| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North): Does my hon. Friend agree that the birds that she has delimited have declined in numbers anyway due to pesticides, insecticides and other chemicals in the environment? Indeed, the DETR takes account of the number of skylarks and other such factors in setting parameters for the assessment of the assuaging of the environment.
Ms Walley: My hon. Friend is right to say that there has been a decline in all kinds of wild bird species, which is of concern. I am also aware, however, that companies such as Monsanto have been blaming some of that decline on farm cats. We must consider the production of food and its effect.
Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Will my hon. Friend clarify whether she is calling for a moratorium on the planting of all genetically modified crops, or just one on the commercial planting of GM crops? There is a difference.
Ms Walley: There is certainly a difference. I am calling for a moratorium on commercially grown crops, which may be a practical first step, but I would not rule out support for a general moratorium. We must assess how we can make progress in stages--and certainly quickly.
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield): However well intentioned the Government are, there is great frustration
at the fact that a steamroller, which seems to be centred in American business, through the World Trade Organisation, is stopping us as a nation, and even through the European Union, withstanding genetically modified crops or growth hormones in beef, for example. Such things are being forced on us, and there seems to be little that we can do about it.
Ms Walley: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the exact pressure point. The great steamroller of the World Trade Organisation is telling us, and the European Union that, in the interests of world trade, we cannot develop policies based on the precautionary approach that I would want. There is a fundamental issue about whether democratic Governments such as ours can determine the way forward on food production, or whether we must follow multinational companies. Huge issues are at stake. I am pleased to bring to the House's attention the recent work of the Environmental Audit Committee, which is about to be published, in respect of multinational agreements on investment. I note with great interest recent calls by Sir Crispin Tickell for an environmental body that equals in strength the World Trade Organisation.
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes): I agree with everything that the hon. Lady has said. In view of the problem, would not it be a good idea for every food item on the shelf to carry a warning in a big black box, just like on a cigarette packet, "This food contains genetically modified organisms"?
Ms Walley: I shall come to the issue of labelling later, but that is one proposal which could be considered.
I want to pre-empt a point that the Minister may raise. In October 1998, it was announced that a moratorium of sorts had been agreed, in that no
As the Minister must surely be aware, no such crops would have been introduced during those three years anyway. Making such an announcement is like promising that the sun will not rise in the middle of the night. The only insect-resistant crop that might be ready for planting in that time scale is a maize made resistant to the European corn borer--and that would not be grown in Britain anyway. The Government should not try to confuse the issue with false proclamations of action. The issue is serious, and should not be obscured by "spin" in such statements.
As questions remain unanswered about the safety of GM crops in terms of their effect on human health, the testing regime that they are subjected to, their effects on wildlife and the wider environment, and the wider effects of the changes in agricultural practices that the use of GM crops will inevitably lead to, I am persuaded of the case for a moratorium; I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is, too.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh):
I fully support and welcome the moratorium. There is also a call at present--especially in the Council of Europe, where three
Ms Walley:
I certainly would. I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the issue on behalf of the Council of Europe, because there has been concern in Europe generally about the decision by countries such as Austria and Luxembourg to take action against genetically modified crops, despite the fact that such action is illegal in the eyes of the European Commission. I believe that we should accept that the precautionary principle is central to everything that we do in this area. We now need to find ways of moving on. I hope that the Council of Europe will be an important partner in that debate, which involves the European Commission.
I want to impress on the Government the crucial importance of labelling and segregation schemes, which allow consumers to choose whether they eat genetically modified foods. However much people may differ on the rights or wrongs, or the risks and benefits of GM food, there is no question in my mind but that people should be entitled to choose for themselves. Surely we all have a right not to eat GM food.
I believe that support is solid throughout Europe. A Euro Barometer poll, carried out by DG XII last year, found that 82 per cent. of respondents in the United Kingdom wanted labelling. In other countries, it was the same story. In Denmark, the equivalent figure was 85 per cent.; in Germany, 72 per cent.; in Sweden, 81 per cent.; in France, 78 per cent. In case anyone thinks that I am picking the high numbers, the lowest score--for Ireland--was a 61 per cent. majority in favour of labelling.
Even Monsanto, manufacturer of many of these products and the firm that recently spent £1 million trying to convince the British public about them, headed one advertisement:
Ms Walley:
I am grateful for that intervention; I shall come to that subject shortly. That point was made in a presentation that I attended 10 days ago. Producers that are now sourcing non-GM maize and soya from Brazil are in a real dilemma, because we are a very short planting season away from the time when those non-GMO supplies in Brazil will become GM supplies. There is a real feeling of urgency about that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that labelling must be backed up by GM-free sources, as well as traceability and proper monitoring of that at all times.
I return to the subject of Monsanto, about which I sound a word of warning. Despite the fact that Monsanto has issued statements such as the one from which I quoted--with which I wholeheartedly agree--it was that company, I understand, which brought a court case in Vermont, USA to prevent the passing of a state law requiring the labelling of products made using one of its genetically modified products, recombinant bovine growth hormone, which is used on milk-producing cows. Monsanto invoked the US constitution to argue that it did not need to disclose that information, and won. So much for believing people that should be made aware of all the facts before making a purchase! To my mind, this country's freedom of information Bill cannot come soon enough.
The moral is clear: we cannot rely on Monsanto to take these decisions for us. It must be for the Government to ensure that foods made using genetically modified ingredients are labelled as such. The Government must ensure that there is a truly free market in which consumers can choose between GM and non-GM food.
Labelling regulation must be well designed, too. Current EC labelling regulations apply to just two genetically modified foods--maize and soya. Even with those two foods, the requirement is that
The rules must also be policed. Even the current limited and inadequate rules are not being upheld. Last week, trading standards officers in Worcestershire found that five of 24 samples contained GM soya or maize, despite the fact that only one item was labelled as such. That is unacceptable. The current laws must be enforced. In addition, we must consider the fact that the new EC directive does not apply retrospectively, and does not apply to food sources that were on the market before it was introduced.
I congratulate Bob and Carol Stevens, public analysts in Worcestershire, on the work that they have done to develop a technique for detecting genetically modified foods. Worcestershire's report is also to be congratulated. It exposes so well the fact that, although we have strict labelling laws, when it comes to GM food, we do not have truthful--I emphasise that word--labelling of foods. Consumers should be told. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will take on board the recommendations of the director of environmental services in Worcester that he implements the provision of EU Regulation 1139/98 as soon as possible.
The Government must remember their duty to our wholefood industry, too. The Department of Trade and Industry should consider how it might protect that
industry when it faces the threat of its GM-free sources all but drying up, as more countries fail to segregate their GM and GM-free products, especially soya. I know that other countries' policies are matters for them, but I want at least to hear that the Government are actively involved in diplomacy and pressure abroad to protect supplies for an important sector of British industry. That is crucial.
Through highly resourceful sourcing work, the wholefood industry has so far managed to switch its source of soya from the United States, which stopped segregating, to Brazil. That guaranteed a steady supply for the industry's products and enabled it to continue to provide the GM-free produce that its customers wanted. However, Monsanto has opened a major plant in Brazil, and GM soya will shortly be planted by Brazilian farmers. There are fears in the wholefood industry that those crops will not be segregated.
If that happens, sourcing non-GM soya could become extremely difficult. The industry would be in a difficult situation, faced with customers who want GM-free products, but no ready source from which to obtain them. We could be as close as one crop-planting season away from such a changeover. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will take the matter seriously and work to protect our wholefood industry.
What pressure can be brought to bear to dissuade Brazil from going down that route? Having read a report, apparently by Stan Greenburg, on the significance attached by Monsanto to persuading the political elites in the United Kingdom to accept GM food, and having read a similar assessment entitled "The Grim German Mood: Biotechnology and Monsanto", I wonder what weight the new German Government will give to the issue when they take over the European Union presidency.
One political elite that seems to have swallowed Monsanto's propaganda is the House of Lords Select Committee, which published a report two weeks ago on GM regulations in Europe. Much was made of its endorsement of the technology, but I urge the Government to tread carefully, as the report contains some alarming discrepancies. I am not saying that the report was not carefully prepared, but we must examine its recommendations cautiously.
The most glaring concern is that the Lords consider that genetic modification "offers great potential benefits", although they accept that the risks are difficult to estimate. That begs the question of how the Lords weighed up the risks and benefits, while admitting that they cannot quantify one half of that equation. I am still to be convinced about who will really benefit from GM food.
Their lordships' approach to the precautionary principle is deeply worrying. They appear to explain that important principle in paragraph 41 of the report, discuss it a little further in paragraph 42 and do away with it entirely by paragraph 43, arguing for a step-by-step approach. I am conscious of our obligations under the Rio convention, and I want us to adopt the precautionary approach.
On segregation and labelling too, the report is confused. It states that
The Lords have been ridiculed for claiming that genetically modified organisms have much to offer organic farming, yet it has been pointed out that organic farming does not allow any genetic modification at all. English Nature, the Government's official wildlife adviser, released a blistering attack on the report's failure to recognise the effect of GM crops on the UK's wildlife. In a new release, English Nature states that the Lords
I thank the Minister for listening to my concerns. There is little doubt that he and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, the DETR Minister most concerned with the impact of GMOs on the countryside, could well be the two Ministers who decide whether there is to be a large-scale release of GMOs into the British countryside--a release that we could never call back.
Why risk that nightmare approach? Why risk too much for a technology as yet unproven? It seems that companies such as Monsanto have to take risks on acquisitions of companies that are currently making low profits, but which have high share prices because of the potential in genetic engineering. If it is true that Monsanto is paying $2.3 billion for 60 per cent. of DeKalb Genetics, even though the company made only $29 million profit in 1997 and $28 million in the first nine months of 1998, perhaps it is more vulnerable than its image in the UK might suggest.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends at MAFF, the DETR and the DTI to balance all the interests--the interests of companies such as Iceland, which has kept faith by offering consumers real choice and whose technical director is at present advising consumer groups in Australia; ethical independent wholesalers that genuinely offer quality labelling to strict vegetarian or Soil Association labelling standards; the Restaurateurs Association, which is concerned about the practical implications of labelling GMOs in restaurants, and about the verification of the accuracy of wholesalers' food labelling.
"insect resistant crops will be introduced into the UK for the next three years."
That announcement was made before the Lords Select Committee by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and led to headlines proclaiming, "Genetic crops banned".
"Food labelling. It has Monsanto's full backing".
The advertisement continued:
"We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase."
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
Does the hon. Lady agree that labelling, although terribly important, will be useless unless we can guarantee diversity of supply, and guarantee suppliers of food that their purchases are not genetically modified?
"genetically engineered protein or DNA"
is detectable. That definition excludes products containing oils, lecithin and other additives made from GM crops, as the DNA is not detectable in those products after the original foodstuffs have been processed. Products made with GM tomatoes, rennet or growth hormones also need not be labelled. That cannot be right. Foods in whose development GMOs have played any part--as a major or minor ingredient--must be labelled as such. So-called "identity preservation" schemes must be used to guarantee that GM-free foods are really GM-free. That is only fair to consumers who, as Monsanto says, should be aware of all the facts before they buy.
"the use of GM products . . . is an ethical issue",
but goes on to support a system of labelling that would deny consumers the chance to make that ethical decision, by keeping them in the dark about whether foods contain GM produce.
"failed to understand the implications for farmland wildlife of growing genetically modified crops . . . they say that these crops may benefit wildlife but there is no scientific evidence . . . to back this up."
English Nature went on to say that
"the Committee has completely failed to grasp the point that applying broad spectrum herbicides to herbicide tolerant crops"
will put
"yet more pressure on our wildlife."
Those are all important complaints. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that there are serious flaws in the Committee report. It fails to alleviate any of the concerns that I have raised and leads me back to my starting point--a call for a moratorium on GM crops in this country, and effective segregation and labelling of all GM foods.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |