There was a film which was shown BEFORE the 'advertised' start time. A copy of this video is apparently available from the Central Office of Information, on 020 7261 8528.

You were meant to have been sent 'a pack' to read in advance but most people had not.

There was a brief intro about how the debate is meant to work and then we went into discusion groups. The room was laid out with about a dozen tables with ten seats to each.

There were three 25min discusions followed by a feedback/quations session.

Handouts had been provided to prompt the discusions...
1.a) Is altering genetic make up safe?
.b) What benefits might GM bring?
.c) Will GM help feed the world?
.d) Can we cope with any GM problems?
2.a) Do current GM foods cause health problems?
b) Is GM food safe to eat?
c) Does GM increse or rescrict choice?
d) Does GM mean fewer pesticides?
3.GM future implications
a) "We should allow people to grow GM crops because
it allows farmers greater freedom of choice
without reducing the choices of others"
b) "There is no need to lable GM food because there
are no know side effects to date."

There were no 'official' facilitators on each table, instead we were asked to choose one person to take the role. There was a notepad on each table which the facilitators were meant to take notes about what was being expressed during discussion. This notes would be passed on to the people anaylsing the 'debate'. This system proved to be crap and is open for abuse. Facilitors in many groups were incapable of taking acurate notes that truely reflected the range of discussion and if people wanted to, they could have voluntered to be facilitator and then added their own bias to what ever degree they liked during note taking. There should have been trained and unbiased facilitators.

It wasn't a proper debate at all, it was done in the style of workshop sessions. We were told over and over again that the debate was to find out what our views are. Some people felt that it was more about helping the government and bio-tech companies plan and design their future PR and propagander. Many people seemed to think the desicion about commerciallising GM crops has already been taken.

There wasn't a real cross section of society. Those who were there obviously had an interest in the subject and were motivated to find out about the debate and turn up. Someone asked for everyone who wasn't part of an organisation (and therefore apparently a 'genuine' member of the public) to put their hands up and only about half at most put their hand up.

Everyone there was practically white even though it was in Birmingham. Many of those attending had come from outside the region. There were bio-tech employes and scientist present and at least one pro GM farmer who had been contacted and asked to attend. Preferential treatment, or a misguided attempt at balance?

At the end people were asked to fill in a survey (which is also available online). The questions are very closed minded and leaves no scope for many major issues to be considered. The questions are multiple choice and biased in their conception.

It is difficult to excape the conclusion that either the people running this consultation are incompetent or that there is no real interest in what the public really think.
However, please do get involved. We must no let the government spin this 'debate' as a legitimation of their policy on GM crops.