Examination of Witness (Questions 80 -
103)
WEDNESDAY 5 JULY 2000
PROFESSOR WILLIAM
MCKELVEY
Mr Jack
80. Did you say "allopathic"? What
is that?
(Professor McKelvey) Allopathic is anything which
is not natural basically. It is a chemical drug which is produced
in the laboratory. It is not a plant extract.
81. In other words, allopathics are potentially
the bad guys, are they?
(Professor McKelvey) As far as organic farming regulations
are concerned, they are the bad guys, yes.
82. The naturally occurring triggers are the
good guys. Is it possible, in terms of residues from the good
guys, to have things left in animals that might have an adverse
effect on humans?
(Professor McKelvey) That is exactly the question.
No one actually knows that. There has been no research to my knowledge
done on a number of these alternative remedies to say whether
there are residues left. This is a major problem with the proposed
regulations. Farmers are not actually required to record alternative
remedies. They are only required to record—
83. Just to be clear, it would be wrong of me
to press you to try and give an opinion in an area where there
is clearly no science, but would I be right in saying that we
do actually need some answers therefore to the question that is
posed by this lack of information, to know whether in one sense,
in overcoming one problem, we simply substitute another?
(Professor McKelvey) There is a clear need for research
into alternative treatment regimes. I am sure, if that research
work was done, you would get the profession behind you and you
would get the regulatory authorities in turn.
84. Can I just ask a question which arises out
of the University of Reading's evidence, where they tease out
a bit more of the detail about this proposed EU standard. It says
that the standard is likely to contain this requirement that you
would lose your organic status if animals were treated by antimicrobials
more than twice in their lifetime. Let me just ask a hypothetical
question. If whatever you use those treatments for happened to
occur in a concentrated base—say an animal got a disease
and you thought, "I have got to use up my two" and hit
it once. It does not quite react so you hit it again and the animal
recovers. You think, "This animal has got a weakness. I will
get rid of it quick. Let's sell it", and away it goes. Would
it be possible for that animal to have just as high a residue
level in it of the left overs of these treatments as a conventionally
reared animal that might have had more than two in its lifetime?
In other words, the two could leave you no better off than somebody
following the conventional regime.
(Professor McKelvey) That is quite true. There are
regulations in place which will prevent the slaughter of those
animals for a period of time after that treatment. Those already
exist, but you are quite right in saying that, if that animal
was sold off by an organic farmer, it would carry the same level
of residue as any other animal treated conventionally.
85. That part of the regulation does not avoid
what it is supposed to avoid.
(Professor McKelvey) Probably not.
86. Is this a bit artificial then, this two?
Why not one or none?
(Professor McKelvey) None would be logical, if you
want to take it to the extreme.
87. This is the bit I do not understand. Two
is quite a low number. One gives you no failsafe so is that how
two arrived? If not, why not three?
(Professor McKelvey) You are quite right to ask the
questions. I do not know the answers. It is like the proposal
that you should use double the normal withdrawal periods. They
say you are supposed to give seven days for an antibiotic for
withdrawal after treatment. Organic regulations say use 14. Why?
There is no logic for it. It could be 21 or it could be 28.
88. To come back to your original point, there
is a need for more clear, scientific work to be done in a lot
of these areas to understand the definitions, the numbers. Basically,
have the organic producers got the regime right? We have just
gone through a little exercise that says two may not actually
relieve you of a problem which cannot be solved by the overall
regime.
(Professor McKelvey) The important point is that,
for all the drugs that are in veterinary use at the minute, there
are very clear data available on the residues which follow those
drugs and how quickly they are eliminated from various classes
of animals before they get their licence. Those data are not available
for alternative treatments.
Dr Turner
89. I am trying to understand the basis for
regulation. It seems to me quite common that there are two distinctive
reasons for regulation. One is so that you can use a common language
and define what we mean by the word; and secondly, it can be science
based or based in public interest in terms of protection for health.
Would I be right in saying that the present state of regulations
is mainly based upon having a definition rather than a science
based justification?
(Professor McKelvey) Yes, definitely. That is not
to say that the regulations are not moving in the right direction.
I think they are moving in the right direction in terms of organic
farming but, as we have just discussed, a number of the definitions
and the number of withdrawal periods and so on are arbitrary.
They are not scientifically based.
