APPENDIX 10
Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Advanta Seeds UK (G 12)
Advanta wishes to clarify certain answers which
it gave to the Committee at its hearing of oral evidence held
on Tuesday 18 July 2000.
Question 4. On reflection, we believe
that "universal recognition" extends beyond the seed
industry and is recognised by the Minister for the Environment
and English Nature.
Question 6. In its written submission
to the Committee, Advanta asserted that it believed a "lack
of understanding of the basics of Agriculture existed in some
quarters of the Ministry and most quarters of the media".
In addition to the comments we made verbally
about issues of crop sterility, the basis of these comments is:
1. The deadlines for achieving regulations
do not seem to be well coordinated with the predetermined deadlines
which are set by the growing season. For example, if seed is to
be tested as it is harvested (to determine whether it is fit for
processing), it is no good setting the standards for that testing
after harvesting has taken place. For winter oilseed rape, harvesting
was underway at the time the evidence was being taken (18 July).
To state that regulations could be available by the end of August
is simply too late for the Autumn 2000 planting season. Furthermore,
the hope for something at a European level by December misses
the entire Autumn crop in the UK.
Advanta would willingly provide a calendar of
key timings should the Committee wish it.
2. Even in the evidence given to the Committee
on 18 July, the difference between a crop grown commercially for
grain and a crop grown for hybrid seed continue to be misunderstood.
This is particularly true in relation to the argument about isolation
distance. MAFF has asked for feedback on the adequacy of separation
distances for SCIMAC trials. However, the requirements for separation
will be different depending on whether the crop is for hybrid
seed production or for commercial grain. We see no evidence that
this point is understood even now.
3. We believe that there needs to be a greater
appreciation of how seed is imported and distributed, so that
the spot checking referred to by DETR can be best aligned with
the point of most risk. This will need to be extended beyond seed
companies and their merchant customers to farm saved seed. We
don't believe this area is sufficiently understood, but know the
seed industry would be happy to assist in providing this information
to MAFF/DETR.
4. We have detected a view that processes
can be handled differently between the different devolved assemblies
of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We would like
to make the point (that has been recognised by Government at a
European level) that seed distribution does not discriminate between
the component countries of the UK. To have regulations that do
discriminate will be impossible to administer and manage.
Question 8. Dr Buckeridge referred to
Advanta's separation distance of 4km when producing seed of its
spring oilseed rape varieties. In Advanta's protocols, the 4km
relates to separation from the nearest known GM rapeseed commercial
crop. A separation distance of 1,600m is used for conventional
commercial rapeseed crops.
Question 9. In 1998, tests using DNA
methods were unproven (such as PCR testing) and documented as
having reliability problems. Tests using "bioassays"
were in development, but we are not aware that they had been routinely
adopted by seed companies. In 2000, we checked seed with an independent
laboratory, using this type of method. We don't think this service
was available in 1998. Bioassay tests can be very time consuming
if done accurately. In rapeseed, it can take up to 60 days to
prepare seed and complete a test. These timescales are very hard
to accommodate within the normal process of seed production, processing
and planting.
Advanta doubts that governments will choose
bioassay testing when decisions about approved testing methods
are reached. This is because they are incapable of distinguishing
between "authorised" and "unauthorised" GM
events—a distinction that is very relevant under Directive
90/220.
Even in 2000, there is a lack of clarity on
preferred testing methods (as demonstrated in the evidence given
to this Committee).
In 1998, Advanta received no indication from
Government that seed testing was required. It had been advised
(in a letter from DETR of February 1998) that DETR was unclear
what arrangements had been made to segregate crops in North America.
Advanta actions were focussed on ensuring segregation of crops
by attention to separation distances. In other words, adopting
distances that were five times the regulatory requirement in Canada.
At that time, given the uncertainty surrounding testing, this
was judged to be the best protection. The fact that the Government
has indicated no risk to health or the environment shows that
judgement was sound.
Question 17. The view that destruction
was an over-reaction was also expressed by English Nature.
