Select Committee on Agriculture Minutes of Evidence



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.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 10 January 2000