Examination of witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
TUESDAY 30 NOVEMBER 1999
MR STEPHEN
SMITH and MR
WILLY DE
GREEF
Mr Jack
100. Given your observations about the science
of not being able to have zero levels, do you think, in the sense
that consumers might understand these matters, there is going
to be real consumer choice between GM and non-GM, when it comes
to end products?
(Mr de Greef) I think, to the same extent that you
have the choice for other types of products, yes, that we can
guarantee, and, probably, given the amount of work done on these
products, we can guarantee at least as good as the best identity
preservation schemes for other types of food or other types of
material products that the consumer buys.
101. Given the consumer reaction so far, how
are you going to take their views into account in the future in
planning further developments certainly of GM seeds?
(Mr Smith) I think that is a very valid point, because,
regardless of regulation thresholds, or whatever, the public will
be the final arbiter of this technology's success or otherwise,
because I do not know any farmers yet that are willing to grow
produce that nobody will buy and is not subsequently consumed,
and identification with public interest is key, absolutely. And
that is a very critical point, that they will be the final arbitration
of the success. And it is in our interests to ensure that we do
address those concerns and deliver them, in terms of a confident
position on the elements of public concern, one of which is labelling
and choice, as long as that labelling and choice is not confused
with safety. If I put a label on me, unfortunately you may be
able to avoid me but I am no safer than I was before I put the
label on myself; and it is something I think is really quite important,
that labelling is a choice issue, not a food safety issue, that
is key.
102. In paragraph 1.8 of your evidence, you
conclude with the sentence: "We have experience of regulatory
systems in other countries where the topics of labelling and consumer
choice have been under consideration and resolved." That
is reassuring, but where has this happened, and how has it happened?
(Mr de Greef) I will give, as an example, Mr Chairman,
the case of Japan. Japan was relatively late on the novel food
issue about it, talking food labelling at this moment, but having
been relatively late the Japanese authorities took a very, very
wide consultation round of what happened in other places of the
world. And a lot of the actors in the European and North American
markets have been able to provide them with evidence, which led
them to leap-frog European regulations, if I may say so, by basically
identifying that they needed a threshold, they needed certifiable
control methods, and they needed to certify authorities or companies
that would do the control, and they put that straight into their
system. Something very similar happened even more recently in
Australia.
103. When you said just a second ago "authorities
or companies" to do that control, is the principal regulatory
mechanism in Japanese Government, or is it a combination of private
and public?
(Mr de Greef) It is the Government, but the actual
technical measurements very often are done by private companies.
It is the Government that puts the stamp of approval on it, but
the actual measurements, like in Europe, are mostly done by private
companies who specialise in diagnostics and in measuring technologies.
Mrs Organ
104. If we are saying that segregation is possible,
we can sort it out with labelling so that consumers can have choice,
that is all well and good, but would you not say that in the UK
market we have actually gone beyond that, the consumers have made
their decision with their feet, they do not want to buy the product,
so that our major supermarket chains have just stopped putting
it on the shelves? And, in fact, in Sainsbury's submission to
us they say Sainsbury's always wanted GM and standard crops to
be separated and were extremely disappointed when this did not
happen with the US soya crop: "in the absence of segregation
we had to take it upon ourselves to try and meet our customers'
demands for non-GM food products" and so they now take it
all off the shelves. If you look at what happened to them in the
period, they set up a hot line to give information and thousands
of people were ringing up because the public was very concerned,
and what they have done is they are just not going to buy it?
(Mr Smith) Yes, and, in response, they were one of
the two companies that sold the 3.5 million cans of genetically
modified tomato puree, which was on their shelves and clearly
labelled; so people do buy it when it is clearly labelled and
they have choice, that is clear. The public have concerns, they
will be the final arbiters, and we, as an industry grouping, must
identify with it. We also do not believe that this is the single
channel that will go forward, we are equally interested in investing
in organic agriculture, non-GM and GM, and they must live side
by side and must bring benefits. This technology, we believe,
has an ability to maintain productivity of safe food and clearly
lead to less dependency on some of the inputs that may be damaging
to our biodiversity. Those, we believe, are true benefits that
can be grasped by the consumer; they may not be consumer benefits
like enhanced vitamin A in rice, or removing the allergy from
peanuts, which is, I am sure, of interest to you, Madam.
