Guidelines for the whole chain
37. Any system of identity preservation can only
be as reliable as the provision of information along the chain.
The SCIMAC guidelines were designed only to address the segregation
of GM crops on the farm. Once the crop has passed the farmgate,
there is no equivalent bible of regulations to govern its treatment
from that point onwards. Several witnesses raised the need for
just such a protocol. UKASTA told us it was actively considering
how to extend the SCIMAC principles through the marketing and
transport of crops, arguing for a 'seamless' operation: "SCIMAC
principles start this trend and we feel these must continue through
processing and retailing elements if the requirements of consumer
information and choice are to be achieved".[139]
Further down the food chain, the Food and Drink Federation saw
it as "a current priority amongst both manufacturers and
retailers to agree a best practice standard for the supply of
I-P soya and maize",[140]
whilst Marks and Spencer plc urged the need "to establish
common standards for effective segregation", especially on
tolerances.[141]
38. There are different approaches which could be
adopted to this issue. One would be to have "a seamless protocol
from 'plough to plate'", as called for by the RICS,[142]
presumably overseen by a greatly enlarged SCIMAC-type body to
represent all the links in the chain. Another would be a baton-type
approach, where each sector passed on information to the next
stage but retained its own responsibility for procedures independent
of the others. SCIMAC strongly favoured the latter approach, telling
us that "we have always regarded it very much as a relay
race".[143]
It had "continuous dialogue, a continuous exchange of information,
with organisations such as the Food and Drink Federation, on the
progress of the development of these guidelines and the kind of
information that would be presented to them as secondary buyers".[144]
However, SCIMAC believed "the bottom line is not to reinvent
the wheel but to build on existing systems that work",[145]
and it was against extending its own scope beyond the farmgate.
39. Baroness Hayman believed that there was no need
for regulation in this area since "a lot of the identity
preservation issues throughout the food chain will actually be
led by market forces rather than regulatory forces".[146]
She doubted that "it would be our responsibility to say the
actual process in which someone who makes a claim ensures that
it is appropriate".[147]
We agree that it is not for the Government to set out statutory
requirements in this detail. Nevertheless, 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.
Conclusion
40. We are persuaded that the industry's past experience
in producing certified seed and identity preserved crops will
help it deliver products of an acceptable GM or non-GM status.
There will be further developments in this rapidly changing area
in the near future but we believe that the market is responding
to the demands of consumers and of farmers to choose whether or
not to buy GM materials. The industry has a responsibility to
back up its claims by following clearly-formulated procedures
which guarantee full traceability and proof of status. However,
this is not beyond the reach of existing systems and we would
deplore any attempt to charge premiums to consumers for conventional
crops. We recognise that some concerns remain, particularly as
regards organic foods where standards are much higher and therefore
more difficult to meet. While we have accepted the definition
of non-GM elsewhere, we acknowledge that the organic sector is
working to 100% GM-free insofar as this definition is attainable.
29 Ev. p. 37. Back
30 Ev.
p. 28. Back
31 SCIMAC
is "a formal UK grouping of industry organisations representing
farmers, plant breeders, the seed trade and biotechnology companies"(Ev.
p. 1). Its membership consists of the National Farmers' Union,
the British Society of Plant Breeders, British Agrochemicals Association,
United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association and British
Sugar Beet Seed Producers Association. Back
32 Ev.
p. 1. Back
33 Ev.
p. 166. Back
34 Ev.
p. 94. Back
35 Q
92. Back
36 e.g.
Friends of the Earth, Q 297. Back
37 Ev.
p. 70. Back
38 Ev.
p. 70. Back
39 Ev.
p.38. Back
40 Ibid. Back
41 Q
218. Back
42 Q
211. Back
43 Qq
236, 237. Back
44 Q
193. Back
45 Q
221; witness's emphasis. Back
46 Ev.
p. 37; see also Ev. p. 38. Back
47 Pollen
dispersal in the crops Maize, Oil seed rape, Potatoes, Sugar beet
and Wheat, National Pollen
Research Unit, University College, Worcester, January 2000, p.
2. Back
48 Q
530. Back
49 Ibid. Back
50 SCIMAC,
Guidelines for growing newly developed herbicide tolerant crops,
May 1999, p. 6. Back
51 Q
531. Back
52 Ev.
p. 2. Back
53 Ev.
p. 140. Back
54 Ibid. Back
55 Ev.
p. 138. Back
56 Ev.
p. 139. Back
57 Ev.
p. 135. Back
58 Ibid. Back
59 SCIMAC
Guidelines, p . 6. Back
60 Ibid. Back
61 Ev.
p. 26. Back
62 Q
36. Back
63 Unprinted
evidence. Back
64 Ev.
p. 71. Back
65 Ev.
p. 71. Back
66 Ev.
p. 141. Back
67 Q
61. Back
68 Q
534. Back
69 Ibid. Back
70 Ibid. Back
71 Q
538. Back
72 Ev.
p. 113. Back
73 Q
380. Back
74 Ev.
p. 69. Back
75 Ev.
p. 147. Back
76 Ibid. Back
77 Ev.
p. 165. Back
78 Ibid. Back
79 Q
545. Back
80 Q
547. Back
81 Q
530. Back
82 Ibid. Back
83 Ev.
p. 148. Back
84 Ev.
p. 71. Back
85 Ev.
pp. 165, 166-7. Back
86 Q
42. Back
87 Ibid. Back
88 Ev.
p. 165. Back
89 Q
50. Back
90 Ev.
p. 69. Back
91 Q
297. Back
92 e.g.
Q 364. Back
93 Ev.
p. 162. Back
94 Q
548. Back
95 Ev.
p. 164. Back
96 Ibid. Back
97 Q
382. Back
98 Q
384. Back
99 Ev.
p. 169. Back
100 Ibid. Back
101 Q
514. Back
102 Q
511. Back
103 Ev.
p .29. Back
104 See
Ev. p. 61. Back
105 Ev.
p. 29. Back
106 Ev.
p. 115. Back
107 Ev.
p. 151. Back
108 Ev.
p. 115. Back
109 Ev.
pp. 28-29; 118-120. Back
110 Q
150. Back
111 Q
154. Back
112 Ev.
p. 123. Back
113 Ev.
p. 134. Back
114 Ev.
p. 56. Back
115 Q
151. Back
116 Ev.
136. Back
117 Q
301. Back
118 Ev.
p. 115. Back
119 Q
141. Back
120 Ev.
p. 136. Back
121 Ibid. Back
122 Ev.
p. 56; Q 346. Back
123 Ev.
pp. 124, 136. Back
124 Ev.
p. 14. Back
125 Q
589. Back
126 Q
591. Back
127 Q
96. Back
128 Ev.
p. 115. Back
129 Ev.
p. 120. Back
130 Ibid. Back
131 Q
163. Back
132 Ev.
p .28. Back
133 Q
165. Back
134 Ev.
p. 60. Back
135 Q
498. Back
136 Ev.
p. 123. Back
137 Q
325. Back
138 Ev.
p. 134. Back
139 Ev.
p. 137. Back
140 Ev.
p. 134. Back
141 Ev.
p. 56. Back
142 Ev.
p. 140. Back
143 Q
66. Back
144 Q
65. Back
145 Q
69. Back
146 Q
496. Back
147 Q
552. Back