FSA slated by its Consumer Committee (7/5/2003) | |
7 May 2003 FSA slated by its Consumer Committee from point 4 onwards this is about as embarrassing as it gets Summary 4. In relation to the methodology, the Committee felt strongly that it should have been consulted before the work was started, as it would have been able to offer expert as well as constructive and practical advice on the approach. It questioned why the Agency had felt the need to undertake such work separate from the main public debate and said that it would have been useful to analyse existing work on consumer attitudes to GM to identify where the gaps in understanding were, prior to initiating the programme. 5. It said that the information provided in the booklet and on the web-site was useful but incomplete and therefore biased, as it ignored existing concerns about GM food. 6. The Committee questioned the methods adopted and the use of resources. Whilst it agreed qualitative research was needed to explore consumer concerns about GM in more depth, the Committee felt that the commissioned research had not achieved this very effectively. It said that the programme lacked clear objectives and did not sufficiently analyse why people held the views they did. The Committee said that the school methods, though an interesting way to engage young people, were not consumer research. Some groups, such as people living in rural areas, Wales and the Highlands had not been addressed at all in the qualitative work. Given the limited range of involvement possible in a single citizen's jury, it was questioned whether this was the most appropriate method to have used. 7. The Committee agreed that it was desirable to engage with people on low incomes and young people but questioned what conclusions could be drawn from the Scottish work, especially considering the small numbers of low-income consumers involved. It claimed the summary was poorly written up and failed to identify which views came from the students and which came from the low-income consumers. 8. In general, the Committee said that qualitative methods were best used to identify why people thought what they did. It was noted that quantitative surveys showing apparently low or falling levels of unprompted consumer concern need to be interpreted with caution. 9. The Committee also noted the value of the independent evaluation but recommended that this should have been built into the programme from the outset. Advice On consultation in general · in future, the Consumer Committee should be consulted at the outset on methods for consulting on significant or controversial issues · consideration should be given to working with existing networks of projects, when targeting groups such as people on low incomes and young people · as consumers do not compartmentalise their views, the Agency should work collaboratively with other government departments on consultations · evaluation needs to be built into consultation processes from the outset.
|