| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Robert Smith: I have read the Government's amendment. They clearly wish to link themselves with Advanta's decision to enter into discussions on compensation, but the sequence of events will not be lost on many Scottish farmers. It was not long after the announcement that Mr. Al Fayed had bought some of the contaminated seed that the company came out with a more interesting approach to the compensation issue.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My advice to any would-be biotechnological firm is to choose its enemies carefully. I am not sure that that firm chose its enemies terribly carefully in that respect. That may have had an effect on its decision. Nevertheless, we want a clear strategy.
The whole episode smacks of dereliction somewhere within the Department, or between the Department. I do not like the way in which the Government were eventually forced to make the matter public, rather than vouchsafing it of their own accord. I do not like the retrospective justification that is going on: the argument for a 1 per cent. threshold. It tries to justify what is a fait accompli, to our detriment. The statement was considerably ill prepared and, in some ways, ill advised. I do not accept that empty reassurance is any replacement for robust investigation.
Indeed, there is more than a smack of the old days about the whole thing. Some Labour Members have mentioned the BSE crisis. Of course there is a difference in scale. Of course there is a huge and yawning gap between what happened with BSE and what has happened with the oilseed rape seed, but some of the Department's instincts seem to have changed not one wit. That is what is of concern. I am only waiting for the day when the right hon. Gentleman corrals some poor child and stuffs him or her with an oilseed rapeburger to reassure the public, because that is how the Government have addressed the issue.
We do not want to go back to the days of the Tory Government. We do not want to go back to the way they managed things. I know that they have changed their tune. The hon. Member for South Suffolk--Swampy, as he was described earlier--has been consistent on the issue, at least over the past year or so. The Conservatives were not terribly consistent earlier. It was they, when in government, who argued against labelling GM food in Europe; and it was they who first licensed GM foods: cheese, tomato puree and soya were allowed on to the market.
The Minister was fortunate to find an appropriate quote from the previous Government. It is very difficult to find any relatively recent quote on genetically modified organisms from the previous, Conservative Government. I think that that omission was a dereliction on their part. In those days, they were not concerned about the issue, but were happy to go along with big industry. Now that Conservative Members are in opposition, they feel differently about the issue.
The episode raises some basic biotechnology issues. I do not damn all biotechnology. I have also always made it absolutely plain that the Liberal Democrats do not
believe that any technology, developing or otherwise, is in itself wholly wrong. We are, however, dealing with a critical issue that patently involves potential problems for human health, the environment, agronomics and agriculture's effect on society. We should not only be aware of those problems, but take absolutely every precaution to ensure that developments in this country are safe.The proponents of genetic modification often argue that there is an essential similarity between it and natural selective breeding. Of course selective breeding, and the introduction of alien species to the United Kingdom, can be compared with genetic modification. Some of the issues in the inter-relationship between those developments and the environment are the same. However, there are also significant differences between genetic modification and those other developments. In genetic modification, an artificial situation is created as genes not only from different, unrelated species, but from both the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom are combined. That is not a natural process and gives rise to innate concerns.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings): The difference to which the hon. Gentleman alerts the House is essentially a difference of scale. Plant breeding programmes occur over decades and generations and are essentially gradual, whereas genetic modification programmes involve an almost immediate quantum leap. The key difference is one of scale.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a difference in scale and in the size of the technological leap. Those are both relevant factors.
There are other technological issues, such as the safety of the vector mechanism that is used to implant genetic material. What do we know about the safety of vectors? In many cases, we do not know how safe they are, because there has not yet been sufficient experimentation to enable us to be sure.
An essential issue is the friability of the new genome. The genetic material may appear at any point in a pre-existing genome, but what might be its effect? To what extent might it create fractures or new relationships in the genetic material? We need to investigate not only those matters, but the material's interactions and possible inter-relations with native species. The precautionary principle is so important.
When addressing public health issues, we have to be secure in our knowledge that a novel food, whatever it might be, has been tested to pharmacological standards, so that we are entirely aware of any potential side-effects and dangers to human health.
The labelling issue is important: we should make the public aware of what they are eating. On 13 January, when we discussed the issue, the Minister for the Environment was very clear that his personal view was that he was keen to reach a threshold of 0.1 per cent. genetic material in food, rather than the 1 per cent. threshold that is now being used as a working hypothesis. The same lower threshold should apply to seeds. If we are talking about GM-free, let us mean GM-free and specify a very low tolerance, rather than the threshold that is currently being considered.
I understand that United Kingdom officials may be supporting the European Commission's emerging view that a 1 per cent. threshold is acceptable. If so, that is
worrying. If we want GM-free seeds and cannot get them from America, let us get them from a more reliable source that is genuinely GM-free.Some animal feed issues have not been addressed, either in the House or outside in the general consideration of these matters. At present, 2 million tonnes of GM crops are imported for animal feed. Does that cause a potential problem? The US Centre for Veterinary Medicine thinks that it does. It replied to an inquiry from the Food and Drug Administration in 1992. It stated:
- In addition to the human safety and environmental concerns outlined in the appendices to the notice, CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.
We have always said that farm trials are an essential part of the investigatory process. We do not accept the suggestion that there should never be any trials. If no trials take place, we shall never be able to ascertain what is scientifically valid and what is not. However, we have been consistently concerned about separation distances. That was the thrust of an argument that I put to the Minister for the Environment in January. I suggested that the distances were inadequate. I felt that I was fobbed off and that the argument was not being taken seriously.
All that has changed. I am glad that a review has been announced, but I think that it is too late. It should have been put in place a long time ago. As for the Canadian contamination, the distance was probably 800 m. That is 16 times greater than the distance that the Government were first assuring us was adequate for the task. If that is the case, why are we taking any other assurances at face value?
When farm trials take place, separation distances and the protocols of the experiments need to be right. They need to be specific to the GM species and variety that is under trial. We cannot move results from one place to another or from one variety to another. What is right for one species in East Anglia will not be right for the same species in Alberta. The local species, flora and fauna are different.
There are specific issues that we must consider, such as the evidence that has emerged of a transfer of herbicide resistance, which is being seen in Alberta. Crops lying close to GM crops have acquired Round-up assistance. They now have to be dealt with using rather more unpleasant and environmentally damaging herbicides. That is a concern. It is exactly what people have been worried about from the start in environmental terms.
As for commercial planting, we must have a strict and enforceable moratorium. I worry about the Chardon LL consideration. Some time ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister on the issue. It took months and months to get a reply from the Minister in another place, Baroness Hayman. I do not know why it takes her months to reply to my letters. I wonder whether there is a correlation between that delay and the delay in dealing effectively with this issue. It irks me that I had to pay £30--
Mr. Nick Brown: I would wish to demolish that conspiracy theory. There is a backlog in the correspondence section. Extra people have been put in to try to clear it. It is not a conspiracy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |