House of Commons - Agriculture

Select Committee on Agriculture Third Report

THE SEGREGATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

III. IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSUMERS

41. Segregation of GM crops on farms and throughout the food chain is designed to give consumers a choice; but this choice can only be exercised in an informed and meaningful way where consumers are fully aware of what they are buying. The most effective means of conveying this information is through labelling which must be backed up by a system capable of verifying claims and of tracing individual products and ingredients back down the line from the retailer to the farm. Labelling, in effect putting the onus on consumers to take responsibility for their own choices, is often presented as a panacea for the difficulties of highlighting the differences between any two products, whether on food safety or animal welfare; but for a labelling regime to work, there are several criteria which must be met. Novartis provided a useful summary of these factors: "you need the threshold, you need the control, you need certification of the authorities or the companies that do the controls, and you need an appeal procedure".[148] Last and perhaps most importantly, "you need information about the label",[149] that is, clear communication to the consumer of what the label or its absence means. We bear these points in mind in considering the current requirements for labelling in connection with GMOs and amendments to those regulations which are soon to come into force.

The current position

42. The labelling of GM foods is covered by European legislation. Under the EC Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulation (258/97) any food would require labelling where there were health or ethical concerns or the food contained a live GMO. This approach was developed in the EC Regulations on the labelling of GM soya and maize (1139/98), which introduced labelling requirements for foods containing ingredients from these two GM crops, approved before the novel food regulation was introduced. Regulation 1139/98 requires foods to be labelled 'genetically modified' if GM material (either DNA or protein) is detectable in the final product. Although it applies only to soya and maize, MAFF advise that Regulation 1139/98 "is seen as setting a precedent for the labelling of all GM foods approved under the novel foods regulations".[150] The 1998 EC Regulation was implemented in the UK through the Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 1999 which came into force on 19 March 1999. From September 1999 these Regulations have also applied to food sold in catering establishments.

43. Continuing high levels of concern about GMOs, coupled with recognition of the near impossibility of achieving 100% GM-free ingredients, led to new proposals by the EC in October 1999 to introduce a de minimis threshold for the presence of GM material in non-GM foods. Under amendments to Regulation 1139/98 which come into force in April this year, a product containing an ingredient obtained from non-GM sources will only require labelling as GM if the adventitious GM content of that ingredient is more than 1%. It is important to note that the 1% applies to an ingredient, rather than the finished product, and only to ingredients which can be shown to come from non-GM sources. The new amendments also apply the labelling requirements to food destined for the catering market and provide for the establishment of a 'negative list' of ingredients which may be derived from GM soya or maize but which do not contain protein or DNA and will be exempt from the labelling requirements. Finally, proposals to require labelling where GM additives or flavourings are present in foods were also agreed by the Standing Committee for Foodstuffs in October 1999. These labelling requirements have been attacked on several fronts which can usefully be examined under the headings of thresholds, scope, enforcement and clarity.

i) Thresholds

44. The introduction of a 1% de minimis threshold for adventitious GM content is the issue which was raised most often in evidence to us. Concern has focussed both on the principle of a threshold and on the agreed target figure. Accepting a de minimis level of GM content within non-GM foods is only possible where the principle of tolerance of such content has already been conceded. However, several witnesses expressed reservations about enshrining any threshold in law on the ground that it could discourage suppliers from working to reduce the possibility of GM content. Marks and Spencer plc and the Consumers' Association agreed that "a fixed numerical standard can sometimes act as a disincentive to further improvement once the minimum acceptable level has been achieved".[151] The Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards (LACOTS), representing those who will be responsible for enforcing the Regulations, argued that the figure should be "adopted only in extreme circumstances and not universally applied as this may undermine strict segregation procedures".[152] The perceived danger is that companies will see the threshold not as a tolerance but as encouragement to allow that amount of GM material into their products.

45. This concern is not alleviated by the figure agreed by the EU. Parts of the supply chain had previously argued that 1% was much too low and that "any figure lower than 2 per cent is unlikely to be consistently deliverable for bulk commodities at reasonable cost".[153] Once 1% had been agreed, the industry accepted its fate, with Novartis expressing itself "fully supportive of the 1 per cent"[154] which was "a vast improvement on a de facto zero tolerance level".[155] Others believed the figure to be too high. The Consumers' Association found manufacturers and retailers felt 1% was "reasonable" but they pointed out that many were already working well below this level.[156] A threshold of 0.1 per cent was cited by Friends of the Earth.[157] Finally, Marks and Spencer plc pointed out that the new rules would apply the same threshold to both soya and maize "even though the risks from cross pollination are quite different".[158]

46. A labelling regime which incorporates thresholds for de minimis content is dependent upon the accuracy of its testing procedures. It is generally accepted that 1% is technically feasible in terms of detection and that even lower levels are possible. Dr Dale believed "0.1 per cent (one GM seed in 1000 non-GM seeds) [to be] near the limits of routine analytical detection",[159] although Friends of the Earth argued that "with the technology there is we can go right down to 0.001 if we want".[160] However, the main factor in driving down the threshold will be the effectiveness of segregation procedures undertaken by farmers and others in response to consumer pressure. Greater availability of non-GM supplies should also make it easier for food manufacturers to meet more stringent standards.[161] This argues that the threshold should be progressively lowered "to reflect best possible practice, rather than acceptable practice", as Nestlé proposed,[162] or eventually phased out altogether. The Government has argued that "the need to provide proof that ingredients are of non-GM origin should ensure that actual levels are kept well below" the threshold of 1%.[163] Nevertheless, it pressed the EU for a review of the threshold in the near future.[164] This was not written into the Regulation itself but the Government succeeded in securing a formal statement that such a review would take place.[165] UKASTA argued in evidence to us that "the market place will be in a position to determine the thresholds which are acceptable to consumers and which may well change over time as consumer perceptions are adapted in line with new information".[166] This appears to imply that consumers are likely to accept a higher threshold for adventitious GM content in non-GM foods. We find this improbable and can more easily foresee a scenario in which the threshold is greatly reduced. 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.[167] We recommend that the Government put forward proposals to this effect.

ii) Scope

47. Three concerns were raised with us regarding the scope of the EC regulations, as amended, which need to be considered separately. First, the labelling requirements set out in Regulation 1139/98 refer only to specific varieties of GM soya and maize, leading some witnesses to suggest that they should also apply to other products.[168] We accept that the regulations are intended to set a precedent for all GM foods approved under the EC Novel Foods Regulations but we also understand the concern that it will cause greater legislative confusion if new GM varieties are covered by alternative regulations or additional amendments. Nestlé UK called for the consolidation of all requirements on labelling of GM foods into "one single regulation which should then be applicable to all future approvals of genetically modified crops and their derivatives".[169] We are attracted to this 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.

48. Secondly, the inclusion of a "negative list" of ingredients that will not require labelling attracted much criticism. This will consist of foods which do not contain protein or DNA in any detectable form even though they are derived from GM crops. Some GM ingredients may therefore be contained in foods which are to all appearances non-GM, thereby potentially misleading consumers. The Consumers in Europe Group had "serious concerns about the concept of a 'negative list' of such food products", highlighting the need for the list to be based on reliable tests and to be amendable in the light of "new tests or new limits of detection in existing tests".[170] Moreover, there is uncertainty as to the content of the list which is under consideration by the EC's Joint Research Centre in Italy.[171] 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.

49. Thirdly, Nestlé UK argued strongly that the application of the de minimis threshold to ingredients and not to finished products "will result in major anomalies".[172] Its evidence pointed out the discrepancy between allowing up to 1% of GM material in a non-GM crop and demanding labelling for "the minutest level of a non-segregated derivative", which would "result in inequitable, illogical and potentially confusing labelling", unhelpful to either manufacturers or consumers.[173] Furthermore, this outcome was compounded by the requirement to label any product which contained an ingredient just above the 1% threshold even where the GM-content of the product in its entirety was well below the limit due to the small proportion used of the ingredient in question.[174] Nestlé UK provided examples of finished foods to illustrate the anomalies.[175] These are complicated matters which require clarification by the Government. We recognise that this 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.

iii) Enforcement

50. The criticisms detailed so far have centred on points of principle but there are also practical considerations of how the Regulations will be enforced. For example, there is a need for clarification as to how companies will be able to satisfy the enforcement authorities that ingredients came from non-GM sources. The general assumption is that an audit trail will be needed but this is not written into the Regulation,[176] the advice from the Government being only that "it is possible that the use of documented/audited identity preservation systems could satisfy this requirement".[177] This is important also to consumers as it represents their guarantee of the traceability of food ingredients upon which the labelling system is based. A more widespread concern is the testing procedures which will be adopted. Marks and Spencer plc, among others, was concerned at the lack of agreed methods of analysis,[178] while questions were also raised as to the adequacy of testing the final product as the basis of labelling.[179] It is far easier to test unprocessed ingredients for GM content than it is to analyse ready meals or other highly complex finished products. We understand that only one local authority public analyst laboratory in the UK is currently accredited to carry out the DNA tests which would be required.[180]

51. There are two issues here, of information and of establishing standards for testing. On the former, we expect that detailed official advice will be issued by the Government in good time before the Regulations come into force but we are reassured that the difficulties are considerably lessened by the fact that most UK companies already work well within the new requirements. On the latter, Baroness Hayman assured us that "we have an evaluation programme in this country, a proficiency scheme to determine the availability of labs to offer a reliable detection service and to ensure that the required standard is achieved".[181] Looking further afield, she pointed to a series of trials organised by the Joint Research Centre in Italy to establish common standards across Europe.[182] We believe this is a vital step to take if the labelling regime is to achieve its objective. The same high standards of testing and enforcement must apply across the whole of the EU. Otherwise, discrimination will occur and consumers will lose what little confidence they retain that their anxieties about GM are being taken seriously. Witnesses to our inquiry argued the need for harmonisation of EU methods of audit, scientific detection and validation.[183] Baroness Hayman put the contrary view that it was not necessary to prescribe how

testing was carried out, as long as it reached the requisite standard.[184] We agree, but believe that some assistance may be required to ensure that local authorities are properly equipped to perform their consumer protection role for these products.

