Examination of witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
TUESDAY 18 JULY 2000
BARONESS HAYMAN,
MS SARAH
HENDRY, THE
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
and DR LINDA
SMITH
100. That is what you have to say. I cannot
really argue with you on that.
(Mr Meacher) That is the case.
101. Exactly, and it is common sense. My father
often said sense is not common. I never understood why he said
that to me. On 25 May, you said on the Today programme that—I
think the question was about thresholds. You said, "I would
be concerned about . . .". Let me give you the background.
"Would you be happy to have a threshold of one per cent GM
contamination?" was the question you were asked. You said
that you would be concerned about it but ultimately it was not
your view as Minister that mattered; it was the view of consumers.
You said, "It is not a matter for the government. It is what
consumers believe is right." That seems to imply that, if
there are trace elements of GM in everything, that is going to
make it difficult for consumers to make a decision. With Advanta,
I was asking the same question about whether there would now be
a trace element of GM in pretty much everything. There was an
implication that that could happen. Do you have a view on that?
(Mr Meacher) That would be the conclusion that I would
draw—namely, if there is a trace element in everything,
how are consumers going to take a view? What I meant was that
there should be—and it is rather elusive—some technique
or mechanism for consulting public opinion in a systematic and
reliable way. The problem is exactly how to do this. As Mr Todd
has raised, we did set up the AEBC precisely to have one route
into that. Another are citizen panels. Another route is to take
account of views from the consumers associations about the views
of their members. There are other ways, by polls, of course, of
trying to tap public opinion. It is my view that public opinion
has not sufficiently focused on this so that a clear view comes
through. I genuinely am unsure what the attitude is of the public
in general—and of course there will be a range of opinions;
it is not as though it is going to be homogeneous. I am not sure
what a majority view, and how large that majority view, would
be about the thresholds that they would accept. I still think
in terms of our policy making that that is a rather serious gap.
Policy continues to be driven by the industry, government having
to try and be arbiter between the parties, but the industry, with
its own commercial interests, being a much more powerful driver
of consumer opinion. Consumer opinion tends to get expressed in
a slightly florid manner through the media, but there has been
no systematic, direct contact in any systematic way with public
opinion and I think that is something that needs to be remedied.
102. Do you feel that applies to field trials
as well?
(Mr Meacher) The field scale trials have been pretty
extensively discussed on all current affairs programmes and in
the newspapers in a reasonably balanced way. Again, there is a
wide range of opinion. There are some people fanatically against
it, even to the extent of trashing the crops, but my understanding
is that there is a clear majority of the public who favour the
trials as the only way of establishing whether or not genetic
modification of crops does constitute a risk to the environment.
Many scientists fear that that might be the case. The only way
systematically to find out is to have scientifically reliable
trials which are totally transparent—and they will be. All
of the evidence on which a decision is finally reached will be
made public and there will undoubtedly be a major public debate
about it. I personally believe that that is needed. I am proud
that the United Kingdom is leading the world in trying to get
this data. We will make it available and public opinion can then
be focused around a detailed case.
Chairman
103. You are confident that you have a sufficient
number and scale of trials to be able to yield scientific evidence
which will not immediately be disputed on the grounds that it
comes from a sample which is too small?
(Mr Meacher) Yes. The decision about the number of
fields is taken by the Scientific Steering Committee who supervise
the research contractors and the work which SCIMAC has done to
obtain these fields. They are not obtained by government. In the
present year, we have been informed by the Scientific Steering
Committee that they need a minimum of 12 fields for winter sown
oilseed rape, 12 for fodder maize and 20 for beet, making a total
of 44. We have 48, so we are over the minimum that is necessary.
Mr Opik
104. I am tempted to raise the one GM field
in Wales which I understand was planted next to organic farmland.
That is an aside. I do not expect you to comment but it is a specific
issue which it might be helpful to resolve. Probably not.
(Mr Meacher) I will comment if you like.
105. Go on then.
(Mr Meacher) This is a GM for which there is a Part
C marketing consent. It can therefore be sown anywhere within
the United Kingdom. The field met the requirements of the Scientific
Steering Committee. It was within the distribution area for the
trials. There was no reason why it should not go ahead. I understand
the problem about the nearness to an organic field and that again
raises my concerns about the notification process and whether
we cannot find a better way of locating fields which will minimise
these potential conflicts with local organic farms.
106. For the sake of brevity, maybe we had better
continue this in correspondence. Can you clarify a slight difference
in comment? Joyce Quin stated in the House on 17 May, "ACRE
and the Food Standards Agency. . . have confirmed the view that
there is no risk to public health or the environment." I
think some time after that, ACRE's advice, as posted on MAFF's
website, said that the risks to human health and the environment
are very low. In your judgment, is that the same thing?
(Mr Meacher) It is not for me to put words into their
mouth when they say it is very low. That is their view. I think
what they refer to there are exceedingly low levels. The language
is modest by comparison with the way most people would generally
describe it. As is often the case in this area, you cannot actually
say it is nil, but it is so small as to be utterly negligible.
(Baroness Hayman) The basis on which we were working
and were reassured was that the GM construct had been approved
in terms of novel food use and is undetectable in the final food
form. The FSA therefore had no concern about this crop going into
the food chain. Therefore, the risk assessment as a food had been
done. Equally, the construct had a Part B marketing consent and
had been approved by ACRE for 100 per cent of that crop to be
field trialled in this country. Here, we were talking about one
per cent of it. That was the basis for feeling and stating that
there was not a public health or an environmental risk here. We
were not dealing with something that was unfamiliar.
107. It would be pedantic, in your judgment,
to make a big distinction between very low and no risk?
(Baroness Hayman) Life is not a risk free activity,
is it?
Mr Jack: I want to turn to the events of 17
May. The Minister of State in MAFF made some announcements in
the House of Commons about standards, looking at seed imports.
Minister, you confirmed these in a MAFF press release that went
out in your own name. It has all the hallmarks of government desperately
trying to be seen to be doing something against a background where
there was not anything very concrete to say.
Mr Mitchell: You should know.
Mr Jack
108. Indeed. I wanted to establish exactly what
was happening because the three headlines in the press release
are "Pressing for concerted international action to seek
new legal standards for seed purity". You talked a moment
ago about there being an EU agreement but would I be right in
saying that an agreement is an agreement, not a directive, not
a regulation? How would it apply? How would it derive its strength
to influence the events we have been discussing?
(Baroness Hayman) There are two proposals under discussion
in the EU, partly in response to our raising these issues in response
to this event. One is about an interim agreement amongst countries
about a common approach. That is what I was describing earlier.
The other is for putting in—and I believe the legislative
vehicle would be seeds legislation rather than Directive 90/220;
I think that is still up for debate—the processes that would
set tolerances above which things had to be labelled as GM and
testing regimes that were appropriate and could be validated across
the Community. We went through this process in terms of tolerances
in food. Yes, of course we have to look at what is acceptable
to the public. We equally, as a regulatory body, have to look
at what is enforceable, what you can measure, what you can guarantee
you have labs to measure and what you can then enforce.
109. This sounds very good but Advanta made
it clear to us that there was a desperate need to have a concrete
piece of legislation, either at a European or indeed on a world
basis, that would enable there to be a proper, objective method
of adjudicating on these matters with appropriate scientific tests
etc. I come back to the question I asked at the beginning. Let
us assume that Member States agree something. What would be in
this agreement and what legal status does it have?
(Baroness Hayman) As I think I made clear at the beginning,
there would not be a legal base for the interim agreement. It
would be a voluntary agreement. What is being proposed is a 0.5
per cent tolerance for GM adventitious contamination where the
GM construct is subject to a Part C marketing consent, but a zero
tolerance for all other GM constructs. Each country would undertake
testing.
110. By what method?
(Ms Hendry) That is something the Commission Working
Group is going to look at to establish what would be the most
reliable mechanism in the circumstances. It has not been fixed
yet.
111. You used some very interesting words there:
"the most reliable method in the circumstances". What
does that mean?
(Ms Hendry) I think it means that it would be very
hard to find a methodology that gave you absolutely 100 per cent
certainty without there being an element of uncertainty either
side of the result.
112. Are they going to nominate—I go back
to our friends in the seed industry—a range of acceptable
tests and you can pick which one you want, or are they going to
home in on to one?
(Ms Hendry) I do not know the answer to that.