Question 21. Dr Buckeridge described
the sterility system and the production of hybrid rapeseed for
sowing. The isolation distances used by Advanta for this purpose
have no relevance to the separation distances used in SCIMAC field
scale trials which were designed to test the environmental impact
of a commercial crop grown for grain.
This was one important example of a basic agricultural
fact that we felt that Government and media struggled to understand.
Question 21. Dr Buckeridge refers to
the actions taken with "contaminant plants". These were
plants which survived exposure to the herbicides used in the bioassay
tests, indicating that they carried the GM impurity.
In a commercial crop grown from this seed, you
have to look for the rare plant which is not producing any pollen.
This will be the impurity. That is exactly what Advanta found
in these "Hyola" seed batches. Less than one in a hundred
of the plants appeared incapable of satisfactory pollen production.
In other words, they were impurities with extremely compromised
fertility.
Question 27. Since the meeting of the
Committee, Advanta has commenced testing seed of winter oilseed
rape produced in the UK for sowing in August. Eight samples from
harvest 1999 have been submitted to an independent laboratory
for testing for the most common GM components (35S promoter, NOS
terminator and FMV promoter). During this testing, we experienced
several false positives triggered by natural infections of the
rapeseed with Cauliflower Mosaic Virus. This problem with PCR
testing is well documented, but highlights the frailty of the
tests. It has, however, led to expensive and time-consuming re-testing
before the seed lots could be declared clear.
Question 34. Dr Buckeridge undertook
to write to the Committee to expand on the points made by Advanta
in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of its submission. These are dealt with
in comments on Questions 64 and 65.
Question 34. Mr Ruthven explained that
Advanta had accounted for 5,393 hectares and gave reasons why
this exceeded the quantity of seed sold, which was for 4,718 hectares.
Advanta is firmly of the view that the tracing of the seed, including
the additional area sown provides very strong assurance that all
crops grown from the affected seed are being traced. Arrangements
for the payment of compensation include a specific verification
with each individual farm that these crops have been destroyed.
At the time of making this clarification, registrations have increased
from 323 to 337 and the area sown from 5,393 to 5,422 hectares.
So far as Advanta can tell, registrations are virtually complete.
Question 34. Mr Ruthven compared the
possibility of tracing 100 per cent crops to "the contamination
itself". He intended this to convey that any shortfall in
the tracing of the crops is likely to be minimal.
Question 36. Mr Ruthven commented that
he could not understand why the farmers should not sell the crop
[within the EU]. In fact, the reason is the absence of an EU Part
C marketing consent.
Question 44. Dr Buckeridge explained
that the environment for producing seed on the prairies was different
in 1999 from that in 1998. This related to the expansion of GM
rapeseed production, which rose from 15 per cent of the rapeseed
crop in 1997, to 35 per cent in 1998 and 55 per cent in 2000.
The total area of spring rape grown commercially on the prairies
is in the region of 5.5 million hectares. The total area of major
crops under arable cultivation at any one time is around 22.0
million hectares. Although GM spring rapeseed production increased
from 15 per cent to 35 per cent in 1998, it still represented
only 8.6 per cent of total cultivations. By 1999 sowings of GM
rape had grown to 13.6 per cent of total cultivations. Advanta
believed that even at these levels there was little risk. However
after four years of cultivation of GM crops in the area it faced
problems in locating fields not previously sown with GM crops
and believed that the maintenance of a 4km separation distance
would be extremely challenging. The fact that under normal crop
rotations, rape seed crops cannot return to the same land for
four years compounded these difficulties.
Question 52. Dr Buckeridge offered to
confirm the date that the order to destroy crops in France was
given. According to Advanta records, this took place on 25 May.