iv) Clarity

52. Our final concerns about the EC regulations are their complexity. Labelling can only work if it is transparent and its meaning is readily and widely understood. We are not convinced that this is the case at present. We have already highlighted examples where non-GM products may contain significant GM ingredients. In some of these cases, it might be more transparent for the products to carry 'GM' labels as this is the information required by the consumer. Similarly, while the regulations are concerned with the labelling of GM foods, many manufacturers and consumers would welcome 'non-GM' labels. The present situation with its exemptions and limits offers much scope for confusion. When questioned on these issues, Baroness Hayman argued that "we cannot cover on labelling physically all the concerns that a wide variety of consumers might have about a food because these are many and various".[185] That is undoubtedly true, but on GMs, the public has expressed concern in sufficient numbers to justify special measures. In the end, it will be the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency, backed up by explanatory materials from retailers, to ensure that consumers understand what the 'GM' labels mean, but the Government should push the EC to decide on criteria for 'non-GM' labels. There is also the question of 'GM-free' which at the moment is covered by a voluntary labelling regime.[186] The Baroness agreed that the EC needs to bring forward proposals on this and that "there has to be a debate ... so we do have a comprehensive definition and one that is testable and assurable".[187] We understand that the EC is close to finalising its proposals on the definition of 'GM-free', although we note that the concept of a definition implies that some tolerance is to be set. 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.

Conclusion on labelling legislation

53. Even its greatest critic, Nestlé UK, believed that "in principle, the scope of the Novel Food Regulation 258/97 is appropriate as a means of achieving a consistent approach to the approval and labelling of all Novel Foods".[188] We have no reason to dissent from this view, although there are many issues which need to be resolved before the new labelling regime is put into practice. It is, however, disappointing that the EU as a whole is still so far behind commercial practice in the area of GM foods. Several witnesses complained, before the agreement of the latest amendments, that EU legislation was incomplete and creating uncertainty.[189] Meanwhile, the industry, especially in the UK, has taken voluntary steps which have gone much further than those now proposed. From the UK Maize Millers' Association through the retailers to the Consumers' Association, all complained that "European legislation ... is failing to keep pace with market developments and practicalities".[190] Whilst we are reassured that market forces are responding to consumer demands, we believe that it is important that the EU and the UK Government demonstrate awareness of legitimate public concerns.

Availability of products

54. There is another aspect of customer choice which needs to be recognised in connection with the debate on the segregation of GM foods. Labelling can only apply to foods that are offered to the market. In order to have a real choice, customers must have available to them the whole range of clearly identified GM and non-GM products. The public debate around and the backlash against GM technology arose at least partly from the denial of choice as the US commodity system delivered co-mingled GM and non-GM soya and maize to the UK market without prior notification or consultation.[191] In the reaction that followed, the one product which had been presented to the public as GM was rejected and withdrawn from sale. The current situation is that a consumer wishing to purchase non-GM products may do so but one wishing to buy GM foodstuffs such as the tomato puree may not. There have been approximately ten GM products approved by the Government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes[192] but these have been progressively phased out of retail sales. Of course, companies throughout the food chain have an interest in meeting customer demands where they are so articulately expressed. Cargill plc, for example, explained that "if [customers] tell us that they would want a non-GM food ingredient then that is exactly what we will attempt to provide".[193] Its Managing Director in the UK projected that for the next five years the food industry would "remain where it is ... i.e. that it will not receive GM ingredients" and that "the animal feed industry would follow".[194] This would remain the case "until such time that we see introduced into the market-place GM products which provide a discernible benefit for the consumer".[195] Some believe that at that point consumer demand might lead to a swing back to genetically modified crops becoming the norm. Professor Bainbridge predicted that "in a decade or so you would be able to go to the supermarket and there will be three lines of products", namely conventional containing GM materials, organic and "the identity preserved, the non-GM" which would command the highest premium.[196]

55. Whatever the future, some customers will always want to choose non-GM foods. The Soil Association argued that organic farmers were "doing our best to offer consumers a 100 per cent GM-free choice through the purchase of organic foods",[197] but, as the Consumers in Europe Group contested, "organic food should not be the only alternative to GM foods".[198] At the other end of the scale, some customers now and in the future will want to purchase GM products. Two of the scientists who appeared before our Committee complained that "we have been denied largely the choice of genetically modified crops and food ingredients".[199] This is equally a breach of the principle of consumer choice, albeit one not often aired. The Soil Association believed that "it is incumbent upon the Government to uphold that consumer right of choice".[200] Baroness Hayman commented that "I do not believe it is Government's job to tell people what they should eat or make them buy things that they do not want to buy".[201] Instead, the Government has taken steps to encourage the development of an alternative market in non-GM ingredients, for example by posting on the internet a list of suppliers and distributers of non-GM soya.[202] We agree that this approach is correct. We expect the new Food Standards Agency to monitor the availability of GM and non-GM foods and the relative premiums paid by consumers to ensure that consumers at all price levels have a meaningful choice as to whether to purchase products derived from the new technology. However, in the end it is the market which will decide on how best to meet consumer demands.