House of Commons - Agriculture

Select Committee on Agriculture Third Report

THE SEGREGATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

IV. THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

56. The Government's responsibilities in the area of segregation of GM crops stretch from negotiations within the EU on labelling regulations to oversight of GM technology in the UK through a system of advisory committees. Some witnesses suggested other roles such as ensuring the availability of non-GM foods (see above) or working with the industry to develop industry-wide standards for products that are not labelled 'GM'.[203] When asked for her definition of the role of Government, Baroness Hayman told us that "I do not think it is our role to be an advocate ... it is our role to be a protector, a protector of public health and a protector of the environment".[204] Beyond this, she defined Government responsibility as "providing informed consumer choice and that takes us into areas not necessarily of regulatory processes but certainly areas such as labelling, whether it is compulsory, or labelling in the sense of monitoring the claims that are made for foods or products and ensuring that they are not deceptive in any way".[205] We have discussed many of these issues in the last section of this Report. In this section, we concentrate on the regulatory system as set up by the Government in response to the heightened public awareness of GMOs.

The regulatory system

57. The process of identifying a GM organism, testing it and ultimately marketing it in the UK is subject to regulatory control at every stage, based on a legislative framework provided by the EU. The Government has several advisory committees, covering different aspects of GM technology. The most important of these to the issues under investigation during our inquiry are the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP). Looking first at ACRE, the main function of the Committee is "to assess the human and environmental safety of releases or marketing of GMOs and to give advice to the Secretary of State who then decides whether or not a consent is granted in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1990".[206] The acting Chairman of ACRE, Professor Gray, explained to us in some detail how the Committee works and the range of expertise found in its membership.[207] Turning to the ACNFP, this Committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Janet Bainbridge, is charged with advising Ministers "on any matters relating to the irradiation of food or to the manufacture of novel foods produced by novel processes having regard where appropriate to the views of relevant expert bodies". Again, a range of views is represented on the Committee.[208] Its Chairman reminded us that its remit covered all novel foods and that while "the public interest is almost exclusively focussed on GM", applications for approval of GM products accounted for "probably something like 20 to 30 per cent of the applications" considered by the Committee.[209] No licences had been granted to market a GM crop in the UK since September 1997.[210]

58. The regulatory system has been looked at in some detail by other select committees and we do not propose to replicate that work here. We confine our observations to two particular issues, namely the number of committees and government departments involved, and public accountability and openness. The first point is perhaps best illustrated by describing the position of the ACNFP. It offers advice to the Department of Health, MAFF, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland authorities.[211] It currently reports to Baroness Hayman as Food Safety Minister but from 1 April it will report to the Food Standards Agency.[212] In its work, it can call upon the expertise of other Committees, "including the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Foods, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Foods and Nutritional Policy (COMA), the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food ... ACRE [and] the Food Advisory Committee".[213] There is also a new Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs (ACAF), and, as a result of the Government's Review of the Advisory and Regulatory Framework for Biotechnology published in May 1999, there are two new "strategic Commissions" - the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC). From a Ministerial point of view, the Minister in overall charge of co-ordinating government response on GM issues is Dr Mo Mowlam MP, in the Cabinet Office.[214]

59. With such a complex web of committees and ministers, there is considerable scope for duplication and confusion. Baroness Hayman denied that the division of responsibilities between departments was "incoherent",[215] presenting it rather as "a recognition that GM issues can affect and do affect a variety of government departments".[216] She highlighted the importance of the AEBC's "remit to advise the Government on the 'big picture' on agricultural biotechnology, including questions of ethics and public acceptability".[217] Dr Dale explained that the Commission would "look for gaps, (and look for areas of duplication probably), and, in a sense, stand back from the day-to-day consideration of proposals and be more visionary perhaps".[218] In this way, it is designed to fill the gap perceived by the Consumers in Europe Group for a committee "to look at the wide-ranging impact and ethical issues surrounding the use of genetically modified crops to produce food and the effects that they have on the food chain from farm to consumer".[219] We accept the importance of the AEBC and are therefore somewhat concerned that, to date, it has yet to be established. Baroness Hayman told us in January that a Chairman had yet to be appointed and the position was about to be re-advertised,[220] despite the assurance in MAFF's written evidence that it was expected to start work shortly.[221] She also reminded us that there would be a third body "with overarching responsibilities on GM issues because the Food Standards Agency will have responsibility on GM food".[222] The Consumers in Europe Group had also raised the question of how the new AEBC would "bridge the gap between GM crops and GM foods" in relation to the Food Standards Agency.[223] It is essential that these issues are resolved to ensure that there are no gaps in the system and that responsibilities are clear. We recommend that the AEBC be established as matter of urgency. We further 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.

60. One area in which there have been great improvements is the provision of information to the public on GM issues. Taking this a step further, Friends of the Earth felt "very strongly that the public, who are often ignored in these debates, should actively participate in the decision-making process".[224] This could mean putting a representative on the advisory committees, a suggestion on which Baroness Hayman had understandable reservations regarding the difficulties of being a consumer representative.[225] We recognise that it is more important to ensure the provision of information to the public and transparency of the regulatory process. Professor Bainbridge pointed out that "the information is there in the various web sites, in annual reports and things for those people that are prepared to seek it out".[226] Agendas and minutes of meetings are published as well as general information on GM issues, both as press releases and on the internet. Baroness Hayman attributed the reaction against GM food in part to "a lack of understanding and public knowledge of the very detailed work that does go into the regulation of these products".[227] She saw the role of Government as to establish "very open and transparent processes for regulation and scrutiny of new products to ensure that people's confidence is built

up again".[228] We agree, and we expect the Government to ensure similar principles apply in the work of the AEBC and the Food Standards Agency.

Conclusion

61. It is too early to judge whether the system set up in response to the Government's review of its advisory Committees on GM issues will deliver the coherent, transparent and effective procedures needed in this fraught area. We believe that it has the potential to do so and that gaps in the old structure have been closed by the new strategic commissions and the Food Standards Agency. However, it remains to be seen how this will work in practice and the delay in establishing the AEBC is a bad omen. As regards ministerial responsibilities, we recognise that here too we are in a period of transition before the Food Standards Agency begins its work. This will relieve MAFF of many of its responsibilities towards genetic modification, except for the agricultural implications of GM technology.[229] How far the new division of roles will affect the Government's ability to put out a coherent message on GM technology remains to be seen and is a question to which we and others will doubtless return.

203 Ev. p. 124. Back

204 Q 468. Back

205 Ibid. Back

206 ACRE Annual Report No. 5: 1998, p. 11. Back

207 Q 193. Back

208 Q 195; Ev. p. 82. Back

209 Q 397. Back

210 Q 402. Back

211 Ev. p. 82. Back