Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 339)
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER 1999
DR TOM
CLAYTON AND
MR ROBERT
MITCHELL
320. So the advice to me would be to organise
a 'phone-in to Marks & Spencer. How many do you think I would
need to organise in order for you to be able to be influenced
by that?
(Dr Clayton) We have had two people in the whole group
that wrote or 'phoned us—contacted us—who took that
view. So I cannot answer the question on how many times you need
to 'phone in. We have taken a judgment based on the information
available to us.
321. What would have to happen for you to decide
that this was no longer a hot issue? Would it be something which
influenced the perception of safety? Would it be the development
of a product which clearly displayed characteristics which appealed
to the consumer? If you were advising the managing director, whoever
he or she may be at that time, what would be the factors you would
place before them? What weight would you attribute to them?
(Dr Clayton) If you look at the pending applications
and those which are already granted in the United States, which,
in the main, are the large companies—the seed companies
and the bio-tech companies—who are involved in this, almost
without exception they are directed towards yield and chemical
usage-type applications. That is not surprising, because the large
commodity crops (the commercial and financial aspects of those
and the R&D and the amount of money that has to be spent on
developing these things) obviously take it in that direction.
However, to answer the question, therefore, we do not see anything
which is different to Round up Ready soya and these things at
the moment—they are all in a similar vein. What needs to
happen, or what would be helpful to see happening, which we believe
would allow this debate to move in a new direction? Take, for
example, the work that is going on in cracking the genome of the
well-known pathogens of food safety. If that could be commercialised
into a final product situation where you had, for example, campylobacter
or salmonella resistance built into the poultry industry, that
would certainly have a company like Marks & Spencer actively
sitting round that table to explore what could be done, because
there is a real food safety benefit.
322. Last question, Chairman. Let us take something
intermediate, let us take the Cox apple, which we all agree is
a splendid apple (and it is certainly more than my life is worth
to suggest otherwise). However, I think it is fair to say that
its storage characteristics are not as good as some other apples.
If GM technology could produce a Cox with better storage characteristics—so
it has nothing to do with the sort of therapeutic you have been
talking about, nor is it simply to do with how much pesticide
you put in the orchard—would that be a factor you would
regard as important and interesting to you?
(Dr Clayton) That would be a quality attribute which
could be interesting. I do think you would have to take that to
some very, highly focused customer groups and ask them whether
they agreed with you that storage characteristics was something
they wished bio-technology to move into. That one would be quite
interesting. I would just give one practical thought on it, and
it does not destroy the principle of what we are talking about
in terms of better storage characteristics and better quality
characteristics over time for Cox apples, but a sense of the Cox
apple crop, however important it is—and I would completely
agree with you that it is the best apple you can buy—is
in real terms quite small. Therefore, whether the seed money for
the R&D would be actually there to do something about that,
I am not sure is something we could see in the very near future.
Chairman: We must move on. I would just remind
you, in passing, that the average Member of Parliament regards
five or six letters a week as a tidal wave!
Mr Jack
323. Chairman, the world has a funny habit of
coming full circle, and it is a pleasure for me to be cross-questioning
some former colleagues of mine when I had the pleasure of working
for Marks & Spencer some 17 years ago. Nonetheless, I have
a regard for both our witnesses today and I know their particular
expertise. You have told us, Dr Clayton, so far about how Marks
& Spencer reacted to the messages that you received from your
customers. I think we move, now, into probing, really, how you
segregate the raw material. You made it very clear at the beginning
that your ability in relation to specification and having total
traceability of what goes into your product is a key ingredient
of the integrity of the products that Marks & Spencer puts
forward. In some evidence that was sent to the Committee by a
company called SDI Europe Environmental Products, operating from
Alton in Hampshire, they said to us, talking about the feasibility
of segregation and identity preservation, "This is true in
an area such as Brazil which is, technically, GM free, but"
they go on to say, "cross-border flow of commodities from
Argentina and Uruguay and illegal planting ensure there is a significant
risk of GM material being incorporated into the export from Brazil".
I do not know whether Brazil forms one of the sources of GM-free
raw material for Marks & Spencer products, but given that
sage warning, how do you establish whether raw material is GM-free,
particularly when you have that kind of commentary from an area
where, supposedly, non-GM crops are grown?
(Dr Clayton) Can I just start with a quick definition
of "GM-free" and "non-GM", because it is not
a play on words; there is a clear distinction between the two.
It is, really, a distinction of what is possible through well-managed
segregation. We have only ever stated ourselves to be non-GM.
Non-GM means that we are starting without a genetically modified
crop in the field, and we know that and can prove that, in the
sense that we can be asked to prove it and we should be able to
prove it. Thereafter, the route through to the customer is by
this identity preserved—or IP—approach, which you
have just mentioned, and which I will come back to in a second.
GM-free to us suggests, and correctly, a much higher standard.
It implies a purity, really, tending towards zero tolerance—absolutely
free. I think these two phrases have been embraced in some of
the decisions that the EU have taken and in some of the proposals
they are making. If you are going to say "GM-free",
and make that claim, then you have got to be free, and it implies
a purity standard. Non-GM through the IP route is a practical
definition which is very achievable in what is possible today,
unfortunately, where you do have significant percentages of GM
crop in North America and in certain parts of South America. The
practical experience that we have of segregation shows that we
can work within some very low ranges of adventitious contamination
(as this is known as) in the openness of the agri-world that we
live in. To move to your point on segregation and IP routes, I
know the company you referred to who have written to you, and
they are right in what they say, up to a point. Of course, there
are GM crops being grown in the countries you mention, particularly
in South America. Argentina has a high percentage of soya crop
GM—we think about 70 per cent—and we are sure there
is some cross-border black market activity going on into Brazil,
which is essentially GM-free, and particularly so in certain regions.
We have been down there several times to look at this. You are
quite right that Brazil does feature very significantly in the
IP routes that we have established for the 20-plus ingredients
that we are using, and in non-GM animal feed which we are currently
employing. You can have segregation. We have been practising segregation
in the food industry for decades—for centuries—it
has not just arrived with the advent of GM foods. We segregate
different breeds of animals, we segregate different varieties
of apples, we segregate authenticity chains, such as semolina
for pasta as opposed to cheaper versions. All these things are
part and parcel of a well-run, well-managed food chain, and it
is there in anything you look at down the raw material chain.
It is based on the right partnerships, relationships and trust
with the right people, accompanied by modern techniques of management.
So assuring you have the right partners on the ground and in the
field (in this case) is through visiting by appropriately qualified
people at the right times, having excellent and modern traceability
systems based on risk assessment and the principles of HACCP which
are common-place and apply in the food chain today (these are
not new trends to the food industry) accompanied by a chain of
paper at every stage from farm to fork—to use that phrase—which
will allow you to prove and be held accountable that you have
maintained the integrity of a GM crop, or a piece of animal, such
as Aberdeen Angus Beef, or a consignment of nut-free breadcrumbs.
Whatever it may be, segregation is possible. We have had real
practical experience of this as a business with our suppliers,
in all of the ingredients that we use. We would suggest very clearly
that testing is a means of having confidence in your segregation
and your management of segregation; testing should not be used
as a means of the only way of ascertaining that something is GM-free.
That would be wrong. The testing that we have done shows that
in most cases we are operating below the detectable limits of
the test we are using, and even in the animal feedstuffs which
we are bringing in at the moment we are operating at around .1
per cent adventitious contamination. Of course, sampling—
Chairman: I know you are trying to answer as
fully as possible but you are covering a lot of the ground we
want to ask you about later. It would be helpful if we could focus
in on the answer.
Mr Jack
324. Let us focus down on some of the issues.
That is, in a way, the kind of reassuring statement I would expect
coming from Marks & Spencer Baker Street, but in paragraph
3.3.1 of your evidence you say "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."
We live in highly competitive times in the sale of food in the
United Kingdom. What allowance are you giving your suppliers to
sustain, maintain and validate the complex chain of reassurance
which you have just described to us? There may be a tendency,
when people get pushed on price, to start pinching round the corners
and not sticking absolutely to the letter of the type of approach
which you have just outlined.
(Dr Clayton) That, frankly, comes down to the people
you are doing business with. We have got our judgments right.
Remember, we are heavily involved in this process, we have made
35, if you like, IP walks back down the chain to South America,
North America, the Far East, Europe and within the UK for all
these ingredients.
325. It has been identified to us, and your
evidence says, that there is a cost to achieving this. Are you
allowing your suppliers to reflect those additional costs in the
price to the customer of the goods which they clearly have demanded?
(Dr Clayton) Of the 4,000 products we sell which we
have had to review in our entire catalogue, we have changed 1800
of those to IP routes or taken soya and maize out, and we have
not reflected the cost of that exercise in the final product costings
to our customers. For the small amount of livestock trial that
we are carrying out at the moment, there has been an on-cost of
between 5 and 10 per cent for the soya and maize fractions of
that animal feed, and that has been passed on in the costings.
It is part of the trial to assess whether people will actually
pay for those things.
326. But for the other products, can you confirm
that there is a cost to somebody of the process you describe?
Who is bearing it?
(Dr Clayton) Initially, there were start-up costs
because in some of these chains there was no IP route, and the
start-up costs were ones of testing, travel, commitment and resource—that
kind of thing. Once established, really, the cost is within the
normal way of doing business. Just to take another view of that,
in terms of finished food products, the percentage of these ingredients
in the main—malt vinegar, modified starch and soya lecithin—is
so small in relative terms that the costs are not, actually, very
high, but we have not passed them on.
327. What was the reaction of the people in
your food chain to your request to take the course of action that
you described to us? Were they happy about it, or did they put
their hands up and say "No, we cannot do this"?
(Dr Clayton) In the main they saw it as a very positive
action which they were happy to be part of, in terms of protecting
our business against external pressures brought by customers.
328. Currently, you have no problems, do you,
in obtaining GM-free products in the way you described to us?
