This is necessary as, until a sufficient sample size has accrued, no conclusions can safely be drawn, nor can the effect of GM crop management on wildlife in the following crops be assessed.
To prevent unnecessary delay in publication of results once they are available, the possibility of an arrangement with a major journal for immediate publication will be investigated. A full final report will also be published concurrently by DETR.
Conference presentations by the contractors will initially be restricted to methodological work. Results will only be presented at conferences once already accepted for publication, and agreed by the committee.
The secretariat agreed to undertake the committees suggestion that a web-site should be established to make information publicly available. The web site will be used to publish committee minutes, progress reports, and general information about the farm-scale evaluations.
SCIMAC Sugar beet work
Separate farm-scale evaluations looking at the effect on wildlife of the management of GM sugar beet are being funded by SCIMAC. The research is being conducted by the same contractors and using identical methodologies. The evaluations are not included in the Governments research programme as sugar beet is some way behind the other crops in completing the necessary regulatory procedures.
SCIMAC have asked if the steering committee could also advise on the progress of the sugar beet evaluations. The Committee agreed to advise on the research providing that the work is conducted under identical terms and conditions to the Government funded work in order to maintain a similar scientific standard. The same conditions would especially apply to the publication of results, meaning that no results could be used in applications for marketing consents until published in peer reviewed journals. The contractors and DETR agreed to confirm with SCIMAC that all similar terms and conditions will apply.
Contractors report on progress
The contractors made a verbal report on the progress of the research programme so far. The consortium has much of the logistical framework for the studies in place and draft protocols are in place for the monitoring programme. Sampling has begun in all the fields. Further work is underway to refine and integrate the sampling methodologies in the research programme.
Pesticide use
It was agreed by all members that there is a clear need for robust validation of the range and nature of the herbicide regimes used by farmers in the farm-scale evaluations. The possibility that the Pesticide Safety Directorate, or other such body, could carry out a study of the representativeness of pesticide practices was discussed. The steering committee advised that SCIMAC should have no involvement with advice for pesticide use on the non-GM crops, while the advice for pesticide use on the GM crop should be supplied in advance. This information has already been supplied to the committee by AgrEvo for oil seed rape and maize.
Members agreed that conventional pesticide regimes must be based on the farmer's own decision, but noted that to fully represent the range of potential biodiversity effects, a full range of current conventional practices used in the UK should be included in the research programme.
The steering committee agreed that the issue of pesticide advice in the SCIMAC sugar beet evaluations should be clarified before the committee could give full agreement to advise on this research.
Farm-selection protocol
The contractors presented their draft protocol for farm and field selection. The aim of the protocol is to locate suitable representative farms and, if a paired field approach is used, to locate fields that are as similar as possible in their previous management, soil type, drainage etc. Once fields have been selected, treatments will be randomly assigned. The procedure would work in practice by SCIMAC locating a large number of suitable farms and providing details on them. From these the contractors and the steering committee would select the farms to be used (on the basis of criteria yet to be chosen) and then the field (or half field) to be sown with the GM crop will be decided at random.
Number of sites
It was considered by the steering committee that a thorough justification is needed of the number of sites to be used. The null hypothesis is 'that no significant difference exists in the abundance and diversity of wildlife associated with the management of GM herbicide tolerant crops compared with the management of equivalent non-GM crops'. The steering group needs to be confident that the sample size used actually has the power to detect differences in the abundance and diversity of wildlife of the magnitude considered to represent meaningful biological differences. At the moment 20 sites is considered sufficient, but this assumption should be fully investigated before the evaluations are scaled up next year.
The steering group agreed that an assessment should be made by the contractors, based on existing data and modelling, of the adequate sample size of fields required in each year. This study should also consider the influence on the adequate sample size of adopting split and paired field designs. This report should be prepared in consultation with the statisticians on the steering group and presented to the group in October.
Experimental design
Range of species sampled
The committee considered the plant and invertebrate monitoring protocols presented by the contractors to be generally sound. It was felt that the inclusion of a protocol for sampling Collembola (springtails), weed seed return and possibly additional soil organisms (including micro-organisms) should be seriously considered. Collembola at least may be included using existing sampling methods.
This year's work will enable the timing and methods used to be refined, and will inform further decisions on the range of species sampled.
The contractors agreed to consider expansion of the sampling programme as advised. It was felt that no species should be dropped, at least until some preliminary data could be examined.
Split vs. paired fields
A detailed discussion was held on the issue of split and paired fields. The contractors presented the arguments for split and paired field designs. The issues include variability, scale effects, interference between treatments, the use of covariates and the effect of field margins. Another major issue includes the degree of realism in the approach used; it is important that the crops are grown as they would be in a commercial situation.
The two approaches are probably best suited to different species. It was felt that the effect of design on more mobile species should not dominate the argument. More sedentary species (such as weeds) are possibly a higher priority, as these form the base of many food chains.
The committee agreed that a combination of split and paired fields should not be used and that a final decision on the approach would be made in October. At this time the results of the investigation into adequate sample size would be available, as would some preliminary findings from the field work conducted this year. Whatever decision is made it must be agreed by the whole steering group and be fully justified.
Any Other Business
Extra research
It was agreed that the fields could be made available for other GM related research, providing that such research does not in any way compromise this work. Any proposals should be considered by the steering group for 'compatibility' before approved. Funding for such work could be from a range of sources.
At present an existing contract between NIAB and DETR has been extended to cover monitoring of cross pollination on the farm-scale evaluations sites this year. Much work has already been conducted on the subject and ongoing research is being funded by MAFF. However, further investigation of cross pollination may well become the subject of a separate study using the farm-scale evaluation fields.
Town meeting
It was agreed that a town meeting would be held on Friday July 23rd 1999, to be attended by the contractors and representatives of the steering committee. The purpose of the meeting will be to give information on the farm-scale evaluations to any interested parties and to discuss any concerns raised.
Steering group members and steering group assessors
Clarification was sought by the committee on the respective role of 'members' and 'assessors'. The secretariat stated that the role of members was that described in the terms of reference, while the role of assessors was to attend meetings to report on progress, provide information to the members and listen to their advice.
Assessors do not have a formal advisory role; that is the function of the independent members. Assessors may contribute to discussions, but decisions will only be based on the agreed advice of the members.
Date of next meeting
11th October 1999
Page published 13 August
1999;
Page last modified
25 February, 2003