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
212 Q
469. Back
213 Ev.
p. 82. Back
214 Q
470. Back
215 Q
471. Back
216 Q
471. Back
217 Ev.
p. 94. Back
218 Q
196. Back
219 Ev.
p. 124. Back
220 Q
480. Back
221 Ev.
p. 94. Back
222 Q
480. Back
223 Ev.
p. 124. Back
224 Q
278. Back
225 Q
486. Back
226 Q
431. Back
227 Q
507. Back
228 Q
507. Back
229 Q
478. Back