Examination of witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
TUESDAY 30 NOVEMBER 1999
DR ROGER
TURNER, DR
DAVID CARMICHAEL,
MR PAUL
ROOKE and MR
DANIEL PEARSALL
Chairman
20. If we have any technical questions like
this on these issues we might come back to you with other requests.
(Dr Turner) Yes, we can provide you with more details.
21. What scientific validation have you had
for your guidelines?
(Dr Turner) The guidelines went out, and we had 40-plus
consultations back from people, and that was a whole range of
people; as well as that, we talked to people at John Innes Institute,
and at Rothamsted as well, and talked to them specifically about
the issues of pollen flow, gene flow and things like that. And,
again, as I said, we came back to, not to reinvent the wheel,
based entirely on the success of the certified seed industry;
so they have been scientifically validated.
22. Is that a formal validation process, or
have you just sort of gone out for a casual consultation and people
have said, "Oh, yes, that looks alright to me"?
(Dr Turner) No; no, we had written responses, from
something like 40-plus organisations, and as well as that we had
individual discussions with individual scientists.
23. I am just a bit nervous about this, because
I still think that you are, understandably, I do not criticise
this, protagonists for GM technology, or people who tend to favour
it. I would have thought that you would have wanted to get the
clearest possible scientific endorsement for what you are suggesting,
and actually you might have paid for some proper analysis of your
guidelines. Have you not done that; have you just relied on people
giving free responses to a consultation?
(Mr Pearsall) I think it is important to remember
that the guidelines did go through a process of evaluation and
endorsement by Government, and that did include the Independent
Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. And it is noteworthy,
I think, recently, that the Acting Chairman of the Advisory Committee
on Releases to the Environment, Professor Alan Gray, indicated
that there was no scientific reason for changing or modifying
the guideline separation distances set out within SCIMAC. I think
it is also important to remember that the SCIMAC guidelines are
not a substitute for regulation, they are a stewardship programme
that the industry, voluntarily, has developed, because the industry
believes that this is a technology which should be stewarded,
should be fostered, that we should not turn our backs on. We should
retain an open mind in its development.
Mr Todd
24. You have stressed the link to the certified
seed sector and the continuity in the process that you are following
here. What degree of tolerance level is imposed in the certified
seed sector for contamination or `adventitious presence', as I
think it is called?
(Dr Turner) That depends on the crop, the levels vary
from crop to crop but they are all 98 per cent plus. They are
actually regulations that say it must not contain more than so
many wild oat seeds, so many this, so much extraneous material;
those are the regulations. But the industry works to HVS, which
is higher voluntary standards, they enforce a higher level of
purity than that; but it does vary from crop to crop.
25. Have you got a typical example?
(Dr Turner) If you are talking cereals, you are talking
99.5 per cent purity, in terms of the genetics and freedom from
contamination, and that, I would submit, is pretty damn good.
26. So 0.5 per cent not?
(Dr Turner) It could be, yes.
27. So, when someone purchases it, 0.5 per cent
is not what they bought; and, at the lower end of that scale,
that is presumably one of the higher end you have quoted, I think
you said 98 per cent of the others?
(Dr Turner) As I say, it varies from crop to crop.
28. Yes; quote a lower example?
(Dr Turner) The lower example would be around 98 per
cent, 98.5.
29. So the crop would be covered by that?
(Dr Turner) Yes, that would be something like oilseed
rape.
Chairman
30. Dr Turner, your guidelines have actually
been used in trials now, have they not; what has been the feedback
on them, and how effective have they been, how onerous have they
been?
(Dr Turner) We have had them independently audited
this year by NIAB. The field-scale planting exercise, the seven
farms this year, have all been independently inspected by trained
inspectors from NIAB. I think we have had a very good feedback
from them, in the sense that the guidelines have been used. They
have been followed as rigorously as they can be. There are one
or two minor areas that obviously we need to get slightly better
on, and they are to do with the detailed understanding of how
you actually manage the crop and the crop in the rotation, and
I think those are part of that learning process.
Mrs Organ
31. Moving on from that, you said that this
is a sort of stewardship programme, voluntarily entered into;
so who is responsible for monitoring that the growers of GM crops
comply with your guidelines?
(Dr Carmichael) It is, again, very similar to the
seed production industry. We are monitored on at least three occasions
during the season to see that the crop has been grown properly
and appropriately. Firstly, NIAB, the National Institute of Agricultural
Botany, will monitor that the crop is grown completely according
to the requirements and the schedules; they are able to come on
to the farm at any time. If I am going to have a seed crop inspected,
I get a `phone call about half an hour before the inspector arrives
to say he is coming, will I be available to identify where the
field is, and if I am not there he can still come on because it
is identified by an OS number; he will come on and inspect, and
then his inspections are also vetted by sort of a super-audit
body, to ensure that his inspections are complete and are rigorous.
So we have a two-stage audit process of all the crops, in this
trial phase of production of GM crops.
32. At the moment, of course, we are only on
field trials or farm trials, but, if we were to move forward,
how are we going to keep up this level of inspection of others
and yourselves to keep to your guidelines; there are going to
be more inspectors than there are farmers, are there not?
