APPENDIX 28
Memorandum submitted by the Department
of Environment, Transport and the Regions (R 42)
INTRODUCTION
1. This Memorandum responds to the Committee's
request for evidence on "the issues raised by segregation
of genetically modified crops" which fall under the competence
of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
(DETR). It complements the separate Memorandum on the agricultural
implications of this question being submitted by the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF).
2. DETR's responsibilities for the regulation
and control of genetically modified (GM) crops are an aspect of
its wider statutory responsibilities for the prevention or minimisation
of any damage to the environment from the release and marketing
of any genetically modified organism (GMO). The Memorandum summarises
the main features of these responsibilities, and their relationship
to EU obligations and to the responsibilities of other governmental
bodies, before dealing more specifically with the Department's
role in farm scale evaluations of GM crops. The Memorandum also
summarises the environmental safety considerations of relevant
segregation issues.
MAIN FEATURES
OF CONTROL
AND REGULATION
OF GMO RELEASES
3. DETR co-ordinates statutory and operational
requirements in Great Britain in relation to the release and marketing
of all GMOs, including plants, animals and micro-organisms, or
preparations or products containing or consisting of GMOs. Similar
requirements apply in Northern Ireland, but are controlled under
separate legislation.
4. DETR's role in Great Britain is exercised,
as appropriate, in co-operation with the devolved administrations,
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Health
and Safety Executive. The devolved administrations are responsible
for issuing their own consents in appropriate cases. Expert scientific
and other advice is provided by the Advisory Committee on Releases
to the Environment (ACRE) supported by a secretariat of scientifically
qualified officials.
5. "Release" in the context of
the regulatory and control system refers to the deliberate removal
of any physical, chemical or biological barriers which prevent
or limit the contact of a particular GMO or GMOs with the environment.
Such deliberate releases are usually for the purpose of small-scale
research, development or experimental trials, such as those for
new plant varieties. "Marketing" refers to the clearance
of products consisting of or containing GMOs for sale and use
throughout the European Union.
6. The broad framework for the release and
marketing of GMOs in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is based
on, and structured in conformity with, EC Directive 90/220/EEC
on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically
Modified Organisms. The Directive was implemented in Great Britain
by Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Genetically
Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, made
under the 1990 Act. EC decisions allowing for the adaptation of
the Directive to technical progress were reflected in amendments
to the 1992 Regulations made in 1995 and 1997.
7. The main features of this Europe-wide
framework for the regulation and control of releases of GMOs to
the environment are, in summary:
— all experimental releases of GMOs
require a consent from a national competent authority;
— the issue of any consent by a competent
authority can only proceed after certain minimum, science-based,
information requirements have been satisfied;
— all EU member states have the opportunity
to comment on information notified to competent authorities in
connection with release consent applications;
— all release consents issued by a
competent authority may include general or specific conditions,
including requirements for post release monitoring and reports;
— a consent to market products consisting
of or including GMOs may only be issued by a competent authority
following Community wide clearance; and
— any product for which a marketing
consent is issued by a competent authority in accordance with
the Directive may be sold and used throughout the EU.
8. The basic principle underlying this framework
is that the widespread commercial use of any GMO or GMO-based
products should only proceed after it can be shown that the risk
of any potentially adverse effects on the environment can be prevented,
controlled or minimised.
9. In most cases, this implies a step-by-step
approach. In the case of GM crops, for example, the starting point
would be contained greenhouse development, followed by small and
then larger scale experimental trials, proceeding finally to commercial
use. At each stage, progress from one step to the next may only
be taken when it is clear that any risks to human health and the
environment will be prevented or minimised.
10. In reviewing the operation of Directive
90/220 EU Environment Ministers have agreed that certain changes
are needed to strengthen this risk based, step-by-step approach
to the release and marketing of GMOs. These changes include better
risk assessment procedures, requirements for traceability, post-marketing
monitoring and time-limited consents for GMO products, as well
as more explicit requirements in relation to public consultation
and labelling. Ministers reached political agreement in June 1999
to incorporate these changes in a revised Directive, which is
expected to be adopted in the year 2000.