105. And not the loss of consumers?
(Mr Smith) The important thing is that there are many
reasons, but an improvement in our maintenance of productivity
and quality and safe food, whilst being more sympathetic to our
environment, especially in the UK, where we farm 76 per cent of
our land area and have a large population, must be of consumer
benefit, in the same way that dolphin-friendly tuna fish is viewed
as a consumer benefit, even though it is more expensive to the
consumer, or eco-friendly detergent.
Mr Marsden
106. Novartis have supplied us, very kindly,
with two different submissions, totalling 11 pages, and you have
quite kindly taken the view that you believe there is a responsibility
by Novartis to discuss and put forward its views on the whole
food production process. As our Chairman alluded to before, Monsanto
have sent us three paragraphs on one page and basically said,
"Nothing to do with us, Guv," and I quote: "Monsanto's
involvement in crop production is limited to the first step of
both agriculture, agricultural supply chains and the supply of
seeds to the farmer." I just wondered, without necessarily
actually mentioning Monsanto, in particular, whether you actually
thought that attitude was irresponsible?
(Mr Smith) I do not think we should be asked to respond
to that in relation to that individual company. All I can say
is, from our perspective, our submission is related to our experience
in the industry, which by necessity is a food production industry,
it is not anything else, and, therefore, if you do not have some
degree of impact down the food chain then probably you are not
managing your business properly.
Mr Todd
107. One hundred per cent GM-free is not possible?
(Mr Smith) No.
108. You have suggested 98 per cent is; 98 per
cent of what? Because in your evidence you point to the fact that
the certified seed sector can provide assurances of between 5
and 0.5 of a per cent, so you start with the position of 95 per
cent certainty on your seed. Where are we at?
(Mr de Greef) I think that, first of all, we have
started from terrain that we know, we know a lot about preserving
seed purity, because that is our business. Then we have looked
at existing standards, and you will see some inconsistencies between
what was presented by SCIMAC and by us, that refers essentially
to the fact that the standards in the UK, on average, are higher
than in some other parts of the world. When I referred to 95 per
cent, for example, that may be in other countries where not the
same standards of purity for some crops are asked.
109. I think SCIMAC said 98 and 99.5.
(Mr de Greef) Yes, that is the source of that discrepancy.
(Mr Smith) Just to add, that would be the norm in
the broad acre, open pollinated crops in the UK, that is clear.
(Mr de Greef) From there on, what we can do is go
a step further, because if we want to guarantee that, at any batch,
you get 99.5 per cent purity, in practice, of course, technically,
you are targeting, you are setting the targets of your own people
in the production plant, and in the field, you set those targets
higher, to make sure that all the batches will actually meet the
target. But, again, this is standard practice, that is the way
we produce seeds; and we believe that we can give better assurances
of reaching the targets that public authorities set for us by
trying to work our way into this issue from ground that we know.
110. I understand that. So your answer is, firstly,
95 per cent is inferior to that achieved in this country anyway,
it would be possible to raise the standards elsewhere and refine
the standards here to achieve a certainty of 98 per cent or better,
but that is of seed. Now are you referring to 2 per cent being
a tolerance level on seed, or on the product that sits on the
shelf which the customer eats?
(Mr Smith) I think, first of all, in our submission,
you will clearly see that, although we started from the principle
that 2 per cent was something that could be applied to a global
production industry that has no 100 per cent guarantees in it
already, we are not applying this to a brand new industry, agriculture
is going on out there and GM will be subject to all the same certification
regulations that exist, plus other rigorous demands of regulation.
But we clearly see that a threshold is necessary and we are fully
supportive of the 1 per cent that is the direction of the agreed
legislation.
111. Yes; not quite what I was asking. What
I am trying to determine is, are we talking about 98 per cent
of seed being GM-free, or 98 per cent of the product that is at
the end of the food chain, with all the risks of contamination
that we have touched on already and will certainly address further
with other witnesses: which are we talking about?
(Mr de Greef) In our submission, we certainly refer
to the end product, and, when we talk about the 1 per cent threshold
there, we refer quite explicitly to the threshold that is now
being agreed in a European Union regulation; that means that,
as a seed producer, you have to go a bit beyond.
112. I was going to say, what you have got is,
if you start with a 2 per cent tolerance level of your seed, it
can only drop below that level, can it not, it cannot improve,
because the various stages that go between that and the plate
will only reduce that tolerance level? So the seed has to be significantly
higher than that, you might argue, to achieve a position where
the consumer says that it is 99 per cent GM-free on the supermarket
shelf. What level must it be for seed?
(Mr de Greef) The only country that is really near
term with determining that at this moment, that I am aware of,
is Switzerland. Switzerland was also, before the EU, setting the
1 per cent threshold for food, and they recognised exactly the
point that you are making. And at this moment there is a proposal
of regulation on the table which is proposing 0.8 per cent of
the level of seed.
113. Now is that feasible, in the seed sector?
The Swiss are saying yes, the UK achieves relatively high standards
but certainly could not achieve that now?
(Mr Smith) I would disagree with that. I think you
have to look at various—
114. They do not achieve it now; they perhaps
could?
(Mr Smith) They certainly can, and, in a great deal,
as I said, the self-pollinated crops, the evidence is already
there, through the certification scheme that has been in operation
for 30 years, through the MAFF and the National Institute of Agricultural
Botany, that would actually establish that we work to a higher
voluntary standard, which is in that region, and it can be improved.
I think, if I may, Chairman, would it be also appropriate if we
submitted the development of a seed from its breeding stock, which
is the original purity standards that meet the regulations of
value for cultivation and use, distinctiveness, uniformity and
stability, and then also submitted the process by which it actually
arrives at a farmer as seed?
Chairman
115. Yes, that would be very helpful.
(Mr Smith) I am not trying to be evasive, but that
is a long process and you may have many generations.
Mr Todd
116. The point I am trying to get here is, where
do we set these percentage barriers? If it is right at the start
of the process, with your supply of a certified seed, and then,
between then and the plate, there is the actual growing of the
crop, the shipping of the crop, the processing activity, and all
of the other things, then, clearly, if we are going to have something
which the consumer wants, because, to be honest, I do not think
the consumer is interested in the seed issue quite so much, they
are interested in what they are buying in a shop. So if they are
to be assured of a 99 per cent position on that then, logically,
your seed, and I would have said even 0.8 is very tight because
it leaves very little space for any errors or difficulties in
the growing of the crop, in the manufacturing process, in the
shipment, and so on?
(Mr Smith) Clearly, I think you have picked the consumer's
position right, but they must have confidence that down below
there are systems involved actually to deliver that. I think that
is clearly the important thing.
117. The last point, which is, who certifies
this process? So you assure us and say it is 98 per cent, or whatever
figure we are going to say is the target; do we just take your
word for it and say, well, in your terms you have said the industry
would die if we had got these kinds of things wrong, clearly your
word must be serious, or do we set up some arrangement to ensure
that we have an independent arbiter of this?
(Mr de Greef) Why does industry ask to be regulated;
it asks for independent advice.
118. Normally, for commercial advantage.
(Mr de Greef) Because it is to our advantage, certainly.
Because industry by itself has limited credibility, I am weighing
my words, therefore industry has also the technical capabilities
to work up to standards that are imposed by public authority,
but it will still want the independent verification of the quality
of its work and the stamp of approval, which provides credibility.
(Mr Smith) Could I add just one thing, please, I think
it is very important. It is the fact that because the material
is GM or non-GM it will undergo exactly the same statutory assessment
for purity in seed production; so there will already be checks
and balances on the genetic purity of that material, whether it
is GM or non-GM. Those regulations already exist and are enforced
by MAFF and NIAB. So there is no distinction there. Genetic purity
is genetic purity, whether it is a GM material or a non-GM material.
Mr Todd: Last question. If you were to add up
the cost of the additional processes that you would have to go
through to achieve the percentage performances you are talking
about, and add in the likely regulatory burden to the public of
ensuring that what you have done is actually done, has anyone
measured whether GM crops actually have an economic advantage
after that process has been followed?
Chairman
119. It is a good question.
(Mr de Greef) It is indeed an important question,
and, just like the only real arbiter for acceptability of GM food
is the consumer, the only real arbiter who can answer your question
is the farmer, because the modern farmer is a manager and he is
an accountant.
|
