Examination of witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 1999
DR PHILIP
DALE and PROFESSOR
ALAN GRAY
Mr Todd
240. I would prefer it if they answered that
one first.
(Dr Dale) I believe the debate is essentially about
tolerances. It is completely impractical to guarantee with absolute
certainty anything from crops grown outside. That is essentially
what we are debating. That, as we have said, is not really a scientific
matter. It is an ideological one and it is about what is achievable.
How do we accommodate organic and regular agriculture? How do
we accommodate the different forms of agriculture? It is about
practicalities essentially.
241. It is about hazard rather than choice and
the question of what is safe comes up.
(Professor Gray) If you agree with the scientific
assessment that there is no hazard, then it is about choice, then
it is an issue to do with whether you want to eat this foodstuff
or not. Wrapped up in that, in my view—and I agree with
what Dr Dale says—is a whole set of world views about the
way the world should be and the way farming should be and so on.
I think what scientists try to do here is say, "This is not
hazardous but if you want some scientific rationale to choice,
you have to say it has got to be about tolerance." For example,
organic farmers may accept a certain amount of pesticide drift
or may feed 25 per cent of non-organic foodstuffs to organic animals,
whatever rules are laid down. I wonder why it is not possible,
apparently, from what I have heard certainly from the representatives
of the Soil Association, to come to some similar arrangements
with respect to GMOs if it is acceptable that there is not a hazard.
This is where the difficulty is, that there is no hazard, but
the questions are not to do with that, they are to do with something
else.
242. There is a distinction between "hazard"
and "risk". Yes?
(Professor Gray) Indeed.
243. You say there is no hazard because there
is no known hazard?
(Professor Gray) Yes.
244. There is always a risk in the sense that
there are unknowns which you cannot have tested and cannot be
certain of. Yes?
(Professor Gray) I accept that fully, yes, with everything,
with any food you eat.
245. Very often people confuse the words "hazard"
and "risk".
(Professor Gray) A hazard is something that might
happen and the risk involves the frequency with which it might
happen, the probability of exposure to it.
246. I understand the distinction but for the
purpose of this discussion for people who might be listening who
think the two things are equivalent, you are not saying there
is no risk; you are saying there is no hazard?
(Professor Gray) Yes.
247. We have clarified that 100 per cent is
not possible? It is not possible now and perhaps has not been
possible for some considerable time in this particular field.
The basis of analysis of acceptable levels from your point of
view should be based on the experience that has been there in
the breeding of seed over time. We had SCIMAC here last week who
indicated that currently in Britain one could achieve a range
between 98.5 and 99.7 depending on the varieties that you were
seeking to breed.
(Professor Gray) Is this rape seed?
248. No, that is spread across the range of
crops and that is why the differences were there.
(Professor Gray) I would not average things. The crops
are so different, ..........
249. I was taking a range from the bottom to
the top. Would you have said that is an experience that is reasonable
based on the crops that you are aware of?
(Dr Dale) Yes, they range from one per cent down to
.1 something.
250. That is a little bit tighter than they
were saying.
(Dr Dale) They were saying 1.5 down to .3.
(Professor Gray) Again, it depends on the quality
of the seed.
251. Fair enough. They quoted the example of
Switzerland which had spent some time developing a response to
the suggested one per cent tolerance level in product as opposed
to the crop itself at EU level which indicated that to achieve
a one per cent tolerance in the product on the shelf you had to
at least achieve 99.2 per cent accuracy in your seed. Is that
broadly right?
(Professor Gray) That does not sound right to me.
What you are talking about here is the amount of protein, probably,
or DNA in the oil that is mixed from oilseed rape. The relationship
between the number of seeds in the mixture and the proportion
of that DNA in the mixture of the oil overall is not, I guess,
a straight forward one. I do not know what it is, but I do not
think that it is a linear relationship. It would depend on the
product in a commodity product.
252. I found their answer difficult to accept
because it seemed to me, bearing in mind the vagaries of the processing
system that a crop might go through to reach the shelf, that it
was perhaps unrealistic to have such a tight margin between the
origin of the seed and the one per cent tolerance level that would
be on the shelf.
(Professor Gray) If you took something like sugar
you could have enormous cross-pollinations and hybrid sugarbeet
plants but the product you are dealing with is basically sucrose.
The contaminants of heavy metals would be greater than the DNA.
It depends on the commodity.
253. Something that has happened a bit this
morning and certainly happened last week is a tendency to say
yes, but we really should not be worrying about all these things
anyway because there are a lot of other things to worry about.
(Professor Gray) What I am saying is with sugar the
relationship between the "contamination" of growing
on the farm and the commodity you are eating is very different
from "flavour saver" tomatoes or something where you
are eating the actual trans-genic plant. So there are no general
rules.
254. So what you are saying is you have to define
tolerance levels for individual products?
(Professor Gray) Individual commodities.
255. Products in the outcome, because if we
are going to accept a regulatory framework which is about the
thing you buy in your supermarket as opposed to the item that
is cut in the field in Derbyshire, that has to be defined to an
individual level, does it not, based on what you have just said?
(Professor Gray) I think, yes, there will be ways
of knowing how much of the DNA that is of concern finishes up
in the thing on the table.
256. And that would vary according to the process,
of course?
(Professor Gray) That would vary according to how
it is processed, whether it is heated, whether it is eaten raw
and what part of it is eaten. That will vary tremendously.
257. Taking you back to the crop level, based
on what you said earlier, it would seem reasonable that if one
were to attempt to assuage fears about contamination, as some
would see it, or simply maintain integrity, you would want to
ensure that there was a set period in the rotation of crops where
you are talking about the use of a GM crop or a non-GM crop because
of the risk of "volunteers" over a period of time. Yes?
(Professor Gray) Yes. I think you might have to change
the rules for GM crops if you were determined to maintain this
sort of separation.
258. So you would have to have a protocol on
the rotation system you would use to prevent a risk in the future?
(Professor Gray) To reduce the risk, to take
you up on something you said. You gave me a little lecture on
risks and hazards!
259. Indeed.
(Professor Gray) Yes, to reduce the risk you would
possibly have to.
| 
