Examination of witnesses (Questions 140
- 148)
TUESDAY 18 JULY 2000
BARONESS HAYMAN,
MS SARAH
HENDRY, THE
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER
and DR LINDA
SMITH
140. It will be interesting to see what comes
out of Europe rather than listening to it. Are we pushing these
views?
(Baroness Hayman) Certainly. When I was dealing with
food before the FSA was created I was pushing not only to have
tolerance in terms of what needed to be labelled as GM. My guiding
principle, rather than the figures for the tolerance, would be
that which is measurable and enforceable throughout Europe. That
was how we ended up with the one per cent of an ingredient in
a food. To set a standard that cannot be measured consistently
and enforced is not something that is appropriate for a regulatory
body. You asked about whether 0.5 per cent as a working example
on something that had a part C marketing consent was appropriate
when, if it was poppy seed rather than a GM construct seed, purity
levels would allow you to have a higher level of poppy seed. I
think that the general view is that we ought to aim for minimum
presence of GM material in seeds that are marketed as not GM.
Therefore, you go for the lowest levels that you can consistently
test for and assess, but those are unlikely to be nil for all
the reasons we have discussed, including the fact that 40 million
hectares in the world are now planted with GM crops. I do think
that the opportunity for the market is there and this is already
happening in terms of people selling produce that has higher levels
of identity preservation all the way down the chain, right through
to seed. That does have a price with it. I do believe that there
is a market for that and that market will develop. Government's
regulatory responsibility is to make sure that those claims are
verifiable and if the claims are made and they are not true there
is, through consumer protection legislation, some come back on
that. You mentioned organic production, there have to be tolerances
set in the definitions of "organic" and they are set
for ingredients, for example, in prepared organic food. Everyone
has to deal with these issues, the definitional issues, in order
to provide a regulatory framework that people can use.
141. Is not the role for government really just
to make sure that it addresses the safety issues and to leave
some of the other issues to the market?
(Baroness Hayman) I think the issues of safety—
142. Once you protect the environment and once
you protect health as well as science permits in terms of what
your regulations are—
(Baroness Hayman) I think there is a third role. That
is the predominant role of the Government and that is our predominant
responsibility but I do believe in today's world we also have
a responsibility to facilitate consumer choice and that does take
you into those areas of labelling and thresholds and everything
else.
Mr Mitchell
143. Is there any formal mechanism for requiring
or allowing Member States to share information on incidents like
this?
(Baroness Hayman) No, I do not believe that there
is. In the informal proposals being discussed at the moment there
will be an agreement to share that information which as I think
I alluded to earlier, would be very helpful.
(Mr Meacher) I think obviously what Helene has said
is right, there is no formal mechanism. I think that under 90/220
there is a general duty on Member States to co-operate in sharing
information which is going to minimise damage to health or the
environment from a deliberate release but we need to formalise
the mechanisms by which that can be done. Indeed, I do think that
the revised 90/220 does improve the procedures in regard to exchange
of information.
144. There has been GM contamination in seeds
in other countries like, for instance, maize in France or cotton
in Greece and rapeseed in several countries. Do they have the
same hoo-ha that we have had or do they deal with it more expeditiously,
or what?
(Mr Meacher) I think they do actually. The Greek Minister
at the informal council I have just attended was lamenting the
problems over the degree to which cotton seed had been affected
in Greece and the inability to deal with it in a way that he regarded
as satisfactory. It is also significant that the French press,
as you have just said, referred to the possible likely contamination
of something like 3,000 hectares in the South of France and, through
the British Embassy, we have been pressing them to provide information
about that. This goes back to the difference between Sweden and
the UK. The French authorities have so far not been able to provide
details of the nature of the maize varieties.
(Baroness Hayman) It came in yesterday.
(Mr Meacher) It came in yesterday. I am not up to
date. It has taken them something like three weeks, because timing
is of the essence. I do not wish to vilify, I am sure, their best
efforts.
145. What procedures have been put in place
to share information with other authorities? Devolved authorities
in the UK seem to have been told what was going on a bit late.
(Mr Meacher) I think you know the answer to that.
146. That is why I asked the question.
(Mr Meacher) We have formally apologised that they
were informed on 15 May. I think there was some reference to a
Scottish Executive official in the context of a meeting on another
issue on 5 May but it is unquestionably true that we should have
brought them in earlier and we have apologised for that.
Mr Jack
147. Can I ask about what appears to be the
establishment of a new Pontius Pilate approach to policy making
which you, Minister, have identified which is these are issues
for the public when we are talking about purity levels. Does this
now mean you are going to extend it to things like, for example,
motorists setting their own speed limits because they can make
a better judgment as to what they think is a safe speed? Where
does this thing end? Government is there to make decisions, not
sub-contract the whole business out. We might as well have a national
referendum on everything. Seriously, what are you there for?
(Mr Meacher) I thought Mr Jack came from the deregulatory
authority but I can see he has now joined the centralising tendency.
I do not think the analogy can be pressed very seriously with
regard to speed limits. Obviously Government has to take a decision
which will minimise loss of life, there is no question about that,
but we are talking about something very different, a situation
where there is no evidence at the moment that there is any risk
to health and safety or to the environment. At the same time there
is, for all the reasons we have heard, immense public furore about
this issue. I do think democracy does mean listening to, consulting
and taking account of the views of your citizens. I think this
is a totally appropriate area where we should listen further to
them.
Chairman
148. Thank you very much for that. If I may
just add to Mr Jack's comment, of course one has got to make sure
that one's citizens are forming their opinion in the light of
what is reasonable because there is a sign which says if it is
not possible to get reasonably below a certain level the Government
does at least have a job in making sure that the opinion it garners
is representative and, secondly, that opinion is expressed upon
the basis of reasonable parameters.
(Mr Meacher) I am sorry, perhaps I gave the impression
that we are, on the Pontius Pilate analogy, washing our hands
of it and saying "over to you", but I do not think we
are saying that at all. I was not saying that at all. I was talking
about a proper democratic consultation in the light of which Government
has to form its view. Of course we have to take account of the
practicalities, the legalities, the complexities of this which
will be lost on most people out there shopping in the supermarkets
but they do have a view as to the outcome that they would like
to see and we should listen to that very carefully.
Chairman: The apocryphal supermarket shopper
features heavily in a lot of our discussions. Thank you very much
for coming. The usual applies about material you are going to
send or anything you may wish to say. I am not quite sure whether
I am expecting somebody to prosecute Advanta and Advanta to sue
you, but if that happens, as I said, the lawyers at least will
get profit from it. Thank you very much indeed, that has been
an extremely helpful session from both yourselves and the previous
witnesses, we will now decide what we are going to do with it.
It has been very productive. I would not bank on this being your
last appearance given the nature of the subject. Thank you very
much indeed.
|
