1.     Apologies were received from Professor Flemming, Sir Brian Follett and Mrs Miller.

2.     Members approved these minutes as an accurate record of the meeting.

Matters arising
3.     The Chairman initiated a discussion of the dinner held the previous night, with Ross Finnie MSP, and Mike Foulis and Maureen McGinn of the Scottish Executive. He felt that the Minister had been most informative. Dr Graham-Bryce noted that the Minister had shown enthusiasm for the precautionary principle and that he had been encouraging about the Commission carrying out a study on fisheries. Dr Owens remarked that the Minister's attention seemed to be on commercial fish stocks and hoped that he would not be expecting a study of the availability of commercial species.

4.     The Chairman recalled the confusion over contacts with the Scottish Executive at the launch of the Environmental Planning Report. The Secretary said that the Scottish Executive had received copies of the Report, but had not been informed about the launch - he had apologised to the Executive and felt that they were now satisfied. The Secretary also reported that a meeting had taken place on Wednesday to introduce the Marine Fisheries Study to the Executive. Howard Morrison confirmed that they had responded positively.

5.     The Chairman said that possible launches and meetings in the devolved administrations were clearly important and that a member of the Secretariat should be given specific responsibilities for links with them. He said that the Commission should ensure that it is on the Scottish general consultation list on environmental issues. The Secretary agreed but pointed out that many consultation documents were received and it was impossible to respond to all of them.

6.     Howard Morrison introduced this paper for information, showing the finalised text of the announcement for the study on the Environmental Effects of Marine Fisheries. He confirmed that it had been sent out to about 120 organisations and had been posted on the website.

7.     Professor Ekins said he hoped that the study would include fish stocks as a component of the environment. Members agreed but stressed that it would only be part of the picture. Professor Holgate asked whether it would also cover shellfish. Mr Morrison said that it would.

8.     Dr Graham-Bryce said that the sixth paragraph could be seen to imply that hunter-gatherer method of gaining food from the land was replaced by agriculture as late as the second world war. Mr Morrison said that he would have the wording as shown on the Commission's website amended.

9.     Professor Plant suggested that the Commission should consult John Beddington when they came to taking evidence. The Chairman suggested sending him a copy of the announcement.

10.     Howard Morrison introduced this paper, confirming that a working group would be set up to steer the study through the scoping phase from September to February. He asked Members to consider which issues should be included in the scoping phase, and whether and on which topics they wished to employ a consultant. He asked Members to suggest suitable experts to give presentations to the working group and whether they felt a forum on the website was necessary, given its lack of success for the Chemicals Study.

Seminar
11.     Mr Morrison also raised the issue of the seminar. He recalled that Members had suggested that this should be an open meeting. He asked Members for their opinions on the format, timing and topics for the seminar. He mentioned that at a meeting held with Paul Brady and other members of the Scottish Executive, the idea of hosting the seminar in Scotland had arisen.

12.     Members agreed that the idea of holding the seminar in Scotland was a good one. Professor Sprent pointed out that Edinburgh was not the only option, suggesting Aberdeen or a town on the West coast. Professor Clift suggested perhaps holding one meeting in Cornwall, dealing with deep-sea fishing and one in Scotland, dealing with fish farming. The Chairman confirmed that a seminar held away from London should be held separately from a meeting.

13.     Howard Morrison reported that Paul Brady had said that December was not an ideal month in which to contact people on the fisheries side, though several Members added that November would be very busy for them. To have the seminar in January risked the timetable slipping for the invitation and receipt of the evidence. However, if there were no alternative it would have to be then.

14.     The Chairman commented that the format used for the Chemicals Study's seminar had worked well, with the speakers and some Members intermingled sitting in a horseshoe shape with other Members sitting on the outside. Professor Clift and Professor Plant agreed that this had worked better than the seminar for the Environmental Planning Study.

15.     Dr Owens asked how the seminar was to be made open and wondered whether Members needed to interact with the EU and international bodies, not just with DEFRA. The Secretariat said that OSPAR and the International Maritime Organisation were based in London. Professor Macrory said that the Commission had held open public meetings previously, for example during the Transport Study, and they had indeed been useful. However, he added, this was different to an expert seminar, but there was no reason why both could not be held.

16.     Professor Plant suggested that commercial fishermen should be invited to attend. Professor Sprent said that arrangements would need to be made quickly.

17.     Professor Hoskins said that the report should reflect the effects of climate change and natural variability on fisheries and that Bob Dixon from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) could be invited to address the seminar on this issue. Dr Graham-Bryce said that Graham Shimmield, the Director of Sands, would be another useful invitee, with a good overview of the subject as well as appropriate contacts. Professor Sprent recommended John Selborne. The Chairman asked members to pass to the Secretariat any other ideas for people to invite to the seminar.

18.     Dr Graham-Bryce said that the purpose of the seminar was both to inform and to promote a debate on an issue of controversy. Mr Speirs felt that there would be no difficulty in finding a variety of views. Professor Plant agreed, saying that various bodies seemed to disagree even about some basic facts.

19.     The Chairman asked about the likely interest from other devolved administrations. John Rea said that there was unlikely to be very much interest from Northern Ireland. The Secretary said that the fishing industry, particularly shellfish, was important in Wales. The Chairman said that meetings with the fisheries ministers would be useful.

Consultants
20.     The Chairman felt that some factual statements on fisheries and aquaculture would provide a useful starting point, and that consultants might be valuable in that capacity. Dr Graham-Bryce agreed and added that a consultant's report on 'The fishing industry's activities and structure - the economic, social and political background to the industry and scenarios for the next 20-30 years' would be useful. Dr Owens emphasised that any such report should be policy driven, not merely amassing information.

21.     Professor Plant hoped that the report would include the effect of fishing and fisheries on developing countries. The Chairman felt that this was an ideal subject for a consultant's report. Dr Owens wondered whether livelihoods in developed countries were part of the study: either both have to be included and properly linked in, or the matter should be left out entirely. The Chairman considered that the Commission at least needed informing anyway. He also suggested including the effects of over-fishing in more distant waters, because of the restrictions in the more traditional fishing grounds.

22.     Professor Ekins wondered whether there was anything to be learned from problems faced by intensive agriculture. He felt that the multifunctionality of the oceans was an important theme, as was the avoidance of focussing on the usually productivist short-term measures of addressing problems. Dr Owens was concerned that 'multifunctionality' did not incorporate the oceans' full value, as it did not take into account their intrinsic worth.

23.     The Chairman thought that consultants' reports would be valuable in any of the four following areas: technological issues, the use of technology and scope for improvement; the various impacts of the UK-based fishing industry; the interrelation between European and world fishing industries, including the effects on local people; and enforcement techniques for regulation in the fishing industry. The Secretary pointed out that the consultancy budget was limited and might not be sufficient for all that work, and that we might have to rely on the Secretariat with the help of Members to deliver some of those reports.

24.     Dr Owens said that some of these areas may already have been reported on and if so there would be no need to duplicate that research. Mr Speirs agreed and advised the Secretariat to check with trade associations. Professor Ekins requested a paper covering EU policy and the Common Fisheries Policy.

Forum
25.     John Rea said that there had been little interest in the Chemicals Study's forum and that he understood it to be very difficult to create a good forum. Professor Clift asked whether it was important at least to attempt one, as it would be very open. Professor Ekins said that putting more effort into setting it up might make it more useful. He suggested giving it a shorter timescale to give responses more urgency, publicising its launch widely, and setting up an initial couple of responses to spark debate. Jonny Wentworth said that, in his experience, either forums produced very little or they attracted a great deal of ill-informed responses. He suggested setting up something similar to DEFRA's consultation pages, which had proved successful, possibly linked to DEFRA's fisheries web pages.

Working Groups
26.     The Chairman asked whether Members had found working groups to be helpful or divisive. Professor Macrory said that they had been problematic in the past, citing the Standards Report, as they had encouraged divergence between Members who focussed on science and those more interested in policy. He advised that for that reason they should not be allowed to go on for too long. Dr Graham-Bryce said that that had been a problem for the Chemicals Study because of the delays to the Environmental Planning Report. However, he thought that such delay seemed less likely to affect the Fisheries scoping phase.

27.     Professor Clift said that he had not felt disadvantaged by not being involved in the working group, but had found John Rea's presentation, updating the rest of the Commission with what had been discussed, extremely useful. The Chairman suggested that meetings could extend into Friday afternoon for those who could be there, to discuss the new study.

28.     Professor Clift reminded the Secretariat that the final meeting of the Nordic Fisheries Project was to be held in Copenhagen in the first week of November, and added that someone from the Commission should maybe attend ^[1]. Professor Clift also reminded Members of his recommendation of the book 'Cod' by Mark Kurlansky.

29.     Dr Dan Osborn (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) presented the draft findings of the project, with Dr Andrew Kenny and Dr Mike Waldock (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science) participating in the discussion. A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is attached at Annex A.

30.     Dr Osborn stressed that the study was working at the conceptual level to identify the characteristics of good monitoring studies. He also identified generic quality assurance, sampling and separation issues that would affect monitoring studies. Dr Osborn drew a clear distinction between chemical and biological measurements, and introduced the concepts of reconnaissance and diagnostic monitoring. The work concluded that in order to provide a more effective monitoring system, increased resources should be devoted to survey and reconnaissance monitoring, compensated for by withdrawing some resources from traditional risk assessment approaches.

