FIFTH SPECIAL REPORT
The Agriculture Committee has agreed to the following
Special Report:—
The Committee has received the following memorandum
from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, constituting
the Government's Reply to the Third Report from the Committee
of the 1999-2000 Session, The Segregation of Genetically Modified
Foods, made to the House on 24 February 2000.
* * *
The debate on GM technology
Recommendation (a): We believe that it is vital
that the confusion over GMs is now replaced by rational debate
and education in order that the market can serve those who actively
choose to grow or consume genetically modified foods as well as
those who choose not to do so (paragraph 1).
1. The Government welcomes this call for rational,
informed and open debate on GMOs. We recently hosted an OECD conference
in Edinburgh entitled 'GM food: Facts, Uncertainties and Assessment'
on the safety of GM foods. This promoted an open dialogue amongst
scientists and other interested parties from all sectors of the
international community including developing countries. We are
shall be considering along with our G8 partners how best to build
on this for the future.
Principles of the Report
Recommendation (b): The principles of transparency,
inclusiveness, a duty to explain and choice have driven our recommendations
and we commend them to the Government (paragraph 4).
2. The Government is fully committed to principles
of transparency and inclusiveness and the need to provide consumers
with information to enable them to be able to choose whether or
not to buy foods containing GM materials.
3. The establishment of the Food Standards Agency,
whose policy is one of openness and transparency, will ensure
that the views and needs of consumers will be listened to and
taken into account when food policy is being developed.
GM-free and non-GM
Recommendation (c): We accept the distinction
which has to be made between 'non-GM' and 'GM-free'. There is
not yet a satisfactory definition of GM-free but once it has been
agreed, we expect it to be enforced (paragraph 9).
Recommendation (d): We recommend that the Government
work within the EU to establish early definitions of 'non-GM'
and 'GM-free' labels to apply throughout the EU which in the case
of the latter should be as close to 100% as practicable (paragraph
52).
4. The Government is pressing the European Commission
to bring forward rules on GM free labelling for food as soon as
possible and proposals are expected shortly. Any rules that are
agreed will be enforced by Local Authorities as part of their
food enforcement responsibilities.
Separation distances
Recommendation (e): We recommend that the Government
ensure that the separation distances set out in the SCIMAC guidelines
be reviewed if there is clear evidence of cross-pollination taking
place within the existing guidelines and any necessary revisions
implemented in the next round of field trials. If such a review
becomes necessary, we would expect all interested parties to be
represented on it (paragraph 13).
5. The SCIMAC guidelines address the risk of cross
pollination between GM and non GM crops by laying down separation
distances and specifying practical safeguards to minimise spread
of pollen. The separation distances are based on long-standing
agricultural practice and scientific advice in the production
of high quality seed crops where genetic purity is crucial. These
separation distances have been shown to work in many years of
farming practice and the production of seed, and their incorporation
in the Guidelines will help ensure that problems with cross pollination
are minimised. SCIMAC has indicated that it will review separation
distances in light of experience. The Government agrees that SCIMAC
should involve interested parties in that review.
SCIMAC guidelines
Recommendation (f): We conclude that the SCIMAC
guidelines are a practical approach to crop-handling procedures
on a particular farm (paragraph 15).
6. The Government have endorsed the SCIMAC guidelines
because they provide a framework to ensure that best practice
is followed in growing GM crops. The Government will encourage
SCIMAC to further refine and develop the guidelines in the light
of experience.
Recommendation (g): We believe that the self-regulatory
arrangements need to be clearly endorsed by Government so that
they have equivalent status to statutorily based guidelines. However,
we also consider that such statutory guidelines should only be
imposed if they are part of a uniform arrangement across the EU
(paragraph 24).
7. The SCIMAC guidelines are aimed at ensuring best
practice in the growing of GM crops. The rules are rigorous and
are intended to be underpinned by a system of legally binding
contracts, independent enforcement and audit. The Government has
given its endorsement to the SCIMAC guidelines. It believes further
that they could form the basis of legislation in the future, and
is exploring, at EU level, the scope for achieving this.