90. What worries me is that there is an arbitrariness
about whether there is recording and testing and information about
safety in this regime. My view is that nature produces as many
poisons as man can produce, although we have had a long period
of time to get used to not eating them or breeding them out in
some cases from the produce we eat. Is there any science which
suggests that, if we stick to chemicals or products not produced
in the lab, they are safer and are less likely to harm us? Is
there any good, scientific base for arguing that the alternatives
are inherently less risky and therefore need less regulation?
(Professor McKelvey) No, I do not believe so. I do
not like to use the word "hype" but most of the public
perception of organic farming has relied on the fact that old
must be better than new and that natural must be better than systems
which either use drugs or use chemicals. If the consumer wishes
for that type of production, that is fine and it is our job to
provide the agricultural industry with the information that will
allow them to do that type of production and we are happy to do
that. As I said at the very start, I think it would be wrong to
equate organic with good or organic with high welfare. That is
a misconception. Equally, with food safety, it is quite erroneous
to assume that organic products are inherently safer than non-organic
products.
91. In practice, are the alternative remedies
long tested? Although they may not be scientifically investigated,
are they of the kind that mankind has to live with in nature with
a set of rules? Are these remedies long tested in use in farming
or are they relatively new?
(Professor McKelvey) If the old remedies were good
remedies, why were newer remedies developed?
92. Fashion sometimes, I am afraid.
(Professor McKelvey) No. It is a market force. By
inference, the newer remedies provide better treatment.
93. Do you see any justification whatsoever
for not having a regulatory regime for the alternative remedies
in the same way as we would have for a new product produced from
biotechnology?
(Professor McKelvey) That is what we need. We need
a regime which will give us hard data on the alternative remedies.
Until we have that, it is very difficult for a profession like
mine to actually stand behind organic farming and say that we
have products here which we can believe in.
94. Would I be right in concluding, because
others have said to us there is not enough research and I think
your comments this morning supported that, that we simply do not
know enough to set science based standards in this area at the
moment?
(Professor McKelvey) I think that is right. There
is another point I would like to make in terms of research. If
we are going to look at where we should spend research money,
we need to be looking at things like genetic resistance to disease.
There are breeds and strains of animals which are more resistant.
You could argue that farming has relied on drugs too much and
therefore has accepted strains which are actually prone to picking
up certain diseases. We could actually breed animals which are
more resistant to worms and to mastitis in dairy cattle and so
on. That is a major area that should be pursued. I think it is
also worth making the point that genetic engineering will probably
provide organic farming with what it wants quicker than organic
farming will provide it because genetic engineering would provide
these strains of plants and strains of animals which have resistance
to these diseases and these characteristics. That is a political
or a public perception, a hurdle too far, for the public to grasp
that genetic engineering and genetic manipulation could provide
what they want much more rapidly than they will get it through
conventional breeding techniques.
95. It is certainly a million miles from the
statements one hears from those in support of organic farming
at the moment.
(Professor McKelvey) I think it is very unfortunate
that organic and genetic modification are developing as separate
camps, if you like, because genetic modification could supply
a lot of what the organic camp wants. It could make organic production
much safer and probably much more efficient, but I think it will
be many, many years before that is finally accepted.
96. It is almost inevitable, if you ask a scientist,
that he will say it needs more research. There is probably an
acceptance in this room that you have made a case and your memorandum
spells out your view that, particularly in relation to the inter-relationship
of nutrition and animal health and the development of alternative
disease control strategies, we need resources and work to be done.
Would you like to give us some indication of what you feel the
priority projects should be and what time scale and what costing
might be involved in getting the answers to your comments this
morning?
(Professor McKelvey) I would take the one I mentioned
first of all. Genetic resistance to disease in farm animals and
in crops is a prime area for research in organics. If we can breed
animals which are resistant to a number of the diseases that we
have concerns about treating, that would solve that problem. The
same with plant diseases. There are a number of plant diseases
which we already know. There are genetic markers that make a plant
susceptible or resistant to certain diseases. That would be the
primary area of research that I think should be pursued. There
are associated areas like the drug residues or the alternative
treatment drug residues which need to be looked at. I do not see
that being particularly expensive or long term. The genetic manipulation
or the genetic improvement of animals is a very long term regime
and undoubtedly expensive, but I would not want to put a cost
on it. There is already work being done at the Roslin Institute
in Edinburgh which has shown within a five year research programme
very significant increases in resistance to common parasitic diseases
in sheep, a programme which has probably cost in the order of
£2 million to £3 million, I would think. It has very
significant potential for organic farming in the future.