31.     Professor Hoskins suggested that in addition to the distinction between chemical and biological measurement, physical systems (such as ocean currents) should also be considered. Professor Clift also questioned this distinction between biology and chemistry and suggested that there were cases where biological systems were analysed as chemicals (for instance, analysis of pheromones in GC-MS). Professor Plant suggested that the UK may be particularly good at geological monitoring and that biogeochemical cycling may be more appropriate than compartmentalised monitoring.

32.     Dr Owens questioned the timescales for setting up an ideal monitoring system. Professor Holgate referred to work underway on the computerisation of all Primary Health Care statistics in the UK. This would allow mapping of particular medical conditions and permit the construction of time series trends. The Chairman questioned the investment in analytical equipment in pharmaceutical and environmental research. John Rea noted that DEFRA and the Environment Agency had separate work underway to produce inventories of all environmental monitoring currently being carried out.

33.     John Rea advised Members that they would be sent copies of the draft consultants' report for comment before a final version was produced.

34.     John Rea reported on this visit to the US which he, Dr Graham-Bryce and Professor Macrory had made. Mr Rea noted that QSAR development had been forced by policy, but the feeling was that the approach worked for new chemicals. The assessment of existing substances was very resource intensive because of the litigation threat and comparative rather than absolute assessment was favoured because it was easier to justify. The visit party had found that the precautionary principle was anathema to US institutions. It was reported that much hope is placed in green chemistry and that market forces drove green chemistry on new products.

35.     One of the organisations visited had expressed an opinion that there were few differences in outlook between the EU and US populations on risk aversion and institutional trust, but that there may have been different stimuli - if the US had experienced BSE and FMD, they might have very similar opinions. There were also issues around multiple exposures to similar chemicals, but research funding had not been forthcoming. Several people had commented on the role of government as a referee in the debate between industry and NGO's, rather than a driver of policy. However, the NGOs had very few resources, were therefore highly focussed, and were likely to prioritise their efforts politically rather than environmentally. There was also the feeling in some influential quarters that the risk assessment paradigm had failed, but there were differing views of the seriousness of this failure.

36.     Professor Macrory added that regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) in the US was relatively light so as not to inhibit innovation and that there was real belief in the QSAR approach, although NGOs considered this was a sop to industry. He also noted that the US courts award punitive damages and that such an approach to liability did not encourage innovation.

37.     Professor Ekins questioned some of the mixed messages emerging from the visit - that the risk assessment paradigm was considered to have failed, but did this matter? He also felt that the report made it clear that product liability was a main driver and that not stifling innovation was important. Dr Graham-Bryce noted the need in the Commission's report to justify the level of concern and the need to consider the role of precaution. Professor Hoskins noted the comments on the cost of monitoring and the ability of the risk assessment system to have detected the damaging effects of CFCs. Dr Owens wondered whether maverick scientists' opinions carried equal weight to more established opinions (for example, through the NAS work).

RCP(02)841 Report of visit to Stockholm
38.     Andy Deacon introduced this paper, reporting on the visit to KEMI in Stockholm that he, Professor Clift, Dr Owens and Mr Speirs had made. The visit had covered a number of areas of which the most interesting were the products register and the arrangements for environmental monitoring. KEMI's pesticides director had explained the re-registration programme for pesticides. As many products were on the market now as before re-registration. The visit party had also been given a tour of the product register offices and seen the types of entries held on the register and the statistics that were produced. There were several users of the register (although KEMI was the main one). All information is updated annually.

39.     Mr Deacon also reported information on the Swedish environmental monitoring scheme, noting the specimen bank which had been running for a number of years and the contrast drawn between background remote sites and suspected affected areas (such as pesticide monitoring in non-farmed areas compared to agricultural areas). He also noted that some effects studies were carried out, as well as studies on levels of anthropogenic chemicals in humans, which, for example, had shown declining levels of flame-retardants in human breast milk in Sweden over the past 10 years.

40.     Professor Clift added that he was preparing an information paper on the chemical industry in Sweden, including which sectors were covered under product register legislation and which were not. He was also researching the withdrawal of some chemicals companies from the Swedish market altogether. The Chairman suggested that further research also be carried out into the pesticide re-registration programme to determine whether imports alone could account for the number of new products that had been introduced. Dr Owens suggested that it might be helpful to try to obtain a sample of a product register entry so that all Commission Members could see the type of data included.

41.     Mr Speirs commented that he had been impressed by the practicality and pragmatism of the Swedish system. Professor Clift also noted aspirational Swedish targets to remove, by 2015, existing and new substances exceeding certain persistence and bioaccumulation criteria. Professor Plant asked whether geochemical monitoring formed part of the monitoring programme and The Chairman wondered whether the monitoring was pro-active or reactive.

Report of visit to Syngenta Plant, Grangemouth
42.     Dr Graham-Bryce reported on this visit, which he made on the afternoon of 3 July with Dr Graham-Bryce, Professor Holgate, Mr Speirs and Professor Sprent, accompanied by John Rea and Jonny Wentworth. The Commission visit party had met with the site manager, the process developer and the head of environment for the plant. Syngenta was just one plant in the Grangemouth complex, with BP refining being perhaps the most significant. Syngenta's site was specialised, making agrochemical fungicides in a state-of-the-art plant. This meant that it was unlikely to be entirely representative of the chemical industry.

43.     Under discussion during the meeting, the importance of supply chain issues was raised. There was significant capital investment in the plant and long-term contracts with suppliers of manufacturing plant parts. Sygenta thought green chemistry to be a good idea, but very long term. The plant had been built to provide the best process right from the start but this meant that there was subsequently little flexibility.

44.     As there were few staff on site, natural interaction with the local community was difficult, which contributed to a local reluctance to accept new plant on the site. As the plant was manufacturing products in such a regulated area (fungicide) there was enhanced downstream knowledge. There was direct marketing in labelled and numbered containers to prevent the product being copied in the Far East. Supplies of material to the plant came from all over the world and included the import of fluorinated products.

45.     The Chairman wondered whether the approval process for fungicide was similar to clinical drug trials, in which both the process and the product were approved. John Rea responded that this was the case and that this meant that there were limited opportunities to change the manufacturing process. He also reported that ecotoxicology testing was carried out on product contaminants. There was the feeling amongst those present that the chemical industry would be dominated by a small number of big players in the future.

RCP(02)Chem C8 Report from Working Group C (This item was extra to the agenda)
46.     Mr Speirs introduced this paper, an updated outline of Chapter 1 of the Chemicals Study Report. Mr Speirs noted that the Secretary had tentatively fleshed out the introductory paragraphs that set the scene for the Study and were trying to be provocative. Members were particularly asked to consider the material at the end of paragraph 5 of the draft.

47.     The Chairman commented that the Commission was seeking a unique angle and should ask fundamental questions. He also commented that traditional end-of-pipe issues could be addressed relatively easily but that long-term low-level effects represented a very different problem. He referred to evolutionary aspects in the natural versus synthetic chemicals debate and questioned whether regulatory regimes were appropriate for different problems.

48.     Professor Plant wondered whether institutional arrangements should be covered in Chapter 1, as different regulatory systems exist for different chemicals and it was not always clear why. She felt that, to address public concerns, the regulatory system needed simplifying. John Rea commented that this could be flagged in Chapter 1 but would be covered in more detail in Chapter 5. Professor Graham-Bryce suggested that we were not just concerned with persistence and bioaccumulation but that widespread use of short-lived chemicals could also give rise to long-term exposure. He also suggested that we need a better understanding of the ways in which the system is vulnerable (not just using a chemical by chemical approach). John Rea clarified the boundaries of the study with its focus on decision-making on chemicals (both natural and synthetic) that are traded, and noted that neither by-products of production, nor vehicle and plant emissions would be covered. Occupational exposure would not be covered but consumer exposure would.

49.     Professor Plant questioned the balance in the societal unease section of the Chapter. She suggested that the inclusion of examples would be helpful in the societal unease section, and felt that there were examples of public worry where there was no demonstration of cause and effect. Dr Owens suggested that there would be paradoxes here only if the problem were viewed in the traditional way. Professor Holgate suggested that the long period of exposure and the exposure of vulnerable groups (especially children and pregnant women) were additional concerns.

50.     Professor Hoskins suggested that rather than simply considering the transfer of chemicals into biological systems, that mediation by the environment or changes in the physico-chemical environment also be considered. He added that with regard to ozone layer problems, indirect monitoring of the wider system had led to the chemical of concern being identified. Professor Clift suggested that the scope of the study needed to be defined and offered to prepare a paper and pass it to the Secretariat before the end of July.

51.     Dr Graham-Bryce suggested that further debate was needed on the three objectives given at the end of paragraph 5, in particular the suggestion that the number of chemicals on the market should be reduced. The Secretary confirmed that he had intended that the drafting should stimulate such a debate. He went on to note the large number of chemical substances on the market, and wondered to what extent they were all quite necessary to society. Mr Speirs remarked that the draft had achieved its aims in not being anodyne. Professor Ekins was keen to see the draft Chapter 1 continue to say something different and constructive.

52.     Professor Holgate raised the concept of 'westernisation' and the push for more flavours/colours etc in general, and the fact that some chronic conditions were predominantly western diseases. He noted that as western culture was moving into China and Africa, asthma and diabetes were spreading. He also commented that there were reverse phenomena in developed countries (for example, the push for organic food). He suggested that considerations such as these be included in the societal unease section.

53.     Dr Owens suggested that the list of references from Joyce Tait's work be used to investigate public perception issues further. She felt that there was public risk perception work in other fields (such as the nuclear industry) and that there may be a gap on chemicals. She also suggested that it might be worth talking to Steve Rayner (?), a public perception expert on nuclear industry issues.

54.     Dr Graham-Bryce commented that the concepts were really of consumerism and lifestyle, and not westernisation. Professor Ekins commented that chemical control might affect free choice issues. Professor Hoskins also felt that there should be a discussion of what was meant by the environment.

55.     The Chairman welcomed feedback on the Chapter and noted that The Secretary would progress the draft further. A skeleton outline of chapter 6 would also follow, but this would largely depend on the rest of the report. He also looked forward to the September meeting when all working groups would feed back on their drafting activity.

Environment Agency Chemicals Management Strategy (This item was extra to the agenda)
56.     John Rea introduced this document, setting out the Environment Agency's objectives, activities and actions on chemicals up to 2007. He reported that the Strategy focuses on chemicals that may directly affect the environment or human health through environmental exposure. The Strategy considers the potential for environmental harm regardless of the stage at which a substance enters the environment or the chemical regime governing its use. It was noted that a key aim of the Strategy was to focus management activities on those chemicals and at the point in the lifecycle where the Environment Agency could contribute most effectively to environmental improvement. He also reported that the Environment Agency has identified pollution reduction programmes as a tool to address high priority pollutants and that the Strategy recognises the need to consider societal values and costs and benefits in decision making. The Strategy would promote research, improved monitoring approaches, set environmental targets, and develop new approaches to support chemicals management.

RCP(02)845 Genetic susceptibility and toxicology papers from Professor Holgate (This item was extra to the agenda)
58.     Professor Holgate introduced these papers concerning variation in human responses to external factors, especially those responses regulated genetically. He stated that the papers were concerned with effects on individuals rather than the population mean response. He reported that the papers included some pharmaceutical examples, especially in metabolics and efficiency, and noted that work is starting to emerge on toxic chemicals. Professor Holgate noted that the papers deal with safety factors to capture the extremes on the gaussian curve of human response and that, in future, there would be precise ways of describing an individual's response and that levels of exposure could be assessed on an individual basis rather than on the basis of whole populations.

59.     Professor Holgate highlighted point C on page 4 of the Maynard paper, noting the trend in toxicology to move away from molecular based approaches. He raised the need to consider the genetic susceptibility of different ethnic populations, which might mean that chemical regulation would need to be country specific. He also raised issues of staffing, as one of the papers notes the decrease in available workforce in the field of toxicology.

60.     Mr Speirs queried the application of the genomic technique to populations of other organisms. The Chairman noted that the population response to chemicals might be bi-modal rather than gaussian and John Rea noted that this might account for low-dose endocrine disrupting effects. Professor Holgate noted the need to consider many factors along complex disease pathways and that, for example in asthma, if 40 polymorphic variants of leukotrines were considered, the overall response might be gaussian, but that individual leukotrine variant responses might be bi-modal. Professor Hoskins commented that "safe chemicals" might become a dubious concept. The Chairman commented that safe dose was a difficult concept because of the various population compositions in different countries but that an alternative approach may be needed for chemicals dispersed in the environment. Professor Holgate agreed that any exposure would occur in a multi-ethnic environment and that the application of genomic techniques to chemicals would need to be carefully considered.

61.    The Commission heard a presentation from Professor Maxwell, Chair of the Scottish Agriculture and Environment Working Group, whose report 'Custodians of Change was published recently. A note of this presentation is attached at Annex B.

62.     Howard Morrison introduced this paper for information. He thanked Members for their help in finalising the text of the response. The Chairman said that he was pleased with the response, and that it proved that the Commission could produce something of high quality with little distraction from the main studies.

RCP(02)128 DEFRA Consultation on strategic research

63.     Howard Morrison spoke to this paper, an invitation to the Commission to respond to DEFRA's consultation on a new 'Priorities Board'. He pointed out that the 31 August deadline was rather close, especially given the Secretariat's heavy workload and the lack of meeting time until September. The Chairman felt that a short letter might be worthwhile, but that no more would be necessary.

64.     The Secretary explained that one of the chief problems in setting up this board was that it would involve linking two opposing approaches. The MAFF approach to research had always been highly centralised, while DETR had operated a more devolved system. The Secretary believed that both systems had advantages. He was not sure that the Commission needed to be involved in process, but might have something to say about what topics should be included.