Recommendation (h): We believe that the SCIMAC
guidelines offer a firm basis on which to build in order to segregate
GM and non-GM crops in the UK countryside. We have identified
areas where improvements are needed but we conclude that an acceptable
level of segregation can be achieved without incurring excessive
costs (paragraph 25).
8. The Government agrees that practical separation
and identity preservation between GM and other crops can be achieved
by measures such as the SCIMAC guidelines, if this is what the
market wants, without incurring excessive costs.
Notification
Recommendation (i): We believe that notification
should be compulsory, that the notification zone should at least
match the separation distances and that SCIMAC must work harder
to ensure that the views of neighbouring farmers and other directly
interested parties are taken into account in the planting of GM
crops (paragraph 19).
9. The SCIMAC guidelines require that growers of
GM crops must notify neighbours in writing should the specified
separation distance from the GM crop impinge upon a neighbouring
farm. The guidelines also outline a framework for resolving conflicting
planting strategies. The Government agrees that SCIMAC must ensure
that this system works effectively.
Recommendation (j): We believe that we should
not give the impression that there is something inherently dangerous
about GM crops which warrants rules different from any other circumstance.
On balance, we believe that there is a real problem in requiring
a public register for one category of crops only. Either a product
is safe or it is not safe. If it is safe, it should take its place
on an equal footing with other crops (paragraph 19).
10. The Government agrees with the principle of this
recommendation. The Secretary of State is obliged (section 122
Environmental Protection Act 1990) to keep a public register of
applications to release all GMOs. There is no specific requirement
to single out GM crops. The keeping of a register is a matter
of public record only, and there is no suggestion that the requirement
is based on safety concerns or inherent dangers of GMOs. The public
register is an important element of openness and transparency
in the regulatory process and has wide support both from environmental
groups and the Biotechnology industry.
Organic farming
Recommendation (k): We welcome the ongoing discussions
between SCIMAC and representatives of organic farming as the right
approach to the difficulties GMOs present to the organic sector.
It would be as wrong for an organic farmer to prevent his neighbour
growing GM crops as for a farmer planting GM maize to put his
neighbour's organic crop, and therefore livelihood, in jeopardy.
A modus vivendi must be found and written into the guidelines
to ensure that the special circumstances of organic farmers are
recognised. The two types of farming are equally legal and neither
should be subject to discrimination (paragraph 22).
11. The Government agrees that the legitimate concerns
of the organic sector must be taken into account but aims to ensure
as well that the UK industry is not denied access to the benefits
of GM technology. The Government agrees with the Committee's view
on the need for compromise and is working to facilitate this.
Discussions between the interests concerned and the relevant Government
Departments are continuing.
Liability
Recommendation (l): We recommend that the Government
resolve the issue of legal liability on an EU-wide basis as a
matter of urgency and aim to have the necessary measures in place
before any commercial plantings of GM crops are permitted (paragraph
26).
12. The Government agrees that the issue of liability
for damage from GMOs is important and requires early attention.
We are currently considering what measures may be necessary, particularly
in the light of the European Commission's White Paper on Environmental
Liability, which deals with environmental damage from various
types and sources.
Field trials
Recommendation (m): We recommend that the Government
maintain the programme of GM crop field trials as planned, and
that all steps are taken to ensure that experiments are not scaled
down below the size calculated to produce reliable and scientifically
sound results and that they are protected from interference (paragraph
28).
13. The Government's Farm Scale Evaluations research
programme is overseen by an independent Scientific Steering Committee,
who advise on the number of field locations required to ensure
that the results are reliable and scientifically sound. They have
confirmed that sufficient and suitable sites were identified for
the programme to go ahead during 2000. There is no question of
the programme being scaled down to an extent where sound results
could not be generated.