97. We are not alone in this. There must be
research going on elsewhere in the world, if not in Europe. How
much activity is there in this area?
(Professor McKelvey) There is a fair amount of activity
in the States in terms of genetic resistance to dairy cow diseases,
mastitis and lameness and so on, which is quite important in this
area. There is not so much activity in Europe at the moment. It
is an area of activity which research workers are aware needs
to be expanded and there is certainly enthusiasm there for an
expansion in that type of work. If organic farming is to develop,
that has to come hand in hand with organic development.
98. Are you saying to the Committee that the
objectives of organic farming, which are fewer residues and animals
which need and receive less by way of medication, are the ones
which you believe are to be supported and applauded, but that
the method of getting there may not be simply enforcing rules
but needs research and development into resistance in animals
in particular?
(Professor McKelvey) I believe someone mentioned targets
or quotas earlier. It would be unfortunate if the government were
to set a target of 25 or 30 per cent organic production within
a five year period because that immediately puts an onus on the
development of that sector of the industry which we really do
not have the scientific base to support, in my opinion, at the
moment. I think it would be unfortunate if we ended up with another
health scare of some sort out of organic farming because we did
not understand the mechanisms that were in use. I applaud the
general tenet of organic farming in terms of environment and so
on. My main concerns relate to the animal welfare in the stock
production systems that are involved.
Chairman
99. Distance learning, coming back to your metier,
as it were. Internet courses. How is this going to work? What
sort of take-up? What sort of content in the course? You cannot
move now without people telling you about the importance of the
internet.
(Professor McKelvey) Yes, that is correct. We do not
have this up and live at the moment. I have a CD ROM in my briefcase
of the beginning of the course. It will be available as a net
based course from the autumn of this year. It will be available
by subscription and by module so that a farmer, a veterinary surgeon
or whoever can subscribe for a number of lectures from that course
and then move on. Once they have built up a certain number of
modules, they then can move on to a qualification.
100. Can I come back to the regulations for
a moment? They apply from 1 August. We are only three weeks away
from the regulations applying. How many producers know about it?
(Professor McKelvey) Probably not very many at the
minute, but I have not done a straw poll to find out.
101. Are implementation plans in place? Do you
know how the government is going to do the monitoring and implementation?
Have you any idea how the nitty gritty stands, as it were?
(Professor McKelvey) The Government will not monitor
it. It will be monitored by the various inspection bodies. I think
the inspection bodies are doing a good job and I think they are
still respected by the farming community. I honestly do not see
any need for the government to become involved in the inspection
process.
102. If I could ask briefly about the certification
bodies, there are an awful lot of them, as you know, and one's
immediate instinct is to say, "Why on earth do you need so
many of these bodies?" Would it be practical and, if it were
practical would it be desirable, to have a single certification
body? Would you do it by a group of commodity? If I said to you,
"The thing is a mess"; people who understand it may
say that it is all perfectly rational, but after all this is about
persuading consumers that there is a system in place that they
can understand, that is not too complicated to get into, to come
up with a scheme which you think will work but at the same time
will be clear to people looking at it from the outside, just what
its architecture is. What would be practical?
(Professor McKelvey) There has been a real plethora
of inspection bodies and inspection processes right across agriculture.
The move within the last six to nine months has been to rationalise
considerably the number of bodies that are involved in inspection
procedures. Part of that has been market driven by cost of inspections
and it has actually meant that some of the inspectors have fallen
out of business and some have got considerably bigger. How it
will develop in the longer term is that there will be an over-arching
body which will regulate the inspection bodies to whom they will
become affiliated. I do not see that market forces will stop there
being a number of inspection bodies, however. I think that will
still continue and I do not think that is a problem as long as
they affiliate to an over-arching standard.
103. At the end of the day, the main inspection
will be the supermarket, will it not?
(Professor McKelvey) They are the ultimate arbiters,
yes.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for coming
to see us. It has been extremely helpful. Michael was asking earlier
on for some science and you have provided us with the science.
We may well want to come back to you for slightly more explanations
about things. As the inquiry proceeds, we may encounter areas
on which we shall seek clarification. If we may, we will perhaps
ask if you can help us. We are most grateful for your coming.
Thank you very much indeed. The saga of the travel arrangements
of Dr Lampkin continues because he is now alleged to be in a taxi
on his way here. We will continue with our meeting this morning
and see him.
| 