(Dr Carmichael) No. There are not particularly many
inspectors for growing seed crops now, but they are able to cope,
right around the country. We anticipate doing an exactly parallel
system for the GMOs.
33. You said earlier, Dr Carmichael, that "we
have to check every lorry before it leaves the farm;" how
do you do that: every lorry?
(Dr Carmichael) Yes. My staff is required to do that
and, in fact, they have to sign a document before it leaves the
farm, the passport document, to say they have done it. The inspection
entails lifting the tail-gate on the lorry, or climbing up into
the lorry, to see that there are no traces of other crops present
in the lorry from the past load. It is essential for my protection,
because if I load a lorry, or if my staff load a lorry, with extraneous
material in it I can lose entirely the value of that seed crop,
because, I know, as soon as it gets to the seed production factory
it is going to be checked as well; so I have to do it, and it
is done now.
34. I am just a little bit confused about it,
if you are saying that every lorry is being checked before it
leaves the farm in this way, how can we possibly manage that?
I just do not believe that this is actually deliverable.
(Dr Carmichael) That is the least of the problems,
frankly, because, in my case, the lorry will be loaded by a man
with a one-tonne loader; before he takes any grain from store,
he will climb into the lorry to check, it is only a two- or three-minute
job.
35. But the field trials and the farm trials
are not all mixed together, or clustered together, we are talking
about people going all over the country to do this, at particular
times, when the lorry is leaving the farm; how do you co-ordinate
all that?
(Dr Turner) I come back to the certified seed situation
again. That is being done at the moment, as I said earlier, for
particular end uses; where those crops are going into an identity-preserved
chain that happens routinely.
36. Can I just ask you, I understand that those
farmers who are involved as growers of GM crops may have confidence
and understanding of your monitoring process, what have you done
to give confidence to those growers of non-GM crops that own a
surrounding farm? You say this is your monitoring process, this
is your stewardship programme; what information, what publicity,
what contacts have you had with others?
(Dr Carmichael) I have been willing to grow a GM crop,
and I have six farms, or six different farmers, surrounding the
field in which I would grow it. I have been to each of those farms
in turn, I have talked to each farmer in turn, I have left literature
with him, and I have identified the separation distance and assured
him that that will be met. I should add that, of those six, four
are totally in support of the action I am taking because they
believe that farming does need the farm-scale trials to go ahead,
and so they are interested in seeing these trials, in understanding
what is going on and they have been back to me to find out what
is happening next. Two of the farms are concerned, for one reason
or another, and they are not interested in proceeding with GM
trialling. So that is, of the six around me, two are agnostic,
if you like, and four are very interested in seeing the completion
of the trials.
37. That sounds pretty good practice, Dr Carmichael,
but not every grower in a field trial may take that action. Do
you not think that there is a role for SCIMAC actually to be giving
out information and publicity and more material? You said at the
beginning that you expected some public interest, it has gone
much greater than that, we know that 50 per cent of the NFU are
not pleased as punch about the idea of GM. Do you not believe
that you do have a role to put out information about your guidelines
and your process to others?
(Mr Pearsall) There is a requirement in the guidelines
to notify neighbouring growers where there is a planting which
would cross another boundary with a neighbouring grower. I think
in this very initial phase there is a great deal of consultation
going on by the specific trial growers, given the level of interest
and concern that is being expressed about the technology. I would
like to refer again to the seed certification system which requires
by statute separation distances to be observed between farmers
and their neighbouring growers, and that covers something in the
order of 9 per cent of the UK arable area. And this is a system
which has worked effectively for 30 years, and involves a requirement
for farmers to consult with their neighbours and to reach decisions
on planting strategies which will enable the non seed grower to
carry out his normal commercial business, as well as the seed
grower to grow a seed crop which meets those specifications. And,
again, it is a model that is proven and it is robust over more
than 30 years in this country.
38. But, in order for GM crops to be really
successful, we have to persuade, do we not, the consumer, the
end of the food chain, that this is being monitored and is safe?
One of the problems that we have had in my constituency is, we
have a field trial and the parish council, individuals living
within the area, not necessarily farmers, wanted to know about
it, maybe they kept bees, maybe they had smallholdings, maybe
they kept vegetables in their gardens, and had no information
and could not get information about it. Do you not believe that
you have a role to take your message out to the general public,
the consumer, as well?
(Mr Pearsall) I am unclear as to which message it
is that needs to be got over.
39. About the compliance, and about the effect
of your guidelines and what actually is being done to monitor?
(Mr Pearsall) I think there is increasing awareness
of the role of the farm-scale evaluation programme, which stretches
now for the next three years. That is clear; it is there to answer
questions that are being raised about biodiversity, and, the farmers
involved, certainly SCIMAC encourages them to engage in consultation
and dialogue not just with their neighbouring farmers but with
the local community as well. That is an important part of engaging
in this process.
(Dr Carmichael) I would certainly agree with you though
that the farmer conducting a farm-scale trial should relate to
his neighbourhood. I have spoken to the local parish councillor—
|