(Baroness Hayman) That will have to be answered, if
I may say so, in the formal legislation, the timetable for which
is December this year. They are looking to have legislation in
place, where those questions which do have to be answered will
be answered. All countries have facilities for some sort of testing
for DNA. The idea is to get something in place now including exchange
of information, which I think is quite an important thing and
would have helped in this particular episode, but it is an interim;
it is not all singing, all dancing. I think it will have to be
more sophisticated because we will have to look at potential for
different tolerances for different seeds. We will have to have
protocols for testing. We are not at the point of getting there.
I do think we have made some progress since May to have something
that will hopefully be there for 1 August.
113. You say you hope to have legislation in
place by the end of the year. Will that be a modification to the
seeds regulation that would have gone through both the Council
and the Parliament, in your judgment, and be implemented by the
end of the year, or is that an aspiration?
(Baroness Hayman) As I said, I understand that the
Commission hopes to have that legislation in place. I am meeting
David Byrne this week. I hope to get a better understanding of
the mechanism. Equally, my understanding is it would be through
the seeds directive.
114. You have given us a very clear answer on
that. It says that there is hopefully going to be European interim
agreement and rules by the end of the year; and yet the same press
release on 17 May has mention of working with the industry on
a code of practice. Is that not muddying the waters, or does this
code of practice add some value that the other things we have
just discussed do not have in them and, if so, what is in it?
(Baroness Hayman) When that press release was announced,
I had no idea what the timetable would be for European action.
It seemed sensible to look at what could be done in the meantime
on a United Kingdom basis. We did meet with the industry and the
seeds industry has given advice to its members about testing and
about the legal framework in which they are operating with regard
to GMs. I actually think that has been overtaken by events and
that it is more useful to have an EU code of practice, which in
a sense is what the interim arrangements are, and legislation.
That was best attempt at the time.
115. The third element in the press release
talked about the testing of seed imports. Indeed, when this matter
was discussed in the House of Commons, it became evident that
the DETR were setting up a system for spot checking of seed imports
for GM material. I would be interested to know whether that system
was set up. When was it up and running? What tests were used?
Is it going to be compatible with what we have just heard?
(Mr Meacher) I am sure it will be compatible with
what Helene has been saying. The new inspection agency, which
is the Central Science Laboratory, CSL, took up post on 1 June.
What we are proposing is that they should audit work by the companies,
which they should already be undertaking. The seed importers should
already be keeping records to show that proper checks and controls
are in place to ensure that imported seed does not contain GM.
CSL will audit this paper work and where necessary they will remove
samples for testing. They will, in fact, test, I understand, samples
in batches of 10,000 seeds, which means that they can reach a
scientific accuracy of O.1 per cent. But the important point is
that we have written to seed and grain importers to remind them
of what was already an existing duty, and CSL is already beginning
this auditing of the paper work. When they come across paper work
which gives them any grounds for suspicion, or where there is
paper work which they judge to be inadequate or deficient, then
they will undertake sample testing.
116. Can you refresh my memory. I asked Advanta
the question as to whether they pre-tested for GM contamination
before the seed left Canada and came in this direction. I hope
I have the answer correctly: the answer was no, they did not think
there was a need to do this because, they argued, the separation
distances were their check and balance against the contamination.
You are saying that people need to be reminded about what they
are supposed to be doing. Can you help me there: what are they
supposed to be doing?
(Mr Meacher) They are certainly not supposed to be
importing conventional seed which contains a GM, especially which
has not received a Part C marketing consent. It is their responsibility
to ensure that does not happen. Whether that is testing which
is done at the country of export or the country of import—
117. So just to be absolutely clear because
this is quite important: there is a legal requirement for a company
like Advanta not to import what you have just described, and to
be able to show by some test that they have checked the import
of that seed, so that effectively it complies with our requirements?
(Mr Meacher) Yes.
118. Right. Can you, on a point again of detail,
because there is some questioning about the test, what is the
test that you approve of to determine these matters?
(Mr Meacher) That is a technical issue. I have with
me Linda Smith, who is head of the Biotechnology Safety Group
in DETR. I am not sure that she can answer that but I know she
will do it better than me!
(Dr Smith) The tests will be based on the same sorts
of tests as Advanta were carrying out themselves.
119. But Advanta told us that they had not carried
out any tests apart from agreeing to know what—
(Dr Smith) The tests to detect the presence of GM
constructs in grain or seeds, so that you can determine whether
there is a presence or an absence. Then you can do further tests.
|