(Dr Clayton) We have had very few problems. I do not
want to dismiss it, as it has been the single biggest activity
that the food technology team (which is 90 people in Marks &
Spencer) has been engaged in ever, particularly in terms of the
time frames we set ourselves. There were lots of issues to deal
with but issues rather than problems. There was one particular
issue that was a problem—to show the extent to which we
went in this—where we did have one supplier of one particular
range of products who would not agree to sourcing non-GM maize
ingredients, and we stopped selling those products.
Chairman: I am sorry, Mr Jack, but to get through
everything we must move on. If there is time at the end by all
means come back. We are re-ordering the questioning slightly,
and going to Mr Todd. You raised definitions, Dr Clayton, and
I think we ought to get that issue on the table now.
Mr Todd
329. As I understood that first answer you gave,
when you say "non-GM" you basically mean that well-intentioned
people have planted a seed which they believe to be non-GM and
you have secured the food chain beyond that as best you can to
ensure that GM products are not introduced into your source. Is
that broadly right?
(Dr Clayton) That is correct.
330. Are there any numerical definitions of
that achievement in terms of percentage outcomes at the end of
the process? Do you have a tolerance level which you expect, or
do you really say "We know we have planted a seed"?
We have had earlier evidence in this inquiry that seed can only
be demonstrated to be pure to the extent of between 98, 99 and
100 per cent, so there is no absolute certainty even at seed level.
What is there beyond good intention?
(Dr Clayton) Remember that much of this work was initiated
in a legal vacuum in terms of any background standards which we
were able to apply, so we had to make some judgments about it.
We set off with a view that 1 per cent (which, in fact, is what
the threshold values from Brussels have been proposed at) would
be a reasonable tolerance at the raw material, or seed, level
in terms of the raw soya or maize coming out through the process.
I do not want to get into too many figures here, but when we worked
that back from food products and when we reviewed our entire catalogue
earlier this year, we decided that if any product had an ingredient
in soya or maize at a level of greater than 0.01 per cent we would
change it—either take it out or replace it with an IP soya
or maize route. So, on the one hand, we have taken an approach
for the crude raw material, if you like, out of the ground. One
point to make here is that if you have got a crop which is 100
per cent free we are not asking people to put 1 per cent into
it. This is the point which was made earlier about people with
good systems, with real honesty and transparency, attempting to
grow, to their best belief, a non-GM crop and manage it through
to the consumer, whatever form it arrives in, without wilful contamination.
The tolerance of 1 per cent is there to allow this development
to take place.
331. How do you distinguish between the 1 per
cent you are applying to your non-GM products and the GM-free—because
you made the distinction from the start that you would not claim
GM-free because you felt that implied a higher standard?
(Dr Clayton) We are not claiming GM-free because we
have had the practical experience of thousands of analyses and
having had a good look at this thing. To give you an example,
in North America and, particularly, in Canada, they have established
over a number of years now, for the bread industry in this country,
an IP route for soya flour for bread improvers, which is an important
ingredient. We have just been over there recently to see this
season's crop and how it is managed, and they are running at .3
per cent. That is what they are achieving with a very, very good
quality management system, and that is in the heartland of where
GM is being grown. So that is what is achievable there. We have
had thousands of results of analysis from all the various people
we deal with, raw material people, ingredient people, mainly from
this year when the bulk of the work has been done, and the overwhelmingly
significant number is that they are coming out at less than 0.1
per cent.
332. So are you really saying that partly because
the words "GM-free" may be seen as misleading you do
not use them, because as you demonstrated in your answer, to achieve
100 per cent purity is simply beyond our capability?
(Dr Clayton) Unfortunately, because of the percentage
of GM crop which is now in the open agricultural chain, what you
have said is absolutely right. It does not seem to us to be a
practical situation to achieve GM-free status, which implies absolute
purity, in our book.
333. What is needed is a clearer definition
for your customers of exactly what we mean when we say "non-GM"
or "GM-free". In your view, using the words "GM-free"
is a misleading statement because you cannot achieve that outcome.
(Dr Clayton) We view "GM-free" as misleading,
yes. We do not use it.
334. So what do you think your customers are
thinking when they see the words "non-GM"? Do you think
they think there is a 100 per cent certainty of avoiding a GM
source?
(Dr Clayton) I sense that some of them will do.
335. Have you sought to explain what you mean?
(Dr Clayton) We have tried very hard to explain.
336. How?
(Dr Clayton) Posters in stores, point-of-sale material.
Mr Todd: I have not seen those posters and I
do use Marks & Spencer.
Chairman
337. I was wondering if we might see some of
the point-of-sale material.
(Dr Clayton) I can send that to you.
Mr Todd
338. Does that explain the difficult fact of
achieving total—
(Dr Clayton) No, it does not.
339. Last question: when you went back to your
suppliers did you find that any one—because I am assuming
you are using commodity brokers rather than the original growers
of crops, largely. Is that true?
(Dr Clayton) Obviously you have to go through that
world; you go through brokers but, no, we have been back on the
ground.
|
