Memorandum submitted by Marks and Spencer
plc (R7)
SUMMARY
1. MARKS
& SPENCER HAS
DEVELOPED APPROVED
SOURCES FOR
A WIDE
RANGE OF
NON-GM FOOD
INGREDIENTS DERIVED
FROM SOYA
AND MAIZE
IN RESPONSE
TO OUR
CUSTOMERS' CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS
NEW TECHNOLOGY.
2. THESE SOURCES
APPLY THE
SAME PRINCIPLES
OF SEGREGATION
WHICH ARE
WELL-ESTABLISHED
AS AN
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT
IN EFFECTIVE
TRACEABILITY FOR
FOOD SAFETY,
QUALITY AND
AUTHENTICITY.
3. SEGREGATION
NEEDS TO
BE MAINTAINED
AT EVERY
STAGE IN
THE FOOD
SUPPLY CHAIN
UNTIL FOOD
PRODUCTS REACH
THE FINAL
CONSUMER BUT
MUST BE
BASED ON
PRACTICAL REALITIES.
4. COMMON
INDUSTRY STANDARDS
FOR EFFECTIVE
SEGREGATION OF
NON-GM CROPS
ARE URGENTLY
REQUIRED.
5. IDENTITY
PRESERVED SUPPLIES
HAVE BEEN
ESTABLISHED FOR
SPECIALITY FOOD
INGREDIENTS BUT
LESS COSTLY,
COMMODITY-BASED
SYSTEMS WILL
BE NEEDED
TO MEET
ANY FUTURE
DEMANDS FOR
NON-GM ANIMAL
FEED.
6. EU LEGISLATION
NEEDS TO
RESOLVE GM LABELLING
ISSUES QUICKLY.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Marks & Spencer has a long tradition
of applying technology to the development of our food business
bringing direct benefits to our customers. In this sense, we regard
the emerging science of genetic modification as having a huge
potential to impact on the food supply chain bringing the prospect
of better quality and safer products.
1.2 Many of our customers have expressed
their concern about the speed of arrival of the first applications
of genetic modification to foods. They feel uncomfortable at something
outside of their control and, in the absence of choice, they asked
us to remove these gm ingredients from our foods for the time
being. Since July 1999, all St. Michael foods have been made using
only non-gm ingredients. More recently, we have announced plans
to introduce a range of meat products where genetically modified
soya and maize have been excluded from the animal feedstuffs.
1.3 We have reviewed our entire catalogue
of 3,500 food products. Over 5,000 individual ingredients made
from soya and maize were checked and changes were made to 1,800
recipes. This work caused us to probe to depths and in areas that
have not previously been necessary and our knowledge of the practical
issues of GM-segregation has expanded as a consequence. We are
pleased to contribute from this experience to the on-going debate
that surrounds the introduction of genetically modified foods
and to echo the views of our customers.
1.4 We urgently need to establish common
standards for effective segregation—farmers alone cannot
be expected to take the risk arising from the uncertainty that
would otherwise exist. In particular, we need to reach consensus
on acceptable levels of GM material unintentionally present in
otherwise non-GM foods.
2. OUR CUSTOMERS
2.1 The introduction into Europe of food
ingredients from gm commodity crops has not been well-managed.
The consumer has been left confused by poor quality information,
the absence of any perceivable direct benefit and above all, by
the lack of choice. GM foods have attracted widespread and largely
hostile attention from the media and the actions of pressure groups
have added to the feeling of unease expressed by many consumers.
2.2 Against this background, Marks &
Spencer took action earlier this year to remove all ingredients
from our foods that could have been derived from GM soya or maize.
Previous efforts to label products which might contain these ingredients
were clearly no longer sufficient. This has taken us to the major
producing countries of the world to investigate local conditions
for non-GM production and to establish approved suppliers for
a wide range of food ingredients and these are illustrated in
Annex I. Subsequently, other retailers and some food manufacturers
have adopted similar policies with the result that industry-wide
efforts are being made to develop reliable sources of non-GM raw
materials.
Tolerances
2.3 This work is hampered by the absence
of common standards and, in particular, by the current EU legislation
which is still incomplete and creates uncertainty. At the centre
of the debate is the question of tolerances to allow for any unintentional
mixing with GM varieties.
2.4 In our opinion, this is not a matter
of food safety and there is no scientific imperative for a zero
tolerance. If the law were to set unrealistic tolerances, then
most retailers and manufacturers would abandon attempts to offer
the non-GM alternative and return to labelling those products
where it is impossible to guarantee complete freedom from traces
of GM material. Continual improvements to analytical techniques
will ensure these can be detected—PCR techniques of analysis
already claim to detect even a few parts per million of GM soya
or maize.
2.5 The options are to:
— control the levels of unintentional
mixing with GM varieties through good practice by the agricultural
trade;
— or move to a non-commodity basis
for producing these crops and accept the cost implications that
follow.
A key factor in this choice will be the future
demand for non-GM animal feeds which account for the main consumption
of soya in this country.
2.6 We believe that our customers are not
interested in debates about the degree of purity of non-GM ingredients.
They want to know that we and our suppliers have made an honest
effort to ensure non-GM seeds are planted and that all subsequent
handling minimises the chance of these becoming mixed with GM
varieties.
2.7 We do not feel justified in making claims
that our products are "GM-free" since this implies an
absolute guarantee. We are able to assure our customers that all
our foods are made using non-GM ingredients based on our experience
of managing segregation through the food chain and this is discussed
in more detail in the following section.
3. SEGREGATION3.1 Traceability
3.1.1 Segregation is an essential element
in effective traceability. For many years, Marks & Spencer
has found the benefits of "going back to source" in
our efforts to provide consistently safe, good eating-quality
foods. Full traceability is an essential element of our select
farm schemes applied to UK beef, poultry and milk. Our programme
of tree-ripe UK Cox apples depends on monitoring maturity at highly
selected orchards. Talking directly to the farmer and the grower
helps to ensure that our customers' needs are recognised and it
gives the buyer a better chance to understand the practical issues
involved. Having made the commitment to meet specific needs, there
is a clear commercial incentive to maintain segregation at all
stages in the supply chain.
3.1.2 The techniques required to achieve
this segregation have grown from experience and reflect the realities
of agricultural production as opposed to the enclosed environment
that exists further along the food chain. Simple systems that
can operate without elaborate management controls are more likely
to be successful. Having specified product and source of supply,
good segregation demands an assessment of the risks of unintentional
mixing with other materials at all subsequent stages of harvest,
storage and distribution together with appropriate controls to
minimise these occurrences. In fact, the process must continue
until the final food product is packed and delivered to our customers.
3.1.3 The numerous food-related health scares
of the past 15 years have resulted in a heightened awareness of
the complexity of the modern food supply chain. Consumers are
demanding new levels of traceability to give assurances of food
safety to which food retailers and manufacturers are responding.
Recent legislation concerning product liability is a further pressure
that is extending traceability beyond the more traditional needs.
There is an increasing tendency to require independent auditing
and verification of effective segregation to provide transparency
in support of claims. It is important to ensure the extra costs
to meet these demands are truly adding value for the consumer.
3.1.4 The debate surrounding the segregation
of non-gm food ingredients will raise issues of principle that
are equally pertinent to the wider calls for enhanced traceability.
3.2 Averaging
3.2.1 Natural variation exists in agricultural
crops even within the same field, and this becomes more marked
according to effects such as the weather and growing region. At
times, segregation may not always be maintained throughout the
chain.
3.2.2 The practice of blending or mixing
together, either in deliberately controlled proportions or at
random has the effect of smoothing variations resulting in a more
uniform ingredient which is easier to use especially in high-volume
food production. This does not condone mixing of good with bad—a
temptation that may exist where standards set a numerical upper
tolerance level for a particular defect.
3.3 Standards In Segregation
3.3.1 The standards demanded in any system
of segregation will tend to be a balance of the need to deliver
a given level of purity versus the cost to achieve. The traditional
approach has required these needs to be quantified and they usually
form part of the buying specification.
Food safety
3.3.2 Food safety issues normally set the
highest standards for purity, usually in the form of measures
to prevent any accidental mixing with potentially hazardous contaminants.
For example, many years ago, our specification for air-dried fruits
required effective measures to be taken to exclude goats and other
animals from the drying beds to avoid an obvious source of faecal
contamination.
Similarly, harvest intervals following the application
of agro-chemicals must be carefully controlled.
3.3.3 For food safety, tolerances for contamination
must be set at the lowest achievable levels.
Food quality
3.3.4 Food quality issues can set less stringent
requirements—it may be possible to tolerate a level of unintentional
mixing with other non-hazardous materials. The specification will
set standards according to the impact of any mixing on final product
quality and may take account of the ease with which subsequent
processing can reduce these levels in the final product.
3.3.5 Food processing issues may demand
levels of segregation that relate to the functionality of an ingredient
in food manufacture. For example, the performance of flour in
breadmaking depends on the quality and quantity of wheat protein.
The presence of proteins from other cereal grains may adversely
affect the baking quality and industry has established specifications
setting maximum tolerances for these non-species grains in consignments
of wheat—typically these levels are around 2 per cent.
3.3.6 For food quality, tolerances are based
on a commercial judgement of the costs against what can actually
be achieved through good practice with care and attention at each
stage in growing, distribution and storage.
Food authenticity
3.3.7 Food authenticity normally raises
questions about deliberate or fraudulent adulteration of foodstuffs
such as:
— the substitution of orange juice
from different geographic regions;
— the use of non-durum wheat in pasta.
3.3.8 Developments in techniques of analysis
now provide the means to detect even highly sophisticated attempts
at adulteration. These methods can also demonstrate accidental
contamination but the authenticity of a product is not usually
challenged provided it can be demonstrated that reasonable care
was taken to identify and minimise the risks of any non-hazardous
contamination.
3.3.9 Organic products do not automatically
lose their status if pesticide residues are detected since it
is recognised that accidental environmental contamination can
occur through spray drift. Similarly, a consignment of organic
wheat may not be entirely free from admixtures, possibly of "non-organic"
wheat. To our knowledge, there are no numerical tolerances for
these kinds of contamination set in legislation or by the Organic
Movement other than the security from the system of controls that
are available in practice.
3.4 Facilities And Equipment
3.4.1 There are often constraints on the
equipment available at farm level which may also be used co-operatively
by several farmers for different crops. Storage facilities are
an integral part of the distribution system taking crops from
farm to processors and it is normal to bulk-up supplies in common
storage from numerous sources to create commercial volumes. Common
transport is likely to be used at many stages in distribution,
ranging from farm trucks to river barges and sea-going vessels.
3.4.2 Today's good practice is the culmination
of developments in growing crops traded as commodities, often
in the world market place. The driving pressures are to maintain
a supply of wholesome, good quality product by the most cost effective
means. The complex nature of these arrangements coupled with the
transfer of ownership at several stages in the chain affect the
ease with which segregation can be achieved and maintained.
3.4.3 Any change usually involves additional
costs and will be resisted unless there is a realistic prospect
of recovery. Demands for segregation may even disrupt commodity
supplies to a significant extent where the existing infrastructure
is not able to adapt quickly enough to handle segregated flows
either through inadequate facilities or lack of management experience.
4. EU LEGISLATION
4.1 The development of legislation, especially
concerning labelling, has lagged behind the arrival of GM ingredients.
In the UK, a system of voluntary labelling was introduced as part
of a wider initiative under the auspices of the Institute of Grocery
Distribution. Initially, product labelling was confined to soya
or maize ingredients likely to contain GM protein or DNA. Later,
Marks & Spencer and some other retailers extended labelling
to include any ingredient derived from these GM crops.
4.2 The current regulations require foods
to be labelled where genetically modified DNA or proteins from
soya or maize can be detected. In its current form, this legislation
is widely regarded as unsatisfactory since:
— some highly-refined derivatives escape
the requirement for labelling;
— the absence of agreed methods of
analysis create an uncertainty for enforcement;
— there are no tolerances to allow
for low levels of unintentional inclusion of GM material.
4.3 Amendments to these regulations are
under discussion which would establish a "de minimis"
threshold for the presence of GM material to deal with the problem
of unintentional mixing. The presumption is that sufficient evidence
can be presented to demonstrate the steps taken throughout the
chain to prevent the contamination. The latest proposals from
Brussels may add to the confusion by applying the same threshold
to soya and maize even though the risks from cross pollination
are quite different.
4.4 Within the UK food industry, there is
a view that numerical tolerances are not essential since the "due
diligence" defence available under the Food Safety Act would
be effective. A fixed numerical standard can sometimes act as
a disincentive to further improvement once the minimum acceptable
level has been achieved.
4.5 However, we realise that this approach
is less likely to find acceptance in Europe and that it is more
important to end the current uncertainty. In the meantime, industry
standards for effective segregation measures are being developed
to support the production of non-GM food ingredients.
5. OPTIONS FOR
NON-GM CROPS5.1 GM
Production
5.1.1 The first GM food to reach the British
consumer was tomato paste, launched early in 1996 and grown for
its distinct quality attributes. There was every incentive to
maintain segregation throughout and, as a horticultural crop,
this was achieved with comparative ease. In the longer term, effective
systems of segregation will be needed for the next generation
of GM crops being developed with added-value properties.
5.1.2 At present, the main focus of attention
is on soya and maize for use as processed food ingredients or
in animal feed. Both crops are grown as commodities world-wide
although the main sources for this country are North and South
America. Maize for food applications is predominantly sourced
from Europe.
5.1.3 Significant proportions of both crops
are grown in North America as GM varieties without any attempts
at segregation from conventional types on the basis that there
are no differences in output traits. These are varying estimates
of the proportions of GM, typically a figure of around 50 per
cent is quoted for soya and 25-30 per cent for maize. The actual
numbers are not important since after mixing through the distribution
system, consignments will usually test positive for modified DNA
from the GM varieties. This has been observed since 1997 when
the GM proportion of the American soya crop was said to be around15
per cent.
5.2 Identity Preservation
5.2.1 Systems of Identity Preservation (IP)
have been devised to manage the risks of unintentional mixing
where large amounts of GM crops are grown in close proximity to
conventional varieties. These are being used to provide reliable
supplies of non-GM ingredients such as soya protein and soya flour
which are high-value materials with functional properties which
are not easily replaced by other ingredients. The costs involved
with segregation are often irrelevant due to the low rate of inclusion
in the final food product.
5.2.2 These systems have been established
in the USA and Canada to maintain a continuity of long-established
supply relationships. These experiences have been well-documented
in the form of specifications verified by audit. Information about
commercial systems such as those from Dupont, the British bread
industry and Central Soya are no doubt available to the Committee.
5.2.3 The performance of these programmes
is well-established with maximum levels below 0.5 per cent of
GM soya. These are no longer commodity crops and this is reflected
in production costs.
5.3 Geographic Segregation
5.3.1 A second strategy is available at
the moment in countries where GM planting is restricted, notably
in Brazil and Europe. In most cases we have found that while the
product ex-farm is non-GM, care needs to be taken in the distribution
system to manage the risks of unintentional mixing with GM material.
Port facilities and shipping are obvious critical points.
5.4 Segregation In Agriculture
5.4.1 In addition to normal good practice,
the various programmes of identity preservation operating in North
America have established the potential for cross contamination
by GM varieties and effective control measures have been put in
place. Most work has been done with soya and it is likely that
amendments will be needed to manage other crops especially in
relation to cross pollination. The process of risk assessment
is analogous to the HACCP approach now firmly established in the
food industry and among the factors to be considered are:
— Seed control—even certified
seed is not 100 per cent pure and controls need to specify the
maximum levels of GM types.
— Contracted growing may be needed
in areas with a high penetration of GM—this is not normal
in the commodity trade and many are wary of unknown risks.
— On-farm controls including other
crops, previous harvests and training.
— Cross-pollination risks especially
where wind or insect vectors are used e.g. maize, rape seed.
— Cleaning of equipment in harvesting,
storage and local distribution.
— System of controls including appropriate
levels of documentation.
— Independent accredited auditing.
5.5 Segregation In Processing
5.5.1 Our experience shows that contamination
will occur at any point in the chain where adequate precautions
are not taken and this is obviously important in plants processing
ingredients from non-IP sources such as oil-seed crushers.
5.5.2 We have also found detectable GM soya
contamination even in food products from factories where no soya
ingredients are used. In this instance, the cause was traced to
cross-contamination at an ingredient supplier using soya raw materials
in other products and required a fundamental review of in-factory
procedures.
5.5.3 In the most extreme cases, aerial
contamination between adjacent production lines is known to be
detectable by the most sensitive GM-testing techniques and requires
new levels of segregation controls to be considered.
5.6 Continuous Improvement
5.6.1 As in any new venture, there is always
scope for improvement and the current systems for segregation
in the production of non-GM foods are no exception.
5 October 1999
| 
