| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.33 am
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): I shall be extremely brief, to allow someone else to speak. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on her suggestion of a short-term moratorium on the planting of commercially grown GM crops. That would be welcomed by all sides, including Monsanto and Dupont. I have spoken to those companies, because it is important that Members of Parliament engage with the companies that propose these changes.
I was honoured to be chosen to lead an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the Food and Agriculture Organisation last December on the outcome of the world food summit. It is important to recognise the opinions of many countries in the group of 77. I back the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). The almost unanimous view of the summit was that food security had remarkably improved worldwide in the past 30 years. Country after country from the developing world said that they had made major moves forward and were looking for food security--except those countries where there is civil war and other problems apart from those associated with growing crops.
It is important to knock on the head the idea that rapid change to GM crops is needed to feed the world. It is not. We must recognise the major changes in cross-breeding and the progress made in the work to find more orthodox solutions. There could be a big improvement in food distribution. Up to 80 per cent. of a crop may be lost between the farm gate and the consumer, so work could be done in that area.
I discussed the way forward with the FAO, which drew my attention to the codex alimentarius that it has undertaken jointly with the World Health Organisation in the past 30 to 40 years to establish a national register and examining board for all foods throughout the world, which is accepted as such. If we are to have a world standard, I strongly urge the Minister not to try to achieve that within the World Trade Organisation, but to work with the WHO and the FAO, which can ensure that all voices in the debate are heard, not just the biggest trading nations of the world.
Dr. Gibson:
Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing will stop Uncle Sam in the drive to produce the foods America wants and to export them across the world? That is the problem. Whatever superstar status and agreements are reached, Uncle Sam will still push those products on to the market. There is no opposition to genetically modified crops or foods in the United States. Would my hon. Friend like to tell us why?
Mr. Colman:
It is because the US Government have authorised these products. That was made clear in my discussions with Monsanto and Dupont, which almost felt hurt that we, on this side of the Atlantic, object to these foods. They believe that the argument was won 20 or 30 years ago. I suggest that this matter should be dealt with by the FAO and the WHO, because they have the appropriate mechanism. It is extremely important that the WTO is not involved, because the American Government have greater clout in that organisation than they do in the more egalitarian organisations, such as the FAO and the WHO.
Mr. Alan Clark (Kensington and Chelsea):
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for presenting her case in a persuasive and well-rehearsed manner. I am sorry that, owing to the pressure of time, I must proceed directly to my conclusions.
I warn the hon. Lady that she will not get much change out of the Minister, although we know that his heart is in the right place. He will have to read out a speech written for him by officials. As we know, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is primarily concerned not to defend the interests of the consumer, but to look after vested interests within its purlieu of responsibility. The hon. Lady spoke for the consumer. It is most important for the House of Commons to be vigilant and to defend the interests of the consumer, whether they be financial, economic or, as in this case, health.
The consumer is under threat from a double squeeze: the multinationals and their domestic equivalent, the superstores that sell food. There is an unholy combination between those two forces to cajole, intimidate or, by financial inducement, persuade consumers that they are perfectly safe, and if they quietly swell the profits of these two bodies they will be all right. Large investment has been put into that objective.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk):
I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on introducing a timely debate. Both the subject and the thrust of her remarks have struck a chord on both sides of the House. I hope that we shall return to the subject soon, because many hon. Members wished to contribute at greater length than was possible and, indeed, I shall be able to touch on only one or two aspects of this important issue.
The Opposition recognise that genetically modified crops may have potential benefits, including the capacity to increase productivity in food growing and, possibly, to alleviate some of the environmental damage caused by intensive agriculture. However, more important and more urgent for the public than the potential future benefits are the clear and immediate dangers. Unfortunately, the Government's present policy ignores the actual environmental damage that the over-hasty adoption of the technology of genetic modification will cause. That policy appears to involve considering the health risks from genetically modified crops secretively and it fails to address the need to build up the public's confidence in what they are eating.
I shall deal first with the environmental anxieties. The United Kingdom differs markedly from the United States of America, where the farming areas and the wildlife areas tend to be separated. Here, in a smaller and more crowded country, farming practices have an immediate and substantial impact on wildlife. That alone makes a more cautious approach to the commercial release of GM crops essential. The evidence of English Nature to the House of Lords Select Committee sets out clearly the threat that GMOs pose to biodiversity and the genetic integrity of native species. If English Nature is to be overruled, the House is entitled to know on what grounds Ministers think they know better.
Does the Minister agree that the changes in crop management and farming practices that GM crops involve will have a substantial impact on wildlife? Should not the regulatory system examine the cumulative environmental impact of genetically modified crops and not just their effect on an individual basis? Should not the remit of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment be widened to take fuller account of the effect of genetically modified organisms on biodiversity? Does the Minister accept that inserting genes into native species carries especially high risks and that very careful monitoring is needed of what happens after such organisms are released? Many other questions arise on this issue.
The Opposition fully support English Nature's call for a moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified crops in Britain until the results of the current research on the environmental consequences are available. We believe that the European Union approval system for GMOs should be no less demanding than that for
pesticides. That would mean that even if a GMO was approved in one European Union country, it would still need specific approval from the British authorities before being released here, so that the circumstances particular to this country could be taken into account. I endorse wholeheartedly the concerns expressed on both sides of the House in this debate about the issues of segregation and labelling.
10.38 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |