Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 395)
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER 1999
MR PATRICK
HOLDEN
380. Realistically, bearing in mind we are a
small island and organic growers although not nearly as many in
this country as we would like, are nevertheless quite numerous,
does a six-mile radius effectively mean that you have no GM crop
trials at all? Essentially by naming that figure you are achieving
your first objective which is stopping GM crop trials altogether?
(Mr Holden) The six-mile radius was set based on the
assumption that bees could fly three miles, which they regularly
do—and I think you may have heard already of the Friends
of the Earth/Newsnight research which confirmed that pollen
from oilseed rape was travelling 4.8 kilometres from the Watlington
trial site—then three miles to a hive and three miles in
the other direction makes six miles which is the basis of our
notification zone limit. We did not say that there should be no
GM trial crops within six miles of organic holdings. We said that
within six miles we should assess each case according to the risks.
381. That is your prior notification?
(Mr Holden) That is the prior notification. I think
that partly answers your question in that it is not impossible
that trial plots could be grown within a six mile radius of an
organic holding and pose no significant threat. If your question
is was it a deliberate ploy to try to get rid of trial plots—
382. That was my question!
(Mr Holden) No, it is not. It is our stated policy
that we believe that there is no case for open air trial plots
because it is a form of treating the countryside like an open-air
laboratory and the Government have no means of controlling genetic
pollution, certainly with the maize and rape that they are licensing
the trials for at the moment. If your question is will it still
be possible for trials to be licensed even with a six mile notification
zone, the answer is yes, at the moment.
383. That is a very helpful explanation of how
you have interpreted that distance and its meaning. The evidence
that we have heard shows significant degrees of uncertainty as
to what appropriate distances there should be, and I think your
evidence has made reference to that as well, although you have
commissioned some research to seek to establish it. Do you believe
that a great deal more research is desirable in this particular
aspect?
(Mr Holden) In relation to environmental pollution?
384. Yes.
(Mr Holden) Absolutely. We would say that the current
parameters of the research which is being undertaken on the licensed
trial plots is largely misdirected because it is concentrating
on bio-diversity impact under two different herbicide regimes,
one of which is more selective than the other and, frankly, I
think that is of little interest to the public who are desperately
worried about the possible contamination of either the trial site
or the wider environment both in terms of agricultural crops and
wild crops. We would say that if you look carefully through the
current research objectives of the trial plots, you will find
that they are very badly designed and unlikely to lead to any
useful outcomes.
385. Would you accept that if you do believe
that more research is required, the only way that that research
can demonstrate any outcome on policy would be if we had trial
sites which were properly policed and showed a consensual scientific
background so that the various dimensions of the scientific issue
were tested, and that trial sites are essential to achieve that
degree of knowledge and uncertainty?
(Mr Holden) No, because firstly we do not think that
there is any necessity for genetically engineered crops because
we believe that genetic engineering is opposed to the principles
of sustainable agriculture in a fundamental way—which I
could explain if I had the time, but clearly we do not—and
no again because we do not think that it is the right of government
or any other section of the community to impose pollution on another
sector, and therefore until such time as there is more definitive
proof of safety, we believe that all trials should be conducted
on the same basis as medical research which is with a policy of
containment and not allowing viable organisms to be released into
the environment.
386. But you recognise that would not provide
scientific knowledge on the issue of crop distances that we have
been discussing?
(Mr Holden) That can be easily determined by conventional
research, as we have found with our research with the National
Pollen Research Unit, because these are mechanical factors. What
needs to be found out is the risk of horizontal transfer of soil
bacteria which is desperately worrying and I understand already
occurring in North America, and more about the intimate impact
of genetically engineered crops on the soil environment around
the plants and the biological diversity. Both of those activities
could be undertaken in a contained environment.
Chairman: Some of my questions and Mr Holden's
answers may have overtaken some of Mr Marsden's questions.
Mr Marsden: Can I declare an interest. I shop
regularly at the Pimhill organic farm shop and cafe, a wonderful
organic farm in my constituency.
Chairman
387. The Clerk says that is not an interest,
that is an advert!
(Mr Holden) But you are not about to take them over?
Mr Marsden
388. Absolutely not. Perhaps you could supply
a separate list with some data on the sales or marketing share
size of organic food products and how much it is increasing at
the present time and whether you think that because of the issue
of GMOs that has had an adverse effect on organic food product
sales? Perhaps you could supply that separately.
(Mr Holden) We have a report called the Organic Food
and Farming Report which we publish annually which covers all
that information. On the question I was asked earlier by the Chairman
about the adverse effect on sales, I think it would be honest
to say that at the moment the reverse is true (which is really
what I think you were getting at) that the fear of GMOs is prompting
more people to buy organic foods. I think there may be some farmers
who are already extremely worried about genetic contamination
and indeed some companies so there is a friction there.
389. How does your current monitoring of processed
organic products ensure that those organic products are what they
actually claim?
(Mr Holden) You mean in relation to GMO free specifically?
390. Yes.
(Mr Holden) I have already made mention of our standards
which exclude GMOs pretty comprehensively.
Mr Marsden: I appreciate the standards but what
is the specific test.
Chairman
391. Are you saying there are no tests, you
rely on identity preservation?
(Mr Holden) No, we are using a laboratory for testing
and we are currently undertaking some tests and we use and will
continue to use tests as appropriate where we feel that there
is a risk of contamination and we think it is useful in the certification
process to use testing. Firstly, we are aware of the deficiencies
of testing because obviously they all operate to thresholds. We
are opposed to thresholds for the reasons I explained earlier.
Secondly, we think the best way to preserve GMO free status is
through auditing and preserving the identity in the audit trail,
but we are already using testing and will continue to do so.
Mr Marsden
392. What happens, though, if there was some
accidental contamination to organic crops with GM material? Would
you then make changes to your monitoring process in order to double
check, if you like?
(Mr Holden) Yes. If we encounter any form of genetic
pollution, if there are lessons to be learned from a failure in
our audit and certification process, we will immediately learn
those lessons and tighten up on our standards and certification
procedures. If there is genetic pollution at a very low level,
for instance—and this relates again to the earlier question—our
policy is that we will look at each incident on a case-by-case
basis. Our policy, again as I stated earlier, is to get as close
as is practically possible in an imperfect world to GM free. When
it comes to molecular levels of contamination, that is not the
right term because obviously it would be cellular, if the day
comes to pass—and I hope that it does not—where our
certification committee is confronted with irreversible pollution,
using the pesticides precedent we may be forced to reappraise
the way in which we certificate, but we will cross that bridge
when we come to it.
393. Do you think then that the labelling is
clear enough? We have submersed ourselves in this evidence for
a number of weeks and we have started to get to the bottom of
GMO, GMO products, non-GM products and organic products, but to
the consumer it is quite bewildering. You cannot walk into a supermarket
and immediately be able to at a glance differentiate between those
products. If I may say so, I think the previous witnesses were
a little bit confusing in the way they were describing their labels
because I do not think that a lot consumers understand the way
the labelling system works. Would you agree with that and what
sort of proposals would you have for clarifying labels?
(Mr Holden) I would agree. I think that retailers
and processors are in an extremely invidious position because
it is perfectly clear that because of genetic pollution, which
is arising from soya and maize which may be grown in North America,
this is starting to pervade the food chain and they are having
to hold a line based on current Directives. The Directives are,
I hesitate to say useless, but certainly not clarifying anything
for the consumer and in some cases they are adding to the nightmare
that processors and retailers face as to what line they are going
to draw. I think the whole situation is immensely confusing. The
fact that these regulators are having to write in such high thresholds
just reinforces the point that you cannot have a world of choice,
you cannot have GM and GM free. This is a major threshold for
global agriculture. We should really, really think hard before
we cross it irreversibly.
Chairman
394. I am reminded of what I was told by a friend
of mine in one of the major television stations, that when the
GM scare was at its height earlier this year, they received a
telephone call from a woman who said she thought all this GM stuff
was absolutely dreadful and she was not touching any of those
"awful organic foods" again as a result, which goes
to show how confused people actually get. If there are things
that you wish you had said to us or things you would like to clarify,
as always, we are very open to further written memoranda but quite
speedily because we have Ministers on the 18th January.
(Mr Holden) I did promise to supply the Organic Food
and Farming Report.
395. We have a copy of that in the Office already.
(Mr Holden) If anybody wanted to find
out more information, we are working internationally and I am
visiting the US in January and speaking to some members of Congress.
There is a lot going on, so if anybody has any feedback—
Chairman: I must buy some more beef from Bridget
Young quite soon so I will discuss it then. Thank you, Mr Holden.
| 