Question 60. Mr Ruthven indicated that
he thought the industry would welcome product liability. Advanta's
position on this point is that it is not in favour of product
liability in substitution for proper regulatory guidance on: (a)
thresholds for adventitious GM presence; (b) approved testing
methods; and (c) the specified statistical analysis to be applied
to the results of such tests. In circumstances where all parties
before the Committee were agreed that 100 per cent purity (including
in relation to adventitious GM presence) is not achievable, then
any suggestion of product liability in this area in the place
of clear and unambiguous regulatory guidance for which we have
called, would seem to Advanta pernicious. In saying that Advanta
would welcome product liability, what we meant was that we would
welcome product liability for non-compliance with agreed threshold
levels, measured by tests, conducted in accordance with approved
testing methods, analysed by approved statistical analyses as
set out in the new Regulations which Regulations must now be forthcoming
as a matter of prime urgency.
Questions 65 and 66. Dr Buckeridge undertook
to provide the Committee with evidence of the assertions made
in Advanta's submission at paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3. Advanta now
offer the following evidence:
Advanta believes that pressure groups have exaggerated
the incident. We presume they would wish to do so in order to
promote the view that GM crops should never reach the market.
We have no issue with their right to promote this view, but believe
their representation of the facts should be responsible and accurate.
As a point of reference, Advanta is supportive
of GM technology, if it is shown to deliver farmer and consumer
benefits, and if it has passed the regulatory tests required.
It has been involved in the technology in order to keep its North
American product range competitive. It has not invented any GMs
of its own and has no plans to do so. It is not selling any GMs
in Europe.
Advanta believes the aforementioned exaggerations
have occurred in four areas:
(1) The crop concerned was consistently referred
to as "GM". It was not. It was a non-GM crop with a
GM impurity which constituted less than 1 per cent of all the
seeds.
(2) The impression was given that GMs had
been planted on a massive scale, and in an area far greater than
the SCIMAC trials. The total crop area involved was less than
5,000 hectares (around 1 per cent of the entire UK rape crop).
The impurity was less than 1 per cent of this 5,000 hectares,
in other words, less than 50 hectares. The area for SCIMAC trials
is between 350 and 400 hectares.
(3) In the evidence reported to the Select
Committee, published in your report on segregation (28 February
2000), we regarded the assertion that PCR testing can be done
to an accuracy of 0.001 per cent as mischievous. Our reasons for
this are given in our original written submission.
(4) We believe the emotive language used
by the pressure groups and the media makes reasoned discussion
of the facts extremely difficult. Therefore, we think it is difficult
for the general public to make up its mind objectively. Examples
are that the event has been consistently referred to as contamination,
worse, as "living pollution" and at the most extreme
as "an environmental catastrophe".
Question 87. In its submission to the
Committee, Advanta stressed that there was a need and that the
industry had been pressing for regulation. Advanta understands
that no formal request for regulation or guidance on the issue
of adventitious GM impurities in seed has been made to UK Government
by the Industry, but the Chief Executive of the British Society
of Plant Breeders has confirmed to Advanta that it has been discussed
informally with officials and that the point was made on several
occasions to MAFF and UKROFS that organic seed, if imported from
USA, was likely to contain GM impurities. Formal approaches were
made by the European Seed Association to the EU at a meeting on
11 October 1999.
Question 126. Mr Drew's Question to Mr
Meacher indicates clearly that there is a difference of opinion
in what was said in the telephone conversation between a representative
of Advanta and Dr Smith of DETR on 25 April 2000. A memorandum
of the conversation was prepared by the Advanta representative
and circulated to Advanta directors on 25 April. Advanta's understanding
of the conversation is based on this record.
The writer of the memorandum has re-read it
in the light of the evidence of Dr Smith and confirmed that the
note accurately records his recollection of their conversation.
The memorandum records that DETR had received
written legal advice that "Advanta nor its farmer customers
had committed any offence until it became aware that its seed
was contaminated. Thereafter, as we had halted sales, there were
no grounds for a prosecution". Further legal opinion was
to be sought on 26 April. The Advanta representative stressed
the urgency of the situation in view of the huge potential cost
and limited opportunity to mitigate because of the lateness of
the season. DETR promised to telephone in the course of the next
two days. No call was received.
Advanta hopes that the points of clarification
set out in this letter will be of assistance to the Committee
in reaching the conclusions for its report.
24 July 2000
| 
