| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: I am sorry, but I do not have time to do so.
The Government's approach is no way to build up public confidence; it is the reverse. Rushing ahead with the commercial release of GM crops while so many doubts remain unresolved will not advance the cause of GM technology. One of the mysteries is the Government's real aim. It clearly is not the protection of the environment, because they will not listen to the warning of their own statutory adviser on that subject. Their aim clearly is not the protection of human health, because they are trying to keep their fears secret. Perhaps the Government's aim is the service of those foreign-owned corporate giants whose commercial interests seem to depend so heavily on getting GM crops imposed around the world in the shortest possible time before too many awkward questions about the consequences of that imposition have been asked. We know that one such company, Novartis, was one of the 38 largest Labour party sponsors in 1997. It has been suggested that President Clinton personally lobbied the Prime Minister on behalf of another, Monsanto, although my parliamentary question on the subject remains mysteriously unanswered.
What is all the rush about? Here is an issue crying out for leadership and principles, not spin doctors and soundbites. But who do we find chairing the relevant
ministerial committee? None other than the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Not surprisingly, the mood of confusion among consumers is now changing rapidly to one of anxiety.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on securing this important debate, which is long overdue and welcome. It is the first proper debate on this subject in the past couple of years, notwithstanding the long debate on the last day before the summer recess when only three or four Members were present. That was more on constituency matters and related to seeds and trials.
The previous speech, which I assume was made with the full authority of the shadow Cabinet, makes it necessary for me to respond to the allegations of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). He said that there were clear and immediate dangers, but there is no evidence of that. He said that the process by which the Government consider biotechnology is secret. Since we came to power, we have appointed non-scientific lay advisers to every advisory committee that serves the Government in that respect. It has usually been two people, and they are all encouraged to network with each other and are not used as tokens. The minutes and agendas of those meetings are made public.
The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, the key scientific committee on this issue, was set up in 1988 and has an ethics adviser. Last year, after discussions with me, it held two open meetings--last February and in December--with outsiders such as Greenpeace and the Consumers Association to discuss the issue. Observers and non-members were allowed to speak, and did not only sit mute. The minutes were published, but the hon. Member for South Suffolk says that it is a secret process.
We have published a list of 59--at the latest count--suppliers of non-GM soya and maize for food producers to contact in America, Canada and Holland. That isan initiative of this Government. A new Cabinet Sub-Committee is examining the whole issue of biotechnology across Government so that decisions are not made jigsaw fashion but from the big picture. There has been no coercion of supermarkets. No attempt has been made, by this Government or any of our officials, to get individual details of customers' food buying. That was never intended or discussed at the individual level.
I thought that it would be useful to remind myself about labelling, but I did not realise how useful. It is nearly two years since the general election. I well remember the
decisions that Ministers take that lead to changes. It was probably late May 1997--the press release was on 7 June--when we changed labelling policy. When we came into office, we examined policy areas. We discovered that our officials in Brussels were under instructions from their political masters in the previous Government not to agree to the labelling of GM ingredients in foods. In practice, that would have meant that none of the foods currently on sale would have been covered by the labelling policy that that lot promoted when they were in government. We were again in a 14:1 minority.
Following discussions, this Government immediately changed the instructions to the British negotiators not only to get in line but to get in the lead on the issue. We put consumer interests first and foremost. No one can deny that, because the labelling regulations that have come through now are totally different from what has operated in the United States of America. The previous Government's labelling policy was, in practice, exactly the same as that which operated in the United States: not to label ingredients separately. That policy has been reversed. There are defects, which have often been raised in House. There are some loopholes to be closed. Additives and flavourings will have to be labelled, which the European Union is addressing. That must be dealt with. I am still in some difficulty on the process of manufacture. Labelling ingredients is one thing, but labelling for manufacturing processes is different because it transcends foods and goes into other products. It is a different regime.
We have just issued our consultation document on labelling for the catering sector so that it will be covered. I invited some catering sector bigwigs to ask them whether they really wanted GenetiX Snowball queueing up outside their restaurants telling customers that if they eat in them, they will not be told whether ingredients are genetically modified. The answer was, of course, no. We have consulted once already, and we have been consulting briefly over the past four weeks to get agreement before introducing regulations.
The House of Lords report was mentioned by everyone who spoke. I cannot respond on that. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) gave evidence to it in October. In the normal course of events, the Government will respond within two months.
There is no commercial growing of GM crops in this country, and none is planned. When it happens, its introduction will be controlled, not a free-for-all. Farmers, manufacturers and seed merchants will not be allowed to plant acre after acre willy-nilly without controls. It is not possible and it will not happen.
This Government have doubled aid for organic conversion. From April, there will be new subsidies to persuade people to convert. We have doubled the money
for organic research. We will not waste that public money by allowing contamination from the uncontrolled introduction of GM crops.
Mr. Alan Simpson:
I congratulate the Minister on toughening labelling regulations. In his current consultations, is he pointing out to the biotech industry and food retailers that under the Single European Act and the Food Safety Act 1990, the responsibilities of due diligence and product liability mean that they had better have full and unlimited public liability insurance against the class actions that will follow from BSE, and, almost certainly, on other matters?
Mr. Rooker:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has a question on this at tomorrow's Question Time. Civil liability for damage caused by genetically modified organisms is governed by common law developed in the courts. On the basis of common law principles, the firm holding the marketing consent for the GMO crop can be held liable in law for any damages arising from ill effects attributed to that crop. As I made clear in a scrutiny Committee upstairs, the Government support the proposal in the European Commission Green Paper on food law to extend product liability to primary agricultural producers. There could not be a clearer warning to companies that if they have any doubts, they should not apply.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |