Select Committee on Agriculture Third Report


THE SEGREGATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

62. Baroness Hayman told us that, in the context of segregation issues, "there are lots of areas where more work is needed to be done and it is quite detailed, difficult, technical work that then requires quite an input of policy, judgement and proportionality".[230] The Government is "tackling this seriatim". Achieved were the labelling of food in restaurants, additives and flavourings, and the 1% threshold. Next on the agenda were the definitions of 'GM-free' and animal feed.[231] This shopping list illustrates the complexities of the implications of segregation issues for consumers. We believe that the bottom line is that the consumer must be able to choose GM or non-GM foods and be certain that they are getting what they are paying for by means of labelling backed up by full traceability. We have received no evidence that genetically modified foods which have passed the approval process present any risk to human health but we recognise that there are reasons of personal and professional choice why consumers might wish not to consume such foods and why farmers might wish to protect their crops from cross-pollination by genetically modified crops. The Government expressed the view in its evidence that "segregation would have been a better way of introducing GM crops onto the UK market".[232] In hindsight, this cannot be doubted but the question is what can be done now to ensure that consumers are given the choice of properly labelled GM, non-GM and GM-free products. Our examination of the issues involved convinces us that the agriculture and food industries can and will deliver these products as a result of market forces. We are not yet convinced that the UK Government or the EU are equally prepared and we urge the Government to take the steps recommended in this Report to improve its record in this area.

63. Our other principal conclusions and recommendations are as follows:


The debate on GM technology
  
(a)We believe that it is vital that the confusion over GMs 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 (paragraph 1).
  
Principles of the Report
  
(b)The principles of transparency, inclusiveness, a duty to explain and choice have driven our recommendations and we commend them to the Government (paragraph 4).
  
GM-free and non-GM
  
(c)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 (paragraph 9).
  
(d)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 (paragraph 52).
  
Separation distances
  
(e)We recommend that the Government ensure that the separation distances set out in the SCIMAC guidelines be reviewed if there is clear evidence of cross-pollination taking place within the existing guidelines and any necessary revisions implemented in the next round of field trials. If such a review becomes necessary, we would expect all interested parties to be represented on it (paragraph 13).
  
SCIMAC guidelines
  
(f)We conclude that the SCIMAC guidelines are a practical approach to crop-handling procedures on a particular farm (paragraph 15).
  
(g)We believe that the self-regulatory arrangements need to be clearly endorsed by Government so that they have equivalent status to statutorily based guidelines. However, we also consider that such statutory guidelines should only be imposed if they are part of a uniform arrangement across the EU (paragraph 24).
  
(h)We believe that the SCIMAC guidelines offer a firm basis on which to build in order to segregate GM and non-GM crops in the UK countryside. We have identified areas where improvements are needed but we conclude that an acceptable level of segregation can be achieved without incurring excessive costs (paragraph 25).
  
Notification
  
(i)We believe that notification should be compulsory, that the notification zone should at least match the separation distances and that SCIMAC must work harder to ensure that the views of neighbouring farmers and other directly interested parties are taken into account in the planting of GM crops (paragraph 19).
  
(j)We believe that we should not give the impression that there is something inherently dangerous about GM crops which warrants rules different from any other circumstance. On balance, we believe that there is a real problem in requiring a public register for one category of crops only. Either a product is safe or it is not safe. If it is safe, it should take its place on an equal footing with other crops (paragraph 19).
  
Organic farming
  
(k)We welcome the ongoing discussions between SCIMAC and representatives of organic farming as the right approach to the difficulties GMOs present to the organic sector. It would be as wrong for an organic farmer to prevent his neighbour growing GM crops as for a farmer planting GM maize to put his neighbour's organic crop, and therefore livelihood, in jeopardy. A modus vivendi must be found and written into the guidelines to ensure that the special circumstances of organic farmers are recognised. The two types of farming are equally legal and neither should be subject to discrimination (paragraph 22).
  
Liability
  
(l)We recommend that the Government resolve the issue of legal liability on an EU-wide basis as a matter of urgency and aim to have the necessary measures in place before any commercial plantings of GM crops are permitted (paragraph 26).
  
Field trials
  
(m)We recommend that the Government maintain the programme of GM crop field trials as planned, and that all steps are taken to ensure that experiments are not scaled down below the size calculated to produce reliable and scientifically sound results and that they are protected from interference (paragraph 28).
  
Animal feed
  
(n)We recommend that the Government press the European Commission for an early consideration of a workable and transparent labelling regime for meat and dairy products derived from animals fed on GM materials and for labelling of the feed itself (paragraph 34).
  
Conclusion on segregation
  
(o)We conclude that segregation of GM and non-GM crops is possible without incurring excessive costs to the consumer (paragraph 36).
  
(p)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 (paragraph 39).
  
Labelling and thresholds
  
(q)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. We recommend that the Government put forward proposals to this effect (paragraph 46).
  
(r)We are attracted to the 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 (paragraph 47).
  
(s)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 (paragraph 48).
  
(t)We recognise that the anomalies created by the legislation on GM labelling 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 (paragraph 49).
  
Testing
  
(u)We agree with the Government that it is not necessary to prescribe how testing is carried out, as long as it reaches the required standard, but we believe that some assistance may be required to ensure that local authorities are properly equipped to perform their consumer protection role for GM products (paragraph 51).
  
Conclusion on the availability of products
  
(v)In the end it is the market which will decide on how best to meet consumer demands (paragraph 55).
  
Regulatory structures
  
(w)We recommend that the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission be established as matter of urgency (paragraph 59).
  
(x)We 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 (paragraph 59).
  
(y)We expect the Government to ensure the principles of openness and transparency apply in the work of the AEBC and the Food Standards Agency (paragraph 60).



230  Q 592. Back

231  IbidBack

232  Ev. p. 92. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 7 March 2000