FARM SCALE
EVALUATIONS OF
GM CROPS
11. At the current time no GM crops have
completed all the regulatory requirements necessary for them to
be grown unrestricted in the UK for commercial purposes. Three
GM crop varieties of maize have received EU wide clearance under
the Directive 90/220, but await approval for use under the seeds
legislation. However, as part of the process of reviewing the
Directive, EU Environment Ministers took a key decision in December
1998 affecting the evaluation of GM crops for these purposes.
This was to use the existing flexibility of the Directive to require
that the risk assessment of any new applications for releases
of GMOs should include an assessment of all direct, indirect,
immediate and delayed effects of on the environment.
12. In order to implement this new risk
assessment procedure immediately in relation to GM crops, the
Government has reached an agreement with the group of producers,
suppliers and users forming the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified
Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC). Under the agreement, a programme
of Government-funded farm scale evaluations is being conducted
in relation to three GM crops nearing approval for general cultivation
under the EU scheme for the Europe-wide clearance of the marketing
of GMO products described above. The crops concerned are herbicide
tolerant oil seed rape, fodder maize and fodder beet.
13. All these crops have already been assessed,
under the EU scheme, for potential risks to the environment arising
from the plants themselves or from their use as animal feed. The
four-year programme of Farm Scale Biodiversity Evaluations will,
however, compare the effect on farmland wildlife of growing and
managing the GM crops using their companion herbicide with their
non-GM equivalents grown conventionally.
14. Plantings for these evaluations are
limited to 20-25 fields per crop year subject to the advice and
requirement of an independent Scientific Steering Committee. Proposals
for any other field scale plantings will be decided by the Committee
taking into account the relevance of such proposals to biodiversity.
None of the produce from the plantings in the UK will be used
in a way which is of direct commercial benefit to the consent-holders
during the evaluation period. Should any GM crop grown in the
UK receive full clearance during the evaluation period, the agreement
with SCIMAC provides that the resulting produce will be used "within
identity preserved channels which will ensure that consumer choice
can at all times be respected".
15. The effect of the agreement is that
there will be no widespread planting leading to general market
access of the GM crops concerned until after the evaluations are
complete in 2002. Although the evaluations are not themselves
directed, in terms of environmental safety, at ensuring the segregation
of GM from non-GM crops, this timescale means that it is likely
that adoption and implementation of the revised Directive 90/220
will be complete before the evaluations are complete. The more
stringent requirements in the proposed revised Directive in relation
to labelling, traceability, monitoring and time-limited marketing
consents for GMOs products, combined with increasing commercial
pressure, is therefore likely to have a significant and increasing
influence on the way GM-crops are handled in comparison to their
non-GM counterparts.
SEGREGATION ISSUES:
POLLEN TRANSFER
AND SEPARATION
DISTANCES
16. The Advisory Committee on Releases to
the Environment (ACRE) fully considers the likelihood of cross-pollination
when reviewing the risk assessment of all applications to release
GM crops.
17. ACRE accepts that some pollen flow beyond
the boundaries of the release sites is inevitable and therefore
focuses on the consequences. It is not the purpose of the separation
distances between GM and non-GM crops to isolate completely GM
crops from the surrounding environment. Separation distances are
used purely as a precautionary measure to reduce any cross-pollination.
ACRE has advised that current separation distances are sufficient
to ensure safety to human health and the environment.
18. The SCIMAC guidelines lay down the separation
distances for farm scale trial crops. They use internationally
recognised isolation distances based on 50 years experience to
maintain seed purity across the world, These distances have stood
the test of time, and give a seed purity in excess of 99.5 per
cent.
GM CROPS AS
WEEDS
19. It is often said that GM crops, particularly
those that are designed to be herbicide tolerant, have the potential
to become persistent weeds and could be environmentally damaging
if they "escaped" from agricultural fields to invade
natural habitats.
20. All of our common crops have been bred
and selected to grow in well managed agricultural fields but they
are not good weeds because they do not compete well with wild
plants especially in undisturbed ecosystems. A GM crop plant would
only become a weed if something was changed or added to give it
a survival advantage or make it more competitive/ persistent in
the wild. Herbicide tolerance alone will not do this because in
the absence of the herbicide the GM crop has no more advantage
than any other crop. It is difficult to see how herbicide tolerance
would make a GM plant better at invading natural habitats where
herbicides are not used.
21. However, if the crop was made more frost
hardy or resistant to insect pests and diseases then it is conceivable
that it would have a survival advantage and might become a better
weed. The likelihood of this happening is considered in detail
by ACRE during the risk assessment of all GM crops before they
are released. If there were any reason to believe that the genetic
modification would make the crop more invasive or persistent then
it would not get approval.
TRANSFER OF
GM CHARACTERISTICS TO
WILD RELATIVES
BY CROSS-POLLINATION
22. The chance of cross-pollination happening
will depend greatly on the particular GM crop and whether or not
it has any wild relatives in the countryside. For example, GM
maize need cause little concern because there are no sexually
compatible weed relatives here in the UK but, in contrast, oilseed
rape has several wild relatives.
23. The likelihood of genes "escaping"
into wild relatives is also considered by ACRE in the risk assessment.
Experimental releases of GM crops often have risk management conditions
attached that are designed to reduce the spread of GM pollen from
the test site. In the case of GM oilseed rape, ACRE will always
assume that cross-pollination to wild relatives will occur and
then considers what the consequences might be.The transfer of
herbicide tolerance to weeds will only give them a survival advantage
if the weeds are sprayed with the herbicide. Outside agricultural
fields, where the herbicide is not used, they will be no different,
or no more "super", than any other weeds.
24. Weeds present in agriculture are already
tolerant to a range of herbicides since most herbicides are only
active in certain species and this has nothing to do with GM crops.
If GM crops did add to the herbicide tolerance already present,
then ACRE's view is that this would be more of a farming problem
rather than an environmental one. If herbicide tolerant crops
no longer gave any benefit they would not be used and this is
clearly not in the interests of farmers or the biotechnology companies.
HERBICIDE TOLERANT
GM CROPS AND
THE USE
OF CHEMICALS
25. Within any field of crops, the farmer's
objective is to minimise the number of weeds, which occur. Currently
this is done by various applications of different herbicides to
get the right balance between controlling the weeds but not killing
the crop. GM crops that are tolerant to broad spectrum herbicides,
such as glyphosate or glufosinate, will allow farmers to spray
without fear of damaging their crops.
26. At present, we do not know for sure
what GM herbicide tolerant crops will mean for the amount of herbicide
used, but in practice, it is most likely that the pattern of herbicides
used will change. Less types of product will be used, and probably
in reduced quantities. Nevertheless, greater dependence on broad
spectrum herbicides has led to fears that farmers may become over
enthusiastic in their weed control. Too much weed control could
reduce the amount of food available for insects, birds and small
mammals, resulting in a reduction in farmland biodiversity. That
said, the use of broad spectrum contact and systemic herbicides
may reduce the need for ploughing and thus help to conserve soil
animals and reduce erosion. More information on these questions
will be gained from the programme of farm-scale evaluations.
SEGREGATION AND
ORGANIC FARMING
27. There has been a lot of concern recently
that GM crops might interfere with organic farming, particularly
by cross-pollination of organic crops. MAFF takes the lead responsibility
for looking after the interests of organic farmers. MAFF has brought
together organic accreditation bodies (UKROFS—the United
Kingdom Register for Organic Food Standards), and GM farming representatives
(SCIMAC—the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural
Crops), to discuss ways in which a consensus can be reached on
how organic and GM farming can coexist.
11 January 2000
| 