65.     Dr Graham-Bryce said that he was astonished by some of the questions being asked. Professor Hoskins said that they must be made aware that the agricultural environment is not the only environment for which DEFRA has responsibility. Dr Owens questioned the lack of any social science.

66.     The Secretary informed Members that the guests at dinner on Thursday would be Patricia Henton, Chief Executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and John Markland, Chairman of Scottish Natural Heritage.

67.     Members agreed that both speakers had been very interesting, particularly on the problems of associated with aquaculture and fisheries. Dr Graham-Bryce said that they had not been very forthcoming on chemicals, although Professor Macrory suggested that they might have little policy of their own and were intending rather to follow the UK. The Secretary suggested that SEPA was not well staffed on chemicals and to some extent followed the Environment Agency's lead. Professor Hoskins replied that it was still of concern that SEPA did not appear to consider the issue to be their problem.

68.     The Commission received oral evidence from Professor Michael Rennie and Professor Kenneth Killham of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. The use of novel techniques in the rapid screening of chemicals using bacterial techniques was raised. There was discussion of genetic pre-disposition to the effects of chemicals and the need for adequate societal protection. There was debate on distinguishing between natural and synthetic chemicals. The consideration of ecological ethics was raised. The Commission was informed about the use of isotope signatures as tracers and the need to accurately define and understand chemical bioavailability. A transcript of this session is to follow.

69.     The Chairman noted that it had been a productive session and had provided key evidence in a number of areas, particularly on possible future techniques for assessing the impact of chemicals.

70.     Andy Deacon introduced this paper, giving information about a response prepared by a group of Danish scientists to Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He noted that in addition to criticising Lomborg's selectivity and methods, the response also provided some evidence to contradict Lomborg's findings. This was not however possible in all subject areas and, like Lomborg's original book, the response could not find sufficient evidence to back up or rebut the claims on pesticides, cancer and endocrine disruption in humans.

71.     Professor Ekins commented that the response had not merely criticised Lomborg's selectivity, but also pointed out that he drew misleading conclusions from the evidence he had read. Dr Graham-Bryce suggested that the debate came down to the basis for acting on insufficient evidence. Professor Hoskins noted that on ozone depletion, initially scientists were looking for the wrong substances. Professor Ekins added that the fact the endocrine disruption effects were seen in animals, even though not yet in humans, was sufficient to justify the Commission's study. Professor Plant noted that endocrine disrupting chemicals were present in humans at animal effects levels and that co-factors may be important. She added that as we were concerned with long-term low-level exposure, then there might be difficulty in proving effects.

72.     Professor Clift emphasised the nature of the Commission's study, focusing on the long-term and not becoming a report about short-term chemical regulation. Dr Owens questioned the need for so many synthetic chemicals and wondered whether in looking for human health effects, a crucial systemic ecological effect might be missed. Dr Graham-Bryce suggested that if this were the case, it would be too late to act by the time any effect was detected. Professor Hoskins asked for consideration of chemicals that interfere with the physico-chemical environment and not just directly with biological systems. Dr Owens wondered whether there were QSAR techniques available for natural systems. Professor Clift suggested that the Commission seek the views of Professor Bro-Rasmussen on both Lomborg's book and the Danish response.

RCP(02)835 CDC Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Report
73.     Andy Deacon introduced this paper, covering a report produced by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in the US and referred to during the oral evidence session with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. He reported that the study was the first in an annual series, currently giving human exposure levels to 27 chemicals from 12 locations across the US. He noted that the chemicals studied included metals, organophosphate pesticide metabolites, phthalate metabolites and cotinine (a marker of tobacco smoke exposure). He also gave the main findings of the work, showing; that blood lead levels in children are continuing to decline, that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has decreased, that women's and children's exposure to mercury is better understood, and that research areas for phthalates have been identified.

74.     Professor Holgate noted that there was no similar UK system, and highlighted bullet point 6 on page 2 of the report, which stated that the research was investigating inequality and that there was therefore a political dimension to the work. He added that the only UK work he was aware of was on lead. The Secretary agreed that the UK approach was limited, but that there were some good examples, such as the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU). John Rea noted that it had taken considerable effort even to set up a feasibility study on human breast milk sampling in the UK. Professor Holgate suggested that with the National Health Service there was the potential for a study such as this. He suggested that the Secretariat determine whether there was any Finnish work in this area as they have both an appropriate environmental monitoring system and a national health service.

75 .     Dr Graham-Bryce suggested that using only 12 locations across the US would limit the potential for the use of epidemiology, but that there was potential to link a geographical based monitoring scheme and epidemiology. John Rea referred to the work of the UK's ALSPAC study, which had included the storing of placentas from births in the Avon Health Authority region. Dr Graham-Bryce referred to the MEMO(?) activity, which was investigating possible side effects from the use of therapeutic drugs. Professor Holgate referred to successful work in the field of air quality in mapping asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease against air quality levels.

