| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.7 am
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes): We have heard a moving and powerful address from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). I pay tribute to her for her good fortune in catching the Speaker's eye and initiating the debate. Because she has been so thorough, she has taken more time than she might have wished. Many Conservative Members support her general approach.
I have a particular interest in the matter. The hon. Lady may remember that I had the good fortune last July to have the last Adjournment debate before the summer recess. That debate was on the same subject. I pay tribute to the Minister for being in his place then and now to deal with such a complex subject.
My constituency includes the test areas where there was a tremendous fracas last year, when protesters, wrongly, tore up the crop and criminal prosecutions resulted. That shows the strength of feeling among many hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents in the Dartington- Totnes area about those experiments.
There is no doubt that the United Kingdom leads the world in genetic engineering. Provided that such research is carried out carefully, we have nothing to fear. The trouble is that GM crop experiments seem to have gone ahead with enormous pace. The speed of developments, rather than the technology itself, worries the public.
Through GM crops we could create foods with a delayed spoilage time. We could, for example, grow corn in the Sahara and feed millions more people. There is an altruistic vision, not only dangers, associated with GM crops. Although there are understandable fears about the consequences if the technology develops too fast, it could be tremendously important for food production throughout the world and for feeding the hungry.
I agree with the hon. Lady that certain conclusions reached by the Lords Select Committee were incorrect, but I do not believe that they were the result of the Committee being over-lobbied by Monsanto. The Lords Committee believes that the benefits of GM crops outweigh the risks. That might be true in developing countries where harsh terrain makes it difficult to grow crops. However, in Europe, we already produce far more food than we can eat. Mountains of food paid for by the taxpayer are destroyed. It makes no sense to create more food, for which the taxpayer will pay more, that will subsequently be disposed of. I cannot see the logic of creating more food in Europe when we cannot eat what we produce already.
The Lords Committee said that a product need not be labelled if it contained below an established threshold of GM material. That is an invitation for manufacturers to buck the system. Those consumers who wish to eat non-genetically modified food will find themselves consuming products that contain traces of genetically modified material. What about the build-up of such material in the body over time if unlabelled genetically modified foods are eaten regularly? For that reason, I suggest that genetically modified food products should carry a warning similar to that found on cigarette cartons, advising the public that that food item contains genetically modified material.
Last week, I saw a sign displayed prominently in Sainsburys in Victoria street--I hope that I did not misread it--stating that the salmon on sale had been fed
with genetically modified material. It was interesting to note that the product appeared hardly touched. I believe that the marketplace will respond to such warnings.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Did my hon. Friend observe that the House of Lords Committee examined the question whether intact transgenes could be absorbed by human DNA through food and reached the conclusion that those fears were unfounded? Therefore, does my hon. Friend accept that it is more important to look at the characteristics of the product and the impact that they might have on human health rather than concentrating on the technological process by which a food is developed?
Mr. Steen:
As always, my hon. Friend raises a very challenging and interesting point. He might recollect that, for nearly a decade, successive Governments suggested that there was no danger associated with organic phosphorus sheep dip. It was believed that it could not possibly affect human beings. However, they have now discovered evidence to the contrary. At present, there is a scare involving Scottish salmon, which it is feared have a blood disease. It is believed that there is no chance of passing the disease to human beings, but how do we know what the effects will be in 10 or 15 years?
Mr. Steen:
I will not give way again--not because I do not want to, but because it is unfair to other hon. Members. Furthermore, I probably cannot answer my hon. Friend's question.
Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford):
This is my first contribution to a debate on genetically modified food, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on providing that opportunity. I have a long-standing interest in such matters: I studied plant pathology at Imperial college and did postgraduate research into genetics. I understand scientists' excitement about new discoveries and I support continued scientific endeavour. There is absolutely no doubt that the pursuit of science has made an enormous contribution to human life.
Every major scientific development--from the steam engine to the heart transplant--has involved both risks and benefits. Theoretically, genetic engineering is no
different: there are bound to be risks, but surely there must also be benefits. When the benefit is to human health, most people are prepared to take substantial risks. However, as my hon. Friend said, when it comes to genetically modified foods, public attitudes are hostile, with more than 70 per cent. of people opposed to the idea.
It is easy to assume that, perhaps, that opposition is caused by ignorance. The companies that promote such foods argue that if people understood the issues better, they would happily accept them. Perhaps the hostility comes from recent--although, for most of us, not direct--experience. We all know about listeria, salmonella and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. However, I believe that public concern arises from an innate sense that food is not just another commodity; it is the very sustenance of life. That is neither an ignorant nor a primitive belief--indeed, I believe that it is entirely rational.
Why, when the organic food market is growing more quickly than telecommunications or computer science, should we be forced to consume genetically modified foods? Are they good for us? The manufacturers' proudest boast is that there is no intrinsic difference; that we cannot tell the difference between GM and other foods. Therefore, I suggest that there is no intrinsic nutritional value in such food. Are genetically modified foods bad for us? Frankly, we do not have a clue. What is the justification for producing such food? We have heard some mention this morning, by way of intervention, of the likely benefits. They include higher crop yields, greater resistance to disease and the potential for good in the developing world.
I shall refer to the last point. Who, in this rich and well-fed country, would seek to deny better food supplies to those in the developing world? However, I do not believe for a minute that people in Africa are starving because of a lack of genetically modified foods. People in Africa are starving because of civil wars, all kinds of social and economic disruption and because of the failure of food distribution mechanisms. Those are the causes of starvation in Africa, not novel foods or the lack of them.
There are many things that we can do. Over the years, through cross-breeding and known and proven scientific techniques, we have developed better potential crops and better seed supplies. We can continue to do a whole host of things to assist the developing world. Achievements in terms of better yields and other developments can be attained by combining age-old cross-breeding techniques--which man and nature have used throughout the centuries--with sensible applications of agrochemicals in certain circumstances. But if big business argues that we need to develop genetically modified crops commercially for the sake of competitiveness and if the consumers want a mass market of cheap food, does it really matter? I believe that it does, because if genetically modified crops are grown commercially it will be impossible to isolate them from the wider, surrounding environment. It matters fundamentally, because there is no equivalence between genetically engineered crops and those that have been cross-bred by man and nature over the centuries.
The process of transferring genes from one species to another does not occur in nature, which is why genetic engineering is unpredictable, uncontrollable and, in my view, totally unnecessary. As Greenpeace has argued, no one knows what the long-term effects of eating genetically engineered food--day after day, year after
year--will be. Genes that have never been part of the human diet are in GM crops and foods, including genes from viruses and bacteria from those organisms. They may prove to be a severe risk to human health. Furthermore, they can, and probably would, change our environment irreversibly.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |