london

Organic growth: environmental activists are leading the public's opposition to GM food. Credit: NICK COBBIN

The British government is to make changes to the way in which developments in biotechnology are regulated. In particular, there is to be more open access to information on how decisions are made and more avenues for the public and special-interest groups to make their views known.

The changes, announced last week, are intended to address public concern about the effects of genetically modified (GM) foods on health and the environment. They are partly inspired by last week's publication of the results of a survey of the public's attitudes to the regulation of developments in the biosciences (see box on page 288).

It found that people feel there is too little control over research in the biological sciences. Respondents said they are not told enough about the progress of developments, and want government advisory bodies to be made up of people with a range of viewpoints.

The government announced that it is to set up two strategic bodies to oversee the work of the 17 committees involved in bioscience regulation. A Human Genetics Commission, which will advise on the use of biotechnology in health care, will replace the Human Genetics Advisory Commission.

The second body, the Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission will assess the environmental effects of biotechnology in agriculture. The soon-to-be-established Food Standards Agency will be responsible for the safety of GM foods.

The government will also set up a national surveillance unit to monitor the effects of GM and other novel foods on health. Both of the new commissions will be made up of scientists, ethicists, representatives of consumer and environmental groups, and lay people, and will report to government ministers.

The changes have been welcomed by organizations representing scientists, such as the research councils. The Royal Society had told the government last year that bioscience regulation is too fragmented, and was among the first to recommend that an “over-arching” body be set up to oversee the work of technical and regulatory committees (see Nature 395, 5; 1998).

The arrangements have also been welcomed by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, whose report on the ethical and social issues of genetically modified crops is published today (27 May). But Sandy Thomas, the council's director, says the public may question whether the new commissions are sufficiently independent from government.

The response from consumer groups, such as the Consumers Association, has been more cautious, and environmental organizations have dismissed the proposed commissions as inadequate. Both groups are concerned that the lay membership of technical regulatory committees will not increase.

Consumer groups want more public involvement in assessing individual GM products and processes. Julie Hill of the Green Alliance, and a member of the government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, says that scientists on committees are too uncritical of the technology they are meant to be regulating.

But the government appears to have concurred with the views of industry, scientists and most of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, that the approval of individual GM products should be left mainly to the experts.

At the same time the government says it accepts the need for increased public involvement in the regulatory process as a whole. The new commissions will be able to advise on the membership of regulatory committees and on how they work.

Consumer and environmentalist groups are also concerned that there is no indication whether the technical committees or the new strategic commissions will meet in public. Although existing committees publish agendas of meetings in advance and summaries of decisions taken, they meet in private.

The government has not agreed to open meetings, but the minutes of committee meetings and the arguments used as the basis for decisions should be published, it says. In addition, there are to be more public meetings, consensus conferences and workshops.

One official from the government's Office of Science and Technology says that, despite the demands from pressure groups, the public-consultation exercise did not find a widespread demand for more public involvement in the approval of individual GM products.

There is a fierce debate in Britain over whether GM crops should be grown commercially before the end of a four-year period of research into their environmental effects. Supporters of such a moratorium include the British Medical Association, the government's wildlife advisers English Nature, opposition political parties, environmental and consumer groups, and most of the media.

Research published last week, suggesting that monarch butterflies could be at risk from eating pollen from corn that has been genetically modified to increase resistance to pests (see Nature 399, 214; 214; 1999), intensified calls for a moratorium, and exposed the tensions within government over the issue.

Many in government, including Michael Meacher, the environment minister, and Sir Robert May, the chief scientific adviser, while keen to point out the potential advantages of GM crops, are concerned that they could accelerate the erosion of biodiversity. They are reluctant to approve their commercial introduction until such concerns are allayed.

But others, notably Jack Cunningham, who chairs the ministerial committee on biotechnology, and Lord David Sainsbury, the science minister, are believed to be keen to promote the technology because of its role in the government's efforts at knowledge-based economic development.