76.     Professor Plant noted the work on birth defects near landfills and that this had used a simplified approach thus far. She suggested that there might be much new research to be undertaken in this area, as many chemicals would end up in landfill sites. The Secretary commented although the SAHSU study seemed to correlate proximity of the general population to landfills with birth defects, research had thus far shown no link between workers on landfill sites and adverse effects.

77.     Professor Holgate agreed to provide contact details for the MRC toxicology unit, so the Secretariat may check if further toxicological/epidemiological research was available. Dr Graham-Bryce added that what was really needed was side-by-side chemical and biological monitoring.

RCP(02)842 Progress in the Chemical Stakeholder Forum
78.     Andy Deacon introduced this paper looking at research by the Chemicals Stakeholder Forum into public attitudes to chemicals and to the Forum. The research had used public focus groups in both areas associated with the chemical industry and areas with no such association. He reported that the work identified that the public tended to view chemicals as either "raw" or "cooked" and that, in public thinking, chemicals tended to fall into the general area of "pollution". The research had also shown that the public generally supported the work of the Forum once its role and remit had been explained. He further reported that there was a degree of concern at the last Chemical Stakeholder Forum meeting as to the need to undertake the research at all, but there were those on the Forum who felt that an objective assessment of public concerns was helpful.

79.     Dr Owens was concerned that the work should be classed as 'research' at all. Professor Plant agreed, noting that the study had not reviewed previous work in this area, notably the MORI poll carried out on behalf of the Chemical Industries Association. Professor Ekins noted the public reactions to the chemical industry and that the public had been critical of industry for wanting to get involved in the work of the Forum. He felt that there was a wider debate on societal involvement in regulation of the chemical industry and public funding of science. The Chairman added that industrialists were now funding much basic science research and the Commission needed to be able to explain this when talking about the report. Dr Owens suggested that public understanding of these issues was an underdeveloped area. John Rea commented that the Chemical Stakeholder Forum study was a follow up from the Commission's research carried out by Joyce Tait.

RCP(02)843 Evaluation of EU risk assessments
80.     John Rea introduced this paper produced by Dutch experts in risk assessment. He explained that the paper drew out lessons to be learnt from the first 41 EU risk assessments (including those which had not yet passed all the way through the process) and that the authors supported the risk assessment approach. He said that the paper had examined how good the priority setting system was, as the chemicals studied could be expected to be the most hazardous ones.

81.     He also emphasised the historical focus of the EU risk assessment process on worker protection. He reported that the review had shown that even though these were the most hazardous substances, they were still data poor. He also noted that the study had also highlighted unexpected consumer risks, pointing to problems of exposure assessment and product/article assessment. He highlighted one of the findings of the review that had found that the risk assessment process concentrates on pre-judged concern areas leading to the possibility of deriving incorrect assessments.

82.     Dr Graham-Bryce referred back to the comments of John Graham during the visit to Washington. He felt that if intellectually and conceptually risk assessment was the best approach on offer but it still did not work, then an alternative was needed. Professor Clift raised the need to distinguish between hazard assessment and risk assessment, where risk assessment needs to include the possibility of release.

83.     John Rea wondered what exposure testing had been done and how this had been carried out. Professor Clift pointed out that the work was concerned with toxicity testing and not exposure testing. The Chairman referred to previous discussions on exposure that had looked at stochastic, as against accidental, exposure. Dr Graham-Bryce thought that accidental exposure had been ruled out of the Chemicals Study. Professor Clift suggested that the EU work should say something about probability of exposure. Professor Hoskins noted that opportunities for streamlining the process would be limited as the results were often not predictable.

84.     Professor Ekins suggested that for many of the chemicals covered in the Commission's study, 100% environmental release could be expected and exposure was therefore almost certain. The Secretary commented that this was the basis for regulation of existing substances, which are classified according to the amount on the market. He added that both the EU and OECD systems looked at use and then emission into the environment from that use. Dr Graham-Bryce noted that accidents were covered under a different approach (that of designing for a one in a million accidental release), but that this was difficult to communicate if the public sought absolute guarantees. Professor Ekins suggested that if risk assessment is the best we can do, then the burden of the past will never be addressed. He added that prioritisation would then have to suffice, with some degree of societal choice on acceptance of risk. He also questioned the relationship between risk assessment as reviewed in this paper and the evaluation part of the proposed EC REACH process.

RCP(02)844 Report of European conference on Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals in Products and Processes
85.     Andy Deacon introduced this paper, a summary of a conference on substitution of hazardous chemicals that he had attended. The conference was organised by a German research organisation looking at the lessons to be drawn from the application of substitution in ten specific cases. The conference had examined the application of substitution in other policy areas, and heard from those within industry on the practicalities of substituting hazardous chemicals. Mr Deacon noted that a full conference report was being prepared by the organisers and would be made available once complete.

86.     The Chairman suggested that there should be an information box on substitution within the report on the Chemicals Study.

87.     Members noted these articles.

88.     Anna Bradbury thanked Members for their input into the announcement for the Air Transport Study. She commented that the timetable for the study was ambitious, with opinions on the timing and structure of the report taken during the July meeting and an iterative drafting process over the summer to prepare a first draft of the study for the September meeting. Evidence and amendments would then be incorporated through September, leading to a second draft in October that would be finalised by correspondence and published later in the month. Miss Bradbury ran through the structure and purpose of the study, reminding Members that the focus of the report was on the environmental effects of aircraft in flight and that the report would investigate technical solutions. She also reminded Members that the study was being carried out to encourage government not to shut off avenues in the Aviation White Paper.

89.     Professor Hoskins commented that the bulk of the work on the study would be carried out in the latter half of August. He also emphasised that not a great deal had changed in this area since the 1999 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and that the Commission would essentially be updating that work. Professor Macrory wondered whether October was too late a publication date to influence the White Paper. Professor Clift responded that if the Commission published its study in October then it could not be ignored, and the current government plans ignored in-flight aspects of air transport completely. The Chairman recommended that the announcement for the study be forwarded to John Gummer, as he was aware that Mr Gummer had an interest in this area.

90.     Professor Clift drew attention to the current technological options available. The main one seemed to be wing/body design which could decrease fuel consumption by a factor of two, although in time this would be swamped by air traffic growth. Professor Macrory suggested that the report should focus on the limit of the technological solutions and the Commission was unlikely to propose other measures. Professor Clift suggested that the study investigate the application of carbon trading to air transport. Professor Ekins thought that the air transport White Paper would be the litmus test for government policy on sustainability and that this needed to be made clear in the report.

91.     Professor Macrory informed Members that he was organising a seminar to follow up on the Environmental Planning Report. The event was taking place on 18 July and Members were invited to attend.

RCP(02)130 Environmental planning - letter from the Environment Agency
92.     The Chairman reported that he had received a letter from the Chairman of the Environment Agency on the Environmental Planning Report and wondered what the Commission ought to do in response. The Secretary suggested that rather than responding to the letter and opening an extended debate, that the letter was instead noted by Members. He added that the letter had picked some recommendations from the Commission's Report and agreed with them.

93.     Professor Hoskins was surprised that the Environment Agency had not commented on the data side of the Commission's Report. Professor Ekins wondered how far the Environment Agency was exercised in this area. The Chairman noted that he had met with Environment Agency officials before the launch of the Report. Professor Macrory noted that planning reform was on their agenda, that there were board level advisory groups on some issues and that the Environment Agency were aligning town and country planning with their own agenda.

Select Committee Report on the Planning Green Paper (This item was extra to the agenda)
94.     The Chairman drew this report to the attention of Members, noting that the Commission's work was held in high regard in the Select Committee's report. Dr Owens noted that both the Radio 4 Today programme and a recent CSERGE seminar had referred to the Commission's work. The Chairman noted that the Green Paper would move into legislation, so the Commission's comments and the report were valuable. The Chairman suggested that Commission representatives might meet with Lord Rooker and that there may be value in a further follow up half-day meeting on the Environmental Planning Report to emphasise the key messages.

Meeting with DEFRA (This item was extra to the agenda)
95.     Professor Macrory reported on a meeting that he, The Chairman and The Secretary had had with DEFRA officials as follow up to the Environmental Planning Report. He commented that the overall impression was that DEFRA had not grasped the environmental issues in this policy area. The Secretary noted that it was difficult to be optimistic about DEFRA action as no resources had been allocated for this purpose. The Chairman suggested that the meeting be followed up with a letter to Anna Walker and Lord Rooker expressing some of these sentiments.

96.     Dr Owens suggested that things would move quickly with the production of a policy statement and thought that a Parliamentary question might be helpful. The Secretary noted that we would need to find someone to ask the question. Professor Macrory noted that the Select Committee was being wound up and that there would now be a Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Chairman suggested that the Commission investigate the possibility of anyone on the new Select Committee posing a question, or a member of the House of Lords. He also invited Dr Owens to consider what such a question might ask.

RCP(02)131 European Environmental Advisory Councils (EEAC) annual conference
97.     Professor Macrory encouraged Commission Members to attend this conference, which would take place in Kilkenny between 17 and 19 October. He noted that the conference would present a draft written constitution for the EEAC and a common statement on the future of agriculture, as well as containing an update from member councils (including accession states) on their activities.

Members noted these publications.