14. Demonstrating its commitment to openness and
transparency about this research programme, the Government has
announced the grid references for the field sites involved in
the programme this year. Discussions are ongoing with the police
to minimise the risk to farmers and their property. Nevertheless,
if vandalism and illegal activity threaten the safety of farmers
and their families, the Government may need to reconsider the
options over site disclosure.
Animal feed
Recommendation (n): We recommend that the Government
press the European Commission for an early consideration of a
workable and transparent labelling regime for meat and dairy products
derived from animals fed on GM materials and for labelling of
the feed itself (paragraph 34).
15. The Committee acknowledges that there are no
proven food safety implications in eating products derived from
animals fed on GM soya [paragraph 34]. Indeed there is no evidence
of carry-over of DNA from feed into products for human consumption.
It follows that no related GM material would be detectable in
the final food. The European Commission and the UK Government
share the Committee's view, expressed in its recommendation at
paragraph 48, that it would be impractical to require labelling
where GM content is undetectable. However, we agree that animal
feedingstuffs containing GM material should be clearly labelled
to enable farmers to know what they are feeding to their livestock
and we are pressing the EC Commission to bring forward proposals
on this as soon as possible.
Conclusion on segregation
Recommendation (o): We conclude that segregation
of GM and non-GM crops is possible without incurring excessive
costs to the consumer (paragraph 36).
16. Segregation costs will be determined by
the availability of, and demand for, non-GM supplies.
Any costs incurred are a matter for the supplier
and his customer to agree as part of a normal business transaction.
Recommendation (p): We believe that consumer faith
in the transparency and effectiveness of the process would be
enhanced by a clear chain of command in the baton-passing method
so that it could be seen to be both comprehensive and effective
and by the drawing up of a Code of Practice available for public
scrutiny. We recommend that the Government encourage and facilitate
the establishment of an industry forum to examine the options
and adopt whichever can be implemented effectively and comprehensively
on an international basis (paragraph 39).
17. New labelling rules on GM labelling introduced
on 10 April, have extended the responsibility to label further
along the supply chain to the suppliers of mass caterers. Supermarkets
and their suppliers are already responding to public demand and
seeking non-GM supplies. The Government has also published a list
of suppliers of non-GM maize and soya to meet supermarket needs.
18. The British Retail Consortium (BRC) and the UK
Food and Drink Federation (FDF) have been developing an 'Identity
Preserved' standard. The purpose of this is to provide a common
standard which can be adapted throughout the supply chain from
seed to final product. The standard is currently being tested
by the industry before the final version is produced with a view
to it being accepted eventually as an industry wide standard.
The Government encourages such developments for the help that
they give to manufacturers and retailers in meeting customers
demands for choice.
Labelling and thresholds
Recommendation (q): We recommend that the Government
continue to support the principle that the threshold for the minimum
adventitious presence of GM material in non-GM food should be
reduced to the lowest achievable by best practice throughout the
industry. The review of the thresholds should allow an opportunity
to reconsider whether different standards should apply to different
crops. We recommend that the Government put forward proposals
to this effect (paragraph 46).
19. The Government is already pressing the Commission
to review the threshold for the adventitious contamination of
non-GM supplies within two years. The present threshold of 1%
was agreed based on the ability of the supply chain to be able
to provide non-GM soya of the required purity and the availability
of suitable methods of analysis. As technology advances in this
area it is expected that they will be capable of being reduced
further. The feasibility and desirability of introducing different
standards for different crops will be looked at in this context.
Recommendation (r): We are attracted to the proposal
for a consolidating regulation on labelling of GM foods and recommend
that the Government consider how best to pursue this approach
with the European Commission (paragraph 47).
20. All UK regulations for the labelling of GM foods
have now been consolidated into one instrument which came into
effect on 10 April. The Government will encourage the European
Commission to keep legislation on labelling of GM foods under
review.
Recommendation (s): We acknowledge that, where
GM content is undetectable, it would be impractical to require
labelling but the significance of the negative list must be fully
explained to consumers if the labelling regime is to be effective
and transparent (paragraph 48).
