Examination of witness (Questions 269
- 279)
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 1999
MR PETER
RILEY
Chairman
269. Mr Riley, thank you. This is your second
appearance before the Agriculture Committee. You were before us
two years ago on food safety. Is that correct?
(Mr Riley) Yes.
270. Where we discovered you could have been
a constituent of mine if you had stayed in your old business of
asparagus growing in the Vale of Evesham.
(Mr Riley) That is right.
271. Welcome back. Given that certainly Worcestershire
asparagus is a real food, could you tell us what you mean by a
"Real Food Campaign"? What is "real" food?
What are you for and against?
(Mr Riley) We have just started this campaign in October
this year and we are trying to highlight the fact that there is
a growing demand for food that is free of contamination from genetically
modified organisms, from pesticides, from antibiotic use, so that
people know when they are buying food at the supermarket or the
corner shop exactly what they are getting. The real food campaign
goes further than that. It is about fair trade for farmers in
this country and in the developing world who supply our food industry
and it is also about a fair deal for consumers. And so it takes
a broad look at the food chain and tries to eliminate some of
the problems which have been all too apparent over the last ten
or twenty years really. We think if we followed a strategy to
try and achieve that, it would be highly beneficial to United
Kingdom agriculture in the long run where we feel the emphasis
should be on quality rather than quantity. We feel the public
at the moment is very much in a mood to take a closer look at
what they are eating and ask questions about what is in it and
what has been done to it before they eat it.
272. You have helpfully set out a number of
issues that have concerned Friends of the Earth. You will understand
that this inquiry predominantly concerns developing a system which
allows people to exercise their right to choose products free
of genetic engineering so we will try and restrict our questions
today to those kinds of issues and not the broader issues that
raises because it becomes so unmanageable otherwise. An undertone
that comes through from our evidence so far is a degree of resentment
from all those involved in the process, that there has been an
hysterical campaign whipped up by campaigners like Friends of
the Earth which has resulted in a triumph of irrationality over
science. That is the accusation that is put against organisations
like yours. How do you respond to that accusation?
(Mr Riley) Our campaign objectives are based on sound
science and are based on the uncertainties of the usage of genetic
engineering in food and crops. Our viewpoint is that we simply
do not know enough about plant genetics and the technology of
genetic engineering and the implications of that for the food
chain and the environment to be absolutely sure that we are not
going to develop unforeseeable problems in the future. We would
like to see a much slower process in which the public is more
actively involved than they have been up until recently. It is
healthy that the public has come out and voted with their wallets.
More than our campaigning and more than anything else, that has
caused the debate to be opened up and we hope that that will be
opened up even wider now so that we can have a full debate about
the need for GMOs in the United Kingdom and also the future direction
of farming.
273. You heard our last witnesses say—and
I am paraphrasing them slightly and I put my own interpretation
on this—that essentially many of the traits engineered in
plants through genetic modification have been capable of being
engineered in plants through traditional plant breeding technology,
so why have you not been lobbying—perhaps you have—against
herbicide tolerance or insect resistance engineered by traditional
plant breeding techniques?
(Mr Riley) We are a relatively small organisation
so in the past we had to concentrate on environmental issues that
appeared to be crucial at that time. It has to be said that the
mutation of seeds was not on the list because we had problems
with acid rain, nuclear issues and climate change and we had to
concentrate on those issues. I think the significant difference
that has emerged now with GM technology is that we are capable
of breaking species barriers where we are introducing entirely
foreign genes into our food chain, and although much of the work
at the moment involves a few genes in the future we can see plants
being engineered for a whole variety of traits and we think because
of our current knowledge of plant genetics and technology, the
outcomes from that can be very unpredictable and that is why we
have intervened in this particular campaign on GM. The other reason
I think we are keen to get a debate going is because we see GM
as a continuation of the intensive farming system which we do
not think has served the environment well, we do not think has
served consumers particularly well and we do not think has served
farmers particularly well as well. We do think we need a complete
re-think on farming and the GM issue is an important catalyst
in getting that debate going.
Mr Todd
274. You used the words "absolutely sure"
earlier. What do you mean by "absolutely sure" about
anything?
(Mr Riley) Of course, there is no such thing as a
risk-free activity, but you can make things a lot less risk-free
by adopting certain strategies. We feel the precautionary principle
should underpin our approach to all new technology so nothing
comes onto the market until there is broad consensus within the
scientific community (which I do not think there is at the moment)
on GM, and also within the general public that this is acceptable
technology to be introduced into our food chain.
275. How do you define an "acceptable"
risk?
(Mr Riley) One which is largely predictable, I think,
and one where you can assess what the impact of it is likely to
be long-term into the future. Our view of GM at the moment is
that some of the risks are not really predictable because the
random placing of genes into plant cells is not sufficiently precise
to make that a predictive science at the moment.
276. So in this technology when would you regard
yourself as being as sure as you feel you should be?
(Mr Riley) As I said, I think it is when there is
a broad consensus throughout the community that something can
go ahead.
277. So what is that?
(Mr Riley) When we think we know what the risks are
and we are able to do a sufficiently robust risk assessment.
278. What I am trying to test here is when you
say a "broad consensus", of whom?
(Mr Riley) The agricultural community, the scientific
community across the wide range of disciplines that would be interested
in looking at GM crops. It is not just the genetic engineers;
ecologists and agronomists are going to have to have a key say
in whether we think these crops are suitable for the United Kingdom.
Then I think it is important that farmers also get involved in
that debate at a grass-roots level. We feel very strongly that
the public, who are often ignored in these debates, should actively
participate in the decision-making process.
279. One could argue that when the motor car
was invented there probably was not a broad consensus as to the
safety of that particular means of transport and certainly no
proper analysis of its risk. Would you have taken the same stance
on that technology?
(Mr Riley) I think if the motor car came along now,
given the knowledge that we have got now, we would be saying,
"Let's wait a minute before we go rushing into this technology."
Back in 1900 with the red flags I do not think our scientific
knowledge was up to scratch. That illustrates the point. We were
not able to predict the outcome of that invention.
| 
