House of Commons - Agriculture

Select Committee on Agriculture Third Report

THIRD REPORT

The Agriculture Committee has agreed to the following Report:—

THE SEGREGATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The principal theme of this Report is choice. It is not about the merits or otherwise of genetically modified foods. Our primary concern is how to ensure that consumers and farmers alike can make informed choices on whether to make use of GM technology. This objective has not been well served to date by the confusion and hysterics which genetic modification has engendered in the United Kingdom. The first consumer product to reach the shops was a tomato paste, launched with a proper education campaign, rewarded with satisfactory sales but withdrawn in the wake of panic whipped up by campaigns against "Frankenstein foods". The supermarket chains responded with radical action to root out genetically modified ingredients in order to reassure and thereby keep their customers. Few organisations emerged from this situation with much credit, not excepting the Government, which was at first supportive of genetically modified foods but then was forced into reviewing both attitudes and statutory approval procedures in the face of the public and media panic. We believe that it is vital that this confusion 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.

2. The question of segregation is central to the ability of the food chain to deliver the products consumers want. To guarantee the genetically modified status of a food, it is essential that GM and non-GM crops are kept separate throughout the process from farm to supermarket. We therefore decided that the segregation of GM foods should be the first in the series of tightly focussed inquiries on issues connected with GMOs which we announced in our Sixth Report of last Session.[2] Our terms of reference covered the means of segregation of genetically modified crops on farms, in storage and in transit, the difficulties involved in ensuring such segregation, and the implications of these issues for the consumer in terms of labelling and traceability.[3] We received over 40 submissions and held four oral evidence sessions with witnesses from the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC), Novartis UK Ltd, Cargill plc, Friends of the Earth, Marks and Spencer plc and the Soil Association, as well as three expert scientists (Dr Philip Dale, Professor Alan Gray and Professor Janet Bainbridge) and Baroness Hayman, Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). We thank all who contributed to this inquiry.

3. At the moment, there are no GM crops grown for commercial sale in the UK. Under the terms of an agreement between the Government and SCIMAC, this will remain the case until 2002 when the current programme of farm-scale trials is completed and the results evaluated.[4] Three crops are being tested during these trials - herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape, fodder maize and fodder beet - in some 20-25 fields a year.[5] Segregation of GM crops, therefore, is currently an issue limited to this small number of test sites, although any guidelines established now will have wider application if commercial plantings are subsequently allowed. Further down the food chain, the implication of GM crops for the consumer is already a live issue owing to the predominance of GM varieties of soya and maize in the United States and the widespread use of US-sourced crops in products sold on the UK market. Of the three GM foods and ingredients available here, soya and maize are commonly found in processed foods, whilst we have already referred to the fate of tomato paste made from GM tomatoes. It follows that in examining the segregation of GM foods, it is necessary to take account of the American experience, both in terms of the current position with regard to imported foodstuffs and in terms of lessons for the future development of GM and non-GM food chains within the UK.

4. It is clear that there is no current consensus on the principles or the precise definitions of segregation at any point in the food chain. Above all, customers deserve quality information and genuine choice. So far, a framework for this has not been established. While it is right that the main burden for this lies with the industries concerned, there remains a critical role for government at UK, EU and international level. These principles are crucial: transparency; inclusiveness; a duty to explain; and choice. These are the principles which have driven our recommendations and we commend them to the Government.

Definition of terms

Genetic modification

5. Genetic modification involves the use of technology to add, subtract, alter or exchange one or more genes in a living organism in order to obtain characteristics not previously available. Supporters of the process often stress its similarity to the age-old practice of cross-breeding, while opponents regard it as radically different. In the case of crops, the potential of the technology lies in the ability of scientists to produce seed which furnishes advantages to farmers in terms of growth properties and to consumers in terms of taste, added benefits and keeping qualities.

Segregation and Identity Preservation (IP)

6. Early in this inquiry, we were taken to task by several witnesses for our use of the term 'segregation'. Companies with experience of the US market and the system for bringing crops from the field to the consumer all stressed that "using the terminology 'identity preservation' [IP] seems more useful".[6] PG Economics explained that "both segregation and IP essentially refer to any system of crop or raw material management that segregates or preserves the identity of the source or nature of the materials. At a general level segregation is synonymous with 'keeping crops, products etc apart' whilst IP is more widely considered to apply where there is a positive desire to preserve the identity or source of a crop or product".[7] This distinction was supported by the American Soybean Association[8] and Cargill plc[9] who both underlined the central importance of the end-user in an IP system. The Vice-President, Public Affairs, of Cargill plc also pointed out that "identity preservation does imply traceability, which segregation does not".[10] The key difference is that identity preservation, traditionally applied to high-value crops, ensures that a particular crop is monitored throughout the food chain to ensure its 'genetic integrity'[11] and thus guarantee the quality which commands a premium, whilst segregation, albeit "a fundamental component" of IP,[12] merely separates one batch or crop from another.

7. Ms Rawling of Cargill plc assured us that "people can get too hung up on words"[13] but it is clear that there is a very important distinction to be made here in talking about the supply chain. In this case, segregation matters if the end-user - the consumer - wishes to be certain of the nature of a particular product. Marks and Spencer plc explained that "Consumers are demanding new levels of traceability to give assurances of food safety to which food retailers and manufacturers are responding", and that "there is an increasing tendency to require independent auditing and verification of effective segregation to provide transparency in support of claims".[14] At the moment, it is likely to be non-GM crops which are identity-preserved as this will be the only way of separating them from the system which delivers commodity crops to the market. In future, it may be that some GM crops will require this degree of preservation, where their added characteristics enhance their value to the consumer.[15] Where crops on farms are concerned, however, segregation may have a different purpose. The NFU argued that, in addition to the consumer- and price-led reasons for keeping certain crops apart, "a crop could be grown that would be hazardous if the products of it were eaten by humans or livestock".[16] Here, segregation is necessary to prevent cross-contamination. This is the sense in which the term is generally used in the context of the field trials and of future commercial plantings in this country and although we are mindful of the implication that GM crops are thereby treated as harmful, we find the term useful and employ it in this narrow sense in our Report.

GM-free and non-GM

8. The purpose of segregation is to allow the identification of foodstuffs as either derived from GM crops or not. There is some confusion as to the terminology which should be applied to the latter category. Several witnesses pointed to the "widespread reference to 'GM-free' by the press, influence groups, consumers and even some retailers"[17] and argued that the use of 'GM-free' was "misleading".[18] There are several reasons why this is the case. First, we heard consistent accounts from witnesses that it was impossible to achieve 100% GM-free or "absolute purity".[19] This assessment arises from the acknowledgement that the seeds from which crops are grown are not 100% pure,[20] with the accepted level for certified seed being around 99.7%, depending on the crop.[21] This gives scope for a tiny percentage of GM material in even the most stringently monitored crops, a situation made more probable by the percentage of GM crops now in the open agricultural chain.[22] Secondly, there is the question of measuring the GM content of a food.[23] The analysis is only as reliable as the test and at the moment it would appear that results cannot be 100% accurate.[24] Thirdly, we were reminded that "the whole emphasis of policy development in Brussels has been to provide a workable distinction between GM (labelled) and conventional (unlabelled) supplies, with products labelled GM-free providing a potential third category".[25] Where reference is made to regulatory activity, it is therefore incorrect to oppose 'GM' with 'GM-free', rather than 'non-GM'.

9. When we put the great potential for confusion on this issue to Baroness Hayman, she agreed that consumers do not understand the difference between GM-free and non-GM.[26] She argued, rightly in our view, that "you have to have a definition that is testable and a definition that is universally accepted".[27] Her first point leads to acknowledgement that GM-free cannot be guaranteed and therefore thresholds for tolerance of accidental 'contamination' must be established. However, her second point, whilst correct in terms of agreements within the food chain, is likely to be harder to achieve where consumers are concerned. The Soil Association argued that "most consumers believe it is their right to remain GM free".[28] We recognise that consumers who wish to avoid GM foods believe the alternative is GM-free and would find it hard to accept the scientific explanations why this claim is so difficult to verify and so should not be made. Nevertheless, 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.

2 Sixth Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1998-99, Genetically Modified Organisms, (HC 427), para 3. Back

3 Press notice No. 23, Session 1998-99, 30 July 1999. Back

5 Ibid. Back

10 Q 146. Back

11 Q 79. Back

12 Q 84. Back

13 Q 146. Back