Examination of witnesses (Questions 186
- 199)
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 1999
DR PHILIP
DALE and PROFESSOR
ALAN GRAY
Chairman
186. Gentlemen, welcome to this second session
of the Committee's inquiry into genetically modified foods and
the segregation issues. As I think you understand, this inquiry
is primarily about how you can protect choice, it is not about
the merits of the technology as such, although inevitably from
time to time our questioning does stray into those areas. However,
the principal issue is about choice. May I first express my real
gratitude to you both for going to the trouble of writing such
helpful written memoranda. We are going to have something of a
tutorial from you this morning. We need to learn and we are very,
very grateful to you both for agreeing to be our tutors. May I
ask you each individually to introduce yourself. We have your
CVs so we know something of your track record, but perhaps if
you could summarise your track record in the area and very briefly
give us an overview of what you have learned about the issues,
which are relevant to our inquiry as a result of the work which
you have undertaken. Would that be possible?
(Dr Dale) Thank you for the invitation to participate
in this. I am a research scientist trained in plant genetics.
As the subject developed I moved into the development of genetic
modification methods and then later into assessing the safety
of genetically modified crops for food and for the environment.
This has included measuring gene flow and measuring the possibility
of mixing one crop with another. So I and others have generated
data on the likelihood of pollination between one crop and another
and various aspects to do with the possibility of mixing. I have
believed, right from the start, that the future value and use
of genetically modified crops would be served best by giving the
consumer and the farmer choice. So the consumer needs to be able
to choose, as far as is possible, products that do not have genetically
modified components in them; and farmers and consumers need to
have the choice to choose genetically modified crops if they wish.
The difficulty at the moment is that because of what has happened,
that many have the choice to have food and crops without GM in
them, but it is very difficult for those of us who believe that
there is an important future in GM crops, for the future of our
agriculture and the future of our environment, that they can make
a useful contribution to these. We have been denied largely the
choice of genetically modified crops and food ingredients.
187. That is a reversal sometimes of the position
which is widely perceived. Thank you.
(Professor Gray) I too am a research scientist. Unlike
Phil Dale I have worked principally with wild plants, with natural
populations of plants, and my interest has been in genetic variation
and the reasons why they vary in the traits they have and how
they are inherited. That has involved us in study of gene flow,
cross-pollination and hybridisation between different populations.
In more recent times, principally in relation to the GM issue,
I have been interested in gene flow between crops and some of
their wild relatives in the British countryside because there
is a limited number of our crops which can, and presumably have
been for some time, exchanging genes; (and in a future scenario
this might include transgenes, genes which have been put there
by modern biotechnology), with their wild relatives. That has
been my research and interest, looking at how far genes travel,
how well plants survive when they have new genes in them from
different plants and so on. I share Philip Dale's enthusiasm for
choice and people having choice. This has been a constant source
of concern for those of us involved in the regulatory side or
advising on the regulations of GM crops; but this choice, both
as he says, to eat products or to use products which are in some
sense GM free, is a difficult thing for us to define. Also, where
possible, where those farmers around the world who have taken
out this technology with enormous enthusiasm, that their choice
too is maintained.
188. Thank you. I just want to make sure we
have this right. Dr Dale, you are a member of the Advisory Committee
on Novel Foods and Processes, and the Advisory Committee on Releases
to the Environment, ACRE, the sub-group of that. Is that right?
(Dr Dale) Yes. I was a member of ACRE for six years.
I came off earlier this year but I am on the sub-Committee which
is looking at wider biodiversity issues. I am a member of the
Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.
189. Professor Gray, you are acting Chairman
of ACRE?
(Professor Gray) Yes.
Mr Curry
190. Professor Gray mentioned the phrase, "GM
free, a difficult thing to define". Could you explain what
you mean by that?
(Professor Gray) The difficulty is relating the amount
of actual gene or the protein the gene makes in, say, a hybrid
between a plant which has the gene and a plant which does not
have the gene, and the final commodity. This could be quite different
in things like oil or maize—flour that is fed in proportions
that may be quite different in the final product to those which
are in the original hybridisation. So you might talk about a percentage
of hybridisations if you were using certified seed but that might
be quite different from the percentage ...
191. You were not suggesting that you might
have a plant which was AC/DC?
(Professor Gray) No.
Chairman: We will probably pursue these questions
of what is GM free a little later.
Mr Curry
192. But it goes into it?
(Professor Gray) Yes, that is right. It is what is
the percentage, the proportions and so on. How it is defined in
relation to the final item that you have.
Chairman
193. That is the final issue. One that we will
be looking at this morning. Mr Todd will be doing that later.
Just on these two committees, I have to say I do find the regulatory
arrangements a little baffling sometimes. The division between
MAFF and the public environment is sometimes also a little bit
difficult to understand. I wonder if you could describe the work
of these two committees and what you actually do on them; perhaps
to help us to understand how these function. I suppose we ought
to begin with the Chairman really.
(Professor Gray) As you say, I am acting Chairman
of the Advisory Committee on Releases. The Committee comprises
a group of independents, largely scientists. There are ecologists.
There are molecular geneticists, people who understand the genetics,
they can characterise what goes into anything that comes before
them. There are some farmers. There is somebody who has been concerned
with sustainable agriculture. There is quite a range of expertise.
They are independent experts, on the basis of their science and
the advice they can give. We deal on a case-by-case basis. The
day-to-day business is a case-by-case consideration of the applications
from industry or from the universities to release genetically
modified materials; it has been mainly crops and things like vaccines
and so on, which have been looked at. So on this case-by-case
basis, in most of these cases these are for specific trials for
research and development. The companies want to grow the plants,
see how well characterised they are, and whether they do what
they were designed to do, by the people who put the genes in them.
These are so-called part B releases, limited trials of limited
size. The dossiers come to us, having been dealt with by the Secretariat
of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
At the same time, those dossiers are seen by other interested
organisations: e.g. MAFF. They go to Scotland, conservation agencies
and so on, so there is wide consultation at that stage. We discuss
these individual dossiers and offer our opinion, our advice, which
we are statutorily obliged so to do, to the environment minister
on a particular release: whether it is safe or whether it carries
an effectively zero risk to the environment. In more recent times,
beginning in 1994 but with something of a gap, the Committee has
considered so-called part C releases. These are to place on the
market—these are the big issues as far as you are concerned,
I imagine—which may come to us either from the DETR, who
may be the competent authority within Europe to deal with it,
or it may come from another Member State. So from one of the 15
Member States, we may get their competent authority's deliberations
on this release. There are periods of time: 90 days if we were
the competent authority and 60 days otherwise, when we have to
consider this particular application and give advice. So this
is our bread and butter. This is what ACRE principally does. We
advise the Minister on consents and we will attach conditions
to consents where we may have anxiety about managing the risks
involved. We also, from time to time, look at other sorts of releases:
releases of insects for biological control. We advise on the research
which we think is important to underpin the risk assessment process.
We identify gaps. There are quite a lot in our knowledge of the
risks posed by a particular gene in a particular plant. We advise
that this research is funded. This is our statutory role within
the Advisory Committee.
194. There has been concern expressed that these
committees are dominated by those who either have a vested interest
or an intellectual interest in promoting GM technology. Do you
understand those criticisms?
(Professor Gray) I understand them. I do not accept
them. I have not worked on both committees. I have worked on the
committee which recently Phil Dale has joined (ACNFP). In ACRE
I was impressed throughout by the incredible care with which each
issue was considered. The range of expertise and integrity is
a tremendous tribute to public service, in my own view. Whenever
there was a potential interest this was declared. The whole committee
has been concerned from its beginnings with transparency. The
minutes are published on the DETR web, where possible, within
15 days. Where a particular application may have contained commercial
in confidence information or was involving some individual, then
that person would leave. On the new committee there are fewer
direct contacts with the biotechnology industry but, of course,
with several of the research scientists, parts of their organisations
will probably be receiving funds to do research from those organisations.
In my view, having worked on peer review committees and other
committees like this, the integrity of the people involved and
their basic honesty was unparalleled.
195. Dr Dale, the same question.
(Dr Dale) I agree with what Alan has said. The debate
in these committees is very robust and it would be very difficult
for an individual to argue for something if it was not accepted
by the majority of them. I am a fairly new member of the AC&FP
and I am just developing familiarity with the way it works. I
understand Janet Bainbridge is here next week and will be able
to give you detail. Essentially it works in the same sort of way.
The flavour of the committee is different, reflecting the difference
in expertise needed. There is an ethicist, there is a consumer
representative, medical doctors are represented fairly strongly,
there are geneticists, people expert in allergenicity, toxicity
and food testing. We consider proposals. It is not only about
GM. It is about novel foods in general. So there are a range of
different kinds of products coming forward for consideration.
I am there principally because of my expertise in GM crops. We
take proposals in the same sort of way as ACRE and go through
the evidence, ask for further evidence, further testing where
that is considered necessary, and make a recommendation at the
end of that process.
196. I again admit some ignorance here. The
new Agriculture Environment Biotechnology Commission is about
to be established. How will it relate to those organisations and
will either of you gentlemen play any part in it?
(Dr Dale) As I understand it, the decision has not
been made as to who will be part of that. The process is still
running forward. The role of that commission, as I understand
it, is to form an overviewing committee. That will look at the
responsibility of the advisory committees and will 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. The work of ACRE is driven very much
by considering proposals, making decisions, asking for further
data and so on, but this new Commission will stand back from that
and try to look at the subject in a more visionary sense.
197. Is that your understanding, Professor?
(Professor Gray) That is my understanding. It pretty
well implements the recommendations which were in the Royal Society
report on how to handle the issue of GM crops; and would be an
over-arching body which would consider the scientific risks, the
food aspects, the sociological aspects, the business aspects,
and the ethical aspects. This was my view as to what was likely
to happen.
Chairman: We will now get on to the nitty-gritty
of the issue. I will turn to Mr Mitchell.
Mr Mitchell
198. Dr Dale, in section 2 of your evidence,
you identify four mechanisms there whereby genetically modified
and non-modified mixing can occur. Now would it be right to think
that the only way the integrity of growing plants can be damaged
would be through pollen transfer when the crop comes into flower?
(Dr Dale) That is one way.
199. It is the only way for growing?
(Dr Dale) Once you have an established crop, the principal
way of genes coming in will be by pollen. What I am trying to
argue here is that there are other sources.
|