21. The implementation of an EC negative list in
the UK would be preceded by a consultation with all interested
parties. Guidance notes would also be issued to ensure that consumers
were fully informed of the significance of such a measure.
Recommendation (t): We recognise that the anomalies
created by the legislation on GM labelling may cause some confusion
and believe that the Government should consider how this can be
explained to the public. We would welcome either reassurance that
such anomalies will not occur or proposals by the Government to
the EU on how they might be addressed (paragraph 49).
22. The Government is committed to ensuring the public
has choice in the foods they eat. Guidance on GM labelling rules
has been provided in the form of guidance notes, half a million
of which were distributed when rules on GM labelling were first
introduced. These were sent to local authorities for distribution
to all businesses selling food to the public. These are currently
being updated to incorporate the amendments to the existing rules.
The Food Standards Agency is currently preparing a booklet for
the public explaining the background to GM and the legislative
measures which are currently in place or planned and how these
are intended to work in practice.
23. The implications of the EU labelling rules, and
in particular the de minimis threshold, are clear. If an ingredient
contains GM material above the threshold it must be labelled.
If the level of GM material is less than the threshold, it must
be labelled unless it can be demonstrated that the ingredient
was obtained from a non-GM source. There are no anomalies, the
labelling requirement applies regardless of the level at which
the ingredient is present.
Testing
Recommendation (u): We agree with the Government
that it is not necessary to prescribe how testing is carried out,
as long as it reaches the required standard, but we believe that
some assistance may be required to ensure that local authorities
are properly equipped to perform their consumer protection role
for GM products (paragraph 51).
24. The Government is already sponsoring a proficiency
scheme on GM testing methods which includes public analysts. This
will ensure that a range of laboratories are available who are
capable of carrying out analyses to a guaranteed standard.
Conclusion on the availability of products
Recommendation (v): In the end it is the market
which will decide on how best to meet consumer demands (paragraph
55).
25. The Government agrees with the Committee's statement.
Although the Government will continue to ensure that all GM foods
reaching the market have been fully assessed for safety and that
consumers can make an informed choice about what they eat, the
public will ultimately dictate market forces. The market has already
shown that it will respond to consumer demands and seek supplies
accordingly.
Regulatory structures
Recommendation (w): We recommend that the Agriculture
and Environment Biotechnology Commission be established as matter
of urgency (paragraph 59).
26. The Government shares the Committee's view of
the importance of the AEBC's contribution to the development of
a body of strategic advice on the implications of biotechnology.
We are currently seeking a Chairman of the required calibre and
hope to be able to announce a date for the first meeting shortly.
Recommendation (x): We recommend that the Government
clarify responsibilities for examining GM issues within the entire
food chain from farm to customer in the light of the establishment
of the AEBC and the Food Standards Agency and publish a clear
explanation of the regulatory and advisory framework (paragraph
59).
27. Responsibilities within the new strategic advisory
framework are clear:
28. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) will include
within its responsibilities all aspects of the safety and use
of genetically modified food and animal feed;
29. The AEBC will focus particularly on biotechnology
as it relates to agriculture and the environment and will be able
to address any issue that does not fall within the remit of the
FSA or the Human Genetics Commission (HGC). The HGC will advise
on genetic technologies and their impact on humans.
Recommendation (y): We expect the Government to
ensure the principles of openness and transparency apply in the
work of the AEBC and the Food Standards Agency (paragraph 60).
30. The two bodies will need to communicate with
each other, with relevant regulatory and advisory bodies, stakeholders
and the public in order to do their work. Along with all other
committees involved in biotechnology, the AEBC is charged with
following the principles of openness and transparency set out
in the Report of the Review of the Advisory and Regulatory Framework
for Biotechnology. It is also expected to develop a public dialogue.
Likewise the Food Standards Agency has adopted principles of openness
and transparency second to none and will be fully interacting
with all its stakeholders, particularly the public.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
April 2000
| 
