| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Lynne Jones: A moment ago, my hon. Friend said that there was no evidence that genes transferred from one species to another. Now she says that there is a danger that genetically modified DNA--deoxyribonucleic acid--could be transferred from one species to the other. There appears to be some inconsistency there.
Joan Ruddock: Not at all. If genetic engineering occurs, the crop or the plant has a new genome and the potential for that crop or plant to cross-breed with another plant is present. The genetic engineering would have introduced the different DNA from the different species. Then there could be interbreeding between the same species.
Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): Does my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable evidence about such transfers? Yesterday I read about research done in Denmark on transfers of herbicide resistance in oil seed rape into adjacent fields, of both crops and weeds. The fact that that is already happening strengthens her cautionary argument considerably.
Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very significant point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North warned of the alarming discrepancies in the House of Lords report. I add two more references to those cited by my hon. Friend. Most frightening is the assumption that safety can be established. Although I agree that labelling is absolutely vital, I cannot accept paragraph 187 on page 49 of the report, which says:
We should label foods--as genetically modified or not genetically modified--but that does not, and cannot, mean that there is precise safety in taking genetically modified food off the shelf and eating it.
Dr. Gibson:
Does my hon. Friend agree that we cannot be 100 per cent. safe with anything? The words that are used are "negligible risk". When the chief medical officer gave evidence to the BSE inquiry, he used the word "negligible", not the words "extreme non-risk".
Joan Ruddock:
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, but the report uses the words "has ensured safety". The Committee is talking not about "negligible risk", but about "safety".
In paragraph 186, the Committee says:
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
I am sorry that the debate will run out of time for some hon. Members and I hope that the House will have a chance to return to the subject in due course.
I agree very much with one of the points made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley): the whole development in this area is taking place without democratic support or involvement. It is being driven not by consumers, by Members of Parliament or by farmers, but by a small number of multinational companies. They will have profound effects on the food that we eat, the environment in which we live and the way that we farm our land. To me, that is a democratic deficit and I hope that the Government will address it, so far as they can.
I made that very point to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the Select Committee on Environmental Audit in July last year. He said, "We are not in the driving seat." That was an honest admission, and it was absolutely accurate, but I want to know today how he will try to get the Government into the driving seat.
I have far more faith in the Minister, and in the Minister for the Environment, than I have in the good folk from Monsanto, Zeneca and other such companies. I want the Minister, not people in America who belong to multinational companies, to take decisions on our behalf--please get in the driving seat. The Government have been well-meaning on this issue, but were slow off the mark in May 1997. I hope that they will take action to remedy that.
I believe in the precautionary principle. We must be careful to ensure that we do not do anything that cannot be undone. On that basis, it is up to those who wish to change our food and our environment to show that that is safe, or as safe as can be. It is not up to other people--me, pressure groups or any hon. Member--to show that something is unsafe. The onus is on those people to show that what they want to do is safe, but they are not doing that. Instead, they are cynically pushing through genetically modified food--and pushing GM technology on to this country, Europe and the world--without giving anybody the chance to object. They are doing that through deliberately avoiding segregation of supplies, and by trying to influence those who are opinion formers in society, while paying less attention to public opinion. That was shown by the Monsanto internal evidence. Indeed, Monsanto is so popular that, after it conducted its massive
publicity campaign, its own opinion poll showed that it was more unpopular than it was before that particular process took place.
Dr. Gibson:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baker:
I had better not. The hon. Gentleman has intervened twice and I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak. I am sorry; I should have liked to allow him to intervene.
People have significant worries. One is the effect on biodiversity, which is a real worry, not a lunatic concern of fringe groups. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and English Nature--the Government's own advisers--are saying that there is a real problem. The Government have to take that matter seriously.
The Government appear to have concerns. The Independent on Sunday revealed the risks of genetic foods and tells us that, allegedly, a Government report, commissioned by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
The Government should commit themselves to a five-year moratorium on the commercial planting of GM crops. That is my party's position, and I am happy to be hosting a meeting in the House shortly about such a five-year freeze, which will involve hon. Members from all parties. The Government must also commit themselves to securing diversity of supply to ensure that people who want GM food can buy it with confidence. They must also ensure proper labelling. It is not sufficient for labelling to show GM material detectible after the processing stage: it must refer to inputs into food. At the moment, 90 per cent. of GM material in food processing does not require labelling, and is only picked up afterwards. That is wrong and misleading for the consumer, and must be dealt with by European Union laws.
When the biosafety protocol is discussed in a few weeks in Colombia, the Government must deal with three issues. First, on the issue of liability, who will take the blame and who will have to pay compensation if something goes wrong? Will it be the farmer--I am sure the farmer does not want that--the Government, the World Trade Organisation or the companies that are pushing GM food on us? Let us have a clear answer to that. My view is that the companies should be liable, and I hope that the Government will confirm that.
Secondly, will agricultural commodities, such as maize and soya, be included in the protocol? They are at present, and the Government should confirm that that will continue to be the case. Thirdly, it would be helpful if the Minister of State would tell us which Ministers will represent us in Colombia. Will he confirm that the precautionary principle will apply to the discussions in Colombia and to the Government's position?
In a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on 21 January, the Minister for the Environment listed the research being carried out by the Government. I congratulate them on initiating that research, but it involves fundamental matters such as the environmental impact of GM crops, safety of plant viral inserts, investigation of feral oil seed rape populations, a review of GM bioinsecticides and a review of parasitic nematodes for biological control of invertebrates. The list goes on. That research is continuing, so we do not know what the outcome will be. How can we have commercial planting of such crops and release matter into the environment when we do not know the results of the research? That is bad science.
Those who argue that GM crops are wonderful and safe, and that we should go ahead with them, should wait. What is the hurry? Let us wait until we are sure. It is irresponsible rashly to go ahead before information on the test results has been published.
"Once the regulatory process has ensured safety, the success or failure of the technology must be left to consumer choice".
There is no way of ensuring safety. It is utterly impossible.
"Genetic modification does not concern a single product or variety but will soon affect the whole spectrum of agriculture".
That is the truth about what will happen if we have genetically modified foods commercially grown in this country. That is why we cannot proceed on a case-by-case basis. We cannot ensure safety. The only certainty of commercial production of genetically modified foods is the uncontrollable and unpredictable release of artificially constructed gene pools into the wider environment. What does that say about our attitude to sustainable agriculture, to food safety and to public health?
"concludes that there are insufficient safeguards to stop the creation of hybrid multi-resistant plants.
Where is that report, and when is it being published? There should not be commercial planting of GM crops until those issues have been dealt with satisfactorily.
It lists a series of 'gaps' in the UK's regulatory framework, leaving Britain's wildlife at serious risk of damage from genetically modified plants and other intensive farming methods